- 8 -
carry his burden to prove the precise amount of taxable,
unreported income that petitioner received in 1996.
Although petitioner’s admission in the prior criminal
proceeding as to the amount of his unreported 1996 income
constitutes “strong evidence”, see Livingston v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-121, it does not, either alone or in conjunction
with the other evidence respondent relies upon, establish that
there is no genuine issue of fact as to the precise amount of
petitioner’s unreported 1996 income. Construing petitioner’s
contentions broadly, we infer that he seeks to collaterally
attack his prior admissions as to the precise amount of the
unreported funds. Respondent has not contended that petitioner
should be judicially estopped in this proceeding from asserting
positions contrary to those he asserted in the prior criminal
proceeding. Cf. Larson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-188
(declining to employ judicial estoppel with respect to an
admission in the taxpayer’s plea agreement in a prior criminal
proceeding).
Resolving, as we must, all doubts against respondent as the
party moving for summary judgment, we conclude that respondent
has failed to carry his initial burden to show that there is no
triable issue of fact with respect to the precise amount of
petitioner’s 1996 unreported income. Cf. Shiosaki v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011