Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

This topic contains 4 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by DavidWoods DavidWoods 2 weeks, 5 days ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2574
    Avatar
    JEFFREYSCHNEIDER
    Participant

    Correct me if i am wrong, but the basic concepts of these two seems to me to be similar to double jeopardy in a criminal case.

    #2576
    CarrieCorcoran
    CarrieCorcoran
    Participant

    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.

    #2577
    SherrillTrovato
    SherrillTrovato
    Participant

    I wouldn’t describe them like that on the exam … Learn the concepts on the civil side of things for possible Tax Court exam questions.

    #2581
    Avatar
    JEFFREYSCHNEIDER
    Participant

    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.

    #2585
    DavidWoods
    DavidWoods
    Participant

    Think of it this way:

    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.


Top