Magdalena Pacheco - Page 14




                                       - 13 -                                         
              Moreover, in Vetrano, this Court held that once the taxpayer            
         became eligible for section 6015 relief under a particular                   
         subsection, she had to file an election.  Id. at 282.  If a                  
         taxpayer failed to make an election in the first proceeding and              
         attempted to make an election in a subsequent proceeding after               
         the first proceeding became final, she would be barred by res                
         judicata from making an election in the subsequent proceeding.               
         Id. at 283-284.                                                              
              Petitioner argues that she could not have raised relief                 
         under subsection (c) in the prior proceeding because:  (1) Her               
         counsel at the time did not inform her that such relief was                  
         available, and (2) the 1995 and 1996 taxes were “definitively                
         settled” before Mr. Pacheco’s death.                                         
              Petitioner claims that she was not informed by her counsel              
         that she could have sought relief under subsection (c) and that              
         she would not have signed the stipulated decision had she known.             
         Mr. Leiba acknowledged in his statement that “after * * * [Mr.               
         Pacheco] died, I don’t remember considering * * * [innocent                  
         spouse relief].  I didn’t reevaluate the situation after he died             
         because they both agreed to the liability and there was no                   
         dispute.”                                                                    
              The quality of advocacy and the actual knowledge of the                 
         litigants are not special circumstances in determining whether a             
         prior judgment is a bar in subsequent litigation.  Trent v.                  







Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007