Robert H. Golden and Judith A.Golden - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          challenges to the underlying tax liabilities.  Hoffman v.                   
          Commissioner, 119 T.C. 140, 145 (2002); Rodriguez v.                        
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-153;  MacElvain v. Commissioner,              
          T.C. Memo. 2000-320.                                                        
               That petitioners received and contested a notice of                    
          deficiency for 1974, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1981, resulting            
          in the entry of a stipulated decision that there are deficiencies           
          in their income taxes for those years, is not in dispute.                   
          Petitioners are therefore precluded by section 6330(d)(2)(B) from           
          challenging the amounts of the deficiencies or the timeliness of            
          the statutory notice as a matter of law.                                    
               Res Judicata                                                           
               Petitioners are precluded not only by operation of section             
          6330(c)(2)(B) from raising the issue of the period of limitations           
          on assessment; they are so precluded by the doctrine of res                 
          judicata.  At the hearing on respondent’s motion, the Court                 
          questioned petitioner, a practicing attorney, as to the                     
          application of the doctrine of res judicata to this case.  In               
          petitioners’ brief in opposition to respondent’s motion,                    
          petitioners assert that the questioning by the Court was a                  
          surprise because “Res Judicata was not mentioned in the written             
          motion by the Respondent”.  The Court calls petitioners’                    
          attention to pages 16 through 20 of respondent’s motion.  There,            
          respondent argues that due to the application of the doctrine of            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011