Gary H. and L. Marianne Bell - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
          B.  Collateral Estoppel                                                     
               Petitioners contend that respondent is estopped from                   
          determining a deficiency as to their claimed IRA deduction for              
          2002 because of a decision document entered by this Court                   
          pursuant to a settlement by the parties that allowed petitioners            
          an IRA deduction for 2001.  Petitioners claimed an IRA deduction            
          of $2,000 on their Federal income tax return for 2001, a year in            
          which they had no compensation as that term is used in section              
          219(b)(1)(B) and (f)(1).  However, the Appeals Office resolved              
          the IRA deduction issue for 2001 in petitioners’ favor by                   
          allowing the deduction because it was substantiated by a third              
          party.  No question was raised as to whether the deduction was              
          limited by petitioners’ compensation in that year.  The IRA                 
          deduction issue for 2001 was resolved by a decision document that           
          this Court entered on December 6, 2004, in the case of Gary H.              
          and L. Marianne Bell v. Commissioner, docket No. 2788-04S.                  
               Respondent asserts that the decision document alone, which             
          was signed by the parties and entered by the Court with respect             
          to 2001, is not sufficient for invoking collateral estoppel                 
          against respondent to preclude the denial of the IRA deduction              
          claimed by petitioners for 2002.  We agree.  The decision                   
          document for the tax year 2001 only effectuated a settlement of             
          that case.  There was no stipulation of facts in support of the             
          settlement.  There was no trial on the merits of the IRA                    






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011