- 15 - that can estop the Commissioner from reassessing a deficiency.” Serv. Bolt & Nut Co. v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 519, 524 (6th Cir. 1983), affg. 78 T.C. 812 (1982).13 In the same vein, petitioners’ contention that the abatements constitute an admission on respondent’s part regarding the amount of the deficiencies simply confuses the concepts of “assessment” and “deficiency”. While the abatements might be construed to constitute an admission that the prior assessments were premature, they in no way constitute admissions as to the proper amount of the deficiencies. See Pfeifer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-437 (“There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that the abatement [of a premature assessment] was determinative of his tax liability.”). Finally, petitioners’ res judicata and collateral estoppel claims are utterly frivolous. These doctrines bar parties that have previously litigated a matter from relitigating the same matter. See, e.g., Hambrick v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 348, 351 (2002); Peck v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 162, 166 (1988), affd. 904 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1990). Petitioners have not even alleged, 13 The single case cited by petitioners, Hunt v. United States, 94 F.Supp. 2d 665 (D. Md. 2000), is readily distinguishable. There, the Commissioner was equitably estopped from refusing to pay interest where the taxpayer reasonably and detrimentally relied on the understanding that he would receive such interest in settling his Tax Court case and thereby waiving his right to a deficiency proceeding. Here, petitioners have not shown, inter alia, that they reasonably or detrimentally relied on the abatements.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011