- 7 - res judicata petitioners are precluded from questioning here the validity of the notice of deficiency that were the subject of the prior litigation. The Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948), summarized the judicial doctrine of res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, as follows: The rule provides that when 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 thereafter bound ‘not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.’ Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352, 24 L.Ed. 195. The judgment puts an end to the cause of action, which cannot again be brought into litigation between the parties upon any ground whatever, absent fraud or some other factor invalidating the judgment. * * * As to the application of the doctrine in the context of tax litigation the Court stated: Income taxes are levied on an annual basis. Each year is the origin of a new liability and of a separate cause of action. Thus if a claim of liability or non- liability relating to a particular tax year is litigated, a judgment on the merits is res judicata as to any subsequent proceeding involving the same claim and the same tax year. * * * [Id. at 598.] As a general rule, where the Tax Court has entered a decision for a taxable year, both the taxpayer and the Commissioner (with certain exceptions) are barred from reopening that year. Hemmings v. Commissioner, 104 T.C. 221, 233 (1995). It has also been held that “the Tax Court’s jurisdiction, once itPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011