- 13 -
statements in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s
opinion in the case of another AMCOR investor, Beall v. United
States, 467 F.3d 864 (5th Cir. 2006) affg. 335 F. Supp. 2d 743,
(E.D. Tex. 2004).10 The relevant portion of the Court of
Appeals’ opinion reads as follows: “The IRS did not return the
partnerships’ books and records until 1993, and when the IRS did
return them, some had been lost and the remainder were in
disarray.” Id. at 866.
The doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel,
provides that once an issue of fact or law is “‘actually and
necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that
determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a
different cause of action involving a party to the prior
litigation.’” Monahan v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 235, 240 (1997)
(quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979)).
The following five conditions must be satisfied before
application of issue preclusion in the context of a factual
dispute: (1) The issue in the second suit must be identical in
all respects with the one decided in the first suit; (2) there
must be a final judgment rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (3) collateral estoppel may be invoked against
10 Petitioner does not appear to request that the Court
take judicial notice of the “facts” in Beall v. United States,
467 F.3d 864 (5th Cir. 2006). We note, however, that taking
judicial notice would be inappropriate in this matter. See
Abelein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-24.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007