- 3 -
The instant case is a claim for “innocent spouse” relief
under subsection (b) or (c) of section 6015. See Rules 320-325;
sec. 6015(e). The prior case is docket No. 22934-89, hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the 1989 case.
The issue for decision is whether to grant petitioner’s
motion for partial summary judgment that she is not barred by the
doctrine of res judicata from innocent spouse relief under
section 6015, even if she meaningfully participated in the 1989
case.3
Our statements as to the facts are based entirely on the
parties’ stipulations of facts and exhibits, those matters that
are admitted in the pleadings, those matters that are admitted in
the motion papers, those matters set forth in affidavits
submitted by the parties, and the opinions issued by this Court
in the 1989 case.
3 Petitioner’s motion does not use the term “res judicata”,
or the term “claim preclusion”. However, we conclude from the
parties’ legal memoranda that the instant motion is intended to
deal solely with the application of res judicata and, even in
that limited setting, is based on petitioner’s limited concession
as to meaningful participation in the 1989 case. See infra note
4. So, for example, petitioner’s motion does not deal with the
collateral estoppel defenses raised in respondent’s answer. See
Rule 39.
Also, we note that respondent did not file a cross-motion on
this issue. See Elect. Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226,
238, 278 (2002).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007