- 16 -
The Court, on the evidence offered, finds that petitioner
participated meaningfully throughout the prior proceeding.
Exception From Res Judicata
Absent an exception from res judicata, petitioner is barred
under section 6015(g)(2) from seeking relief under subsection (c)
in this proceeding. Petitioner’s counsel cites Smaczniak v.
Commissioner, 998 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1993), revg. T.C. Memo.
1991-87, arguing that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
relied on “common sense” to craft an exception to ameliorate the
strict application of res judicata. This case is not bound by
the law of the Fifth Circuit, and in any event, Smaczniak is
distinguishable.
In Smaczniak, the Commissioner voluntarily redetermined the
taxpayer’s liability after a final decision was entered. Id. at
242-243. The Court of Appeals held that this was akin to a
“subsequent modification of the significant facts” so as to
render inapplicable the effect of res judicata for the same
taxable years in a subsequent proceeding. Id. at 243. In the
prior proceeding, however, respondent did not voluntarily
redetermine petitioner’s liabilities after the entry of the final
decision. Therefore, Smaczniak is not applicable.
The Court has considered the remaining arguments raised in
petitioner’s trial memorandum and supplement trial memorandum and
finds that they are unconvincing. The Court has no authority to
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007