- 20 -
conduct by respondent that could reasonably be interpreted as
false statements or misleading silence with respect to
petitioner’s entitlement to his claimed deductions. On the
contrary, the course of events beginning in the audit and
ultimately reflected in the reasons for disallowance expressed in
the notice of deficiency emphasized the need for substantiation.
Collateral estoppel exists for “the dual purpose of
protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical
issue and of promoting judicial economy by preventing unnecessary
or redundant litigation.” Meier v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 273,
282 (1988); see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153-
154 (1979); Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326
(1979). In general, the doctrine of collateral estoppel, also
referred to as issue preclusion, forecloses relitigation of
issues actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior
suit. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, supra at 326 n.5; Meier v.
Commissioner, supra at 282; Peck v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 162,
166 (1988), affd. 904 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1990).
This Court, expanding upon three factors identified by the
Supreme Court in Montana v. United States, supra at 155, has set
forth five prerequisites necessary for the application in factual
contexts of collateral estoppel:
(1) The issue in the second suit must be identical in
all respects with the one decided in the first suit.
(2) There must be a final judgment rendered by a court
of competent jurisdiction.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011