- 13 -
The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigating the same
cause of action. The doctrine applies to a claim if it was, or
could have been, litigated as part of the cause of action in a
prior case. Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597-598
(1948); Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1876);
Baptiste v. Commissioner, 29 F.3d 433, 435-436 (8th Cir. 1994),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-198; Trost v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 560,
566 (1990). The doctrine of res judicata applies only to issues
determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Montana v.
United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979).
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion,
provides that once an issue of fact or law is “actually and
necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that
determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a
different cause of action involving a party to the prior
litigation.” Id. The preclusive effect of a prior court’s
factual determination depends on whether the prior court had
jurisdiction to, and did, determine the fact at issue. Brotman
v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 141, 153 (1995). For collateral
estoppel to apply, resolution of the disputed issue must have
been essential to the prior decision. Meier v. Commissioner, 91
T.C. 273, 282 (1988).
Petitioner was found guilty of willfully filing false income
tax returns for 1991-94 in violation of section 7206(1). It was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011