Jani Lyn Thomas - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         
          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 it           
          attaches, extends to the entire subject of the correct tax for              
          the particular year.”  Erickson v. United States, 159 Ct. Cl.               
          202, 309 F.2d 760, 767 (1962).                                              
               An agreed or stipulated judgment is a judgment on the merits           
          for purposes of res judicata.  In re Baker, 74 F.3d 906, 910 (9th           
          Cir. 1996); accord Erickson v. United States, supra at 768;                 
          Krueger v. Commissioner, 48 T.C. 824, 828-829 (1967); see also              
          United States v. Intl. Bldg. Co., 345 U.S. 502, 503-506 (1953)              
          (upholding res judicata effect of stipulated Tax Court                      
          decisions).                                                                 
               Respondent argues that since petitioner could have claimed             
          the benefits of section 6015 in the deficiency action for 1999              
          but did not, she is precluded from litigating the issue for 1999            
          in another action.  Respondent recognizes the exception to the              
          judicial doctrine of res judicata provided for in section                   
          6015(g)(2) where the individual did not participate meaningfully            
          in the prior proceeding.  See Thurner v. Commissioner, 121 T.C.             
          43, 50 (2003); Vetrano v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 272, 280 (2001).           
          But respondent argues that the facts show that petitioner did               
          meaningfully participate in the prior action and therefore does             
          not qualify for the exception.                                              






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011