- 8 -
She resolved the cases at the urging of Mr. Moore, but was
informed about the possibility of relief as an “innocent spouse”.
With that factual background, this case is ripe for resolution by
means of summary judgment. Petitioner has made no allegations or
showing that the facts are materially different from those
presented by respondent in his summary judgment motion. See Reid
v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 790 F.2d 453, 459-460 (6th Cir. 1986);
see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-250
(1986).
Res Judicata
Respondent contends that petitioner is barred under the
principles of res judicata from seeking relief from joint and
several liability under section 6015. There is no question that
petitioner’s claim for relief in this case involves the same
taxable years and liabilities as the deficiency suits. There is
also no question that the parties are the same in this proceeding
as in the prior two and that the decisions in the prior
proceedings are final.
The only question concerns whether the exception to the
principle of res judicata contained in section 6015(g)(2)
applies. Section 6015(g)(2) provides that res judicata does not
apply if qualification of the individual for relief was not an
issue in the prior proceeding and if the individual did not
participate meaningfully. It is petitioner’s burden to show by a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007