Steven Rudolph Kaldi - Page 8

                                        - 7 -                                         
               Further, “an individual shall not be considered to be                  
          disabled unless he furnishes proof of the existence” of his                 
          disability.  Sec. 72(m)(7).  Petitioner offered a medical                   
          benefits card issued by the Veterans’ Administration and some               
          brief testimony, neither of which rises to a level sufficient to            
          meet the standard required by the Internal Revenue Code.  See               
          sec. 72(m)(7); Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).             
               Petitioner also claimed “this Tax Court has previously ruled           
          on my late filings and accepted my disability.”  But the issue of           
          petitioner’s disability has never been litigated and decided by             
          this Court; rather, in petitioner’s prior proceeding at docket              
          No. 1093-04S (regarding taxable year 1999), the Court merely                
          entered a decision pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.              
          See United States v. Intl. Bldg. Co., 345 U.S. 502, 505 (1953)              
          (only judgments on matters actually litigated between the parties           
          are conclusive in another action); Peck v. Commissioner, 90 T.C.            
          162, 166-167 (1988) (discussing the requirements for collateral             
          estoppel), affd. 904 F.2d 525 (9th Cir. 1990); Hart Metal Prods.            
          Corp. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1969-164 (holding that the                
          doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply when a decision of           
          the Court constitutes only a pro forma acceptance of the parties’           
          agreement), affd. 437 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1971).                             
               Without more persuasive documentation to support                       
          petitioner’s claim of disability, and without evidence that the             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007