- 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 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007