- 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