- 26 -
Federal tax return was improperly selected for audit in
retaliation for his EEOC complaints and whistle blowing. Thus,
petitioner seeks to relitigate the identical issue necessarily
decided in his District Court case. This factor poses no
obstacle to the application of collateral estoppel.
5. Change in Circumstances
The fifth consideration for collateral estoppel is whether
there has been a change in the controlling facts or legal rules
since the earlier ruling. Id. The type of changes with which
this factor is concerned are factual changes stemming from
subsequent events and legal changes wrought by intervening
judicial decisions, statutory provisions, or regulatory
promulgations. Sunnen v. Commissioner, 333 U.S. 591, 599-601
(1948). Respondent seeks to apply collateral estoppel to the
same facts considered by the District Court. Petitioner has not
brought to the Tax Court’s attention, nor is this Court aware of,
any relevant changes in the applicable law via judicial
decisions, statutory provisions, or regulatory promulgations that
have occurred since the District Court dismissed petitioner’s
case on December 14, 2004. Accordingly, change in circumstances
also poses no bar to the application of collateral estoppel.
14(...continued)
probability of error and applied even handedly to all individual
income tax returns. The DIF scoring system was developed by
using the results of random audits historically known as the
Taxpayer Compliance Movement Program or by its acronym TCMP.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008