I mulled this one over quite a bit too. They’re very similar in essence. Both are Affirmative Defenses.
Collateral Estoppel – Any issue stipulated (agreed) in a previous action is binding in the current action. The TP admits to felony tax evasion for a specific year, he can’t come back and file petition for the same year for a lesser issue.
Res Judicata is a thing already judged, identical facts and circumstances in the second case as in the first with the same parties, even in matters that could have been brought up but weren’t.
Morning Carrie. I read the legal definition a couple of times (Blacks Law dictionary), which is why asked if what I read was comparable to double jeopardy. It was just to be a comparison to see if I understood the definitions
And Sherrill, I would never use what I asked about on the test. The analogy was just for me to see if I understood the legal definition. Enjoy your vacation.
With res judicata, tax court won’t revisit an issue already judged by a court of competent jurisdiction. Example, if a state court finds that you legally do not own property, you can’t then go to TC on a tax matter claiming that you do.
The best example of collateral estoppel for our purposes is as Carrie points out, criminal tax fraud. A conviction of it precludes you from challenging civil fraud penalties since the criminal standard for the same issue is a much higher standard of proof than civil.
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
LET US HELP TAKE YOUR PRACTICE TO THE NEXT LEVEL ...