- 22 -
In probing the existence of the alleged violations, the
District Court made specific findings of fact and conclusions
with respect to the selection of petitioner’s 1999 Federal income
tax return for audit. The District Court found that none of the
named individual defendants was responsible for the selection of
petitioner’s 1999 Federal income tax return for audit because his
tax return was selected by computer. The District Court’s
findings addressed precisely the same issue that is now before
this Court: the selection of petitioner’s 1999 Federal income
tax return for audit. Accordingly, identity of issues poses no
barrier to the application of collateral estoppel.
2. Final Judgment by Court of Competent Jurisdiction
The second pertinent factor is phrased in terms of a final
judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction. There is no
question that the District Court is a court of competent
jurisdiction and that it reached a final judgment in the subject
case. This prerequisite also poses no barrier to the application
of collateral estoppel.
3. Privity
The third point typically considered by this Court in
assessing the propriety of collateral estoppel is that the
doctrine may be invoked against parties and their privies to the
prior judgment. Peck v. Commissioner, supra at 166.
Historically, courts often went further than this formulation in
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008