- 12 - that the claimed deductions would give rise to a substantial understatement. Specifically, petitioner contends that our holding in Pierce I, that the Pierces were not liable for negligence penalties because of their reliance on the advice of their accountants/return preparers, is tantamount to showing that petitioner was uninformed or had no reason to know about tax matters. Petitioner, however, did not plead collateral estoppel as an affirmative defense in her petition. The defense of collateral estoppel was raised, for the first time, in petitioner’s opening statement at the beginning of the trial. Respondent did not object at the time petitioner raised collateral estoppel. However, on brief respondent argued that he is not collaterally estopped because petitioner failed to plead collateral estoppel as an affirmative defense as required by Rule 39. Respondent argues that petitioner’s failure to plead collateral estoppel is, in effect, a waiver of that defense. Petitioner contends that the issue of collateral estoppel is in controversy because of respondent’s implied consent in accord with Rule 41(b)(1). Alternatively, respondent argues that petitioner failed to meet the procedural or substantive requirements for collateral estoppel. B. Implied Consent Rules 34 and 36 provide for the initial pleadings, by which most issues are placed in controversy. Rule 34(b)(4) requiresPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011