- 33 -
jurisdiction, final judgment on the merits, and the same cause of
action. See Hambrick v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 348, 351 (2002);13
see also Commissioner v. Sunnen, supra at 597 (quoting Cromwell
v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1877)).
In DeHart v. United States, supra, the issue was whether the
United States was required to pursue petitioners’ assets to
satisfy the tax liability underlying the Commissioner’s claim,
which arose from the August 15, 1978, notice of levy, before
pursuing the bankruptcy estate’s assets to satisfy petitioners’
tax liability. The bankruptcy court decided that the
Commissioner did not have to pursue petitioners’ assets before
seeking the assets of the bankruptcy estate to satisfy
petitioners’ tax liability.14 The causes of action in DeHart and
13In Hambrick v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 348, 351 (2002), we
observed:
The general principle of res judicata is that once a court
of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment on
the merits of a cause of action, the parties to the suit and
their privies are bound to each matter that sustained or
defeated the claim, and as to any other matter that could
have been offered for that purpose. * * *
14In DeHart v. United States, 50 Bankr. 685, 688 (Bankr.
M.D. Pa. 1985), the bankruptcy court held:
For these reasons we find that the doctrine of the
marshalling of assets simply cannot be applied to the
facts of this case. While we do not agree that there
is a lack of equity in affording the Government a
priority status in this case, we nonetheless realize
that the estate, and more particularly the general
creditors, do suffer a detriment by the IRS levy. We
have determined that the plaintiff’s alternative
(continued...)
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011