- 13 -
Petitioner argues that respondent failed to provide him with
proper notice and demand for payment under section 6303.
Respondent counters that petitioner had an opportunity to raise
that argument in the New York case and is now barred from raising
it by the doctrine of res judicata.
According to the judicial doctrine of res judicata:
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.” * * *
Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948) (quoting
Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1877)); see Wooten
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-113.
Neither party disputes that the parties herein and the
parties in the New York case are the same.
Petitioner brought both cases for relief from liens arising
from the same tax liability. In response to the Government’s
motion for summary judgment in the New York case, petitioner
claimed that the Government had failed to give him timely notice
and demand for payment.
In both the instant case and the New York case, petitioner
has sought cessation of tax collection action with respect to his
1990 through 1993 income taxes on the ground that the Government
did not comply with the requirements of section 6303. While
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007