- 46 -
litigation of the same issue, turns upon such factors as the
nature of the decision (i.e., that it was not avowedly
tentative), the adequacy of the hearing, and the opportunity for
review.” Id. (quoting Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth Oil Refining
Co., 297 F.2d 80, 89 (2d Cir. 1961)).
The bankruptcy court’s opinion is not final because it is
avowedly tentative and interlocutory. The bankruptcy court’s
opinion is avowedly tentative because it refused to rule on the
1981 and 1984 tentative refunds, allowing the parties to conclude
litigation with respect to 1981 and 1984 in this Court to
“provide finality as to those years”. In addition, the
bankruptcy court’s opinion is interlocutory, not final, because
it has not issued an appealable order. On January 4, 2002, the
United States filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to certify
its opinion for appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The
bankruptcy court has yet to act on the motion. We recognize that
finality for collateral estoppel purposes does not necessarily
require a final decision. See Coleman v. Commissioner 16 F.3d
821 (7th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-99. However, we do
not believe the bankruptcy court’s opinion is sufficiently final
because respondent has not even had the opportunity to appeal the
decision with respect to 1985; the bankruptcy court has not acted
on respondent’s rule 54(b) motion. The lack of an opportunity
for review and the avowedly tentative nature of the bankruptcy
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011