- 4 -
petitioner received a notice of deficiency, petitioned this Court
for relief, and a final decision was entered, she was not
entitled to contest the merits of the underlying liability at her
section 6330 hearing.
Petitioner contends that the Summary Opinion issued to her
states on its face that it is not appealable and that it is not
precedent for any other case. In particular, Summary Opinions of
this Court contain the caveat: “[The] case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in
effect at the time that the petition was filed. The decision to
be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
should not be cited as authority.” Petitioner has mistakenly
interpreted that caveat to mean that the outcome of her Tax Court
proceeding involving the same taxable years (1993 and 1994) is
not binding with respect to her proceeding under sections 6320
and 6330. Although this Court’s decision for petitioner’s 1993
and 1994 tax years is not precedential for any other case, it is
final and determinative as it relates to petitioner’s liability
for those years. It appears that petitioner believes that the
limitation on citing Summary Opinions as precedent deprives them
of the effect of res judicata. In any event, the fact that
petitioner had an opportunity to contest the merits of the 1993
and 1994 liabilities triggers the limitation on raising such
matters again before Appeals or in this proceeding in our Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011