2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 36">*36 An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GOLDBERG, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: Respondent determined additions to petitioners' Federal income tax for the 1983 taxable year of $ 138 pursuant to
The issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for additions to tax for negligence or intentional2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 36">*37 disregard of rules or regulations pursuant to
This case was submitted fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time that they filed their petition, petitioners resided in Ironton, Ohio.
On February 17, 1995, this Court entered a stipulated decision in the underlying partnership proceeding, Anderson Equip. Associates v. Commissioner, at docket No. 27745-89. Pursuant to section 7481, that decision became final on May 18, 1995, and thereafter respondent assessed taxes against petitioners for the 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984 taxable years as computational adjustments. The deficiency in the instant case is attributable to adjustments in the underlying partnership proceedings which resulted in automatic adjustments to petitioners' income pursuant to the provisions of the Tax Equity & Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, 96 Stat. 324.
On March 5, 1996, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioners for the 1981 taxable year. The question of petitioners' liability for negligence for 1981 was decided by 2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 36">*38 this Court in the case of
In the instant case, respondent, in a notice of deficiency dated March 5, 1996, determined that petitioners were liable for additions to tax 2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 36">*39 pursuant to
In their petition, petitioners contend: (1) Petitioners were not negligent or did not intentionally disregard rules and regulations; (2) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) did not respond to petitioners' request to inform petitioners as to how the IRS made its negligence determination; and (3) that the statute of limitations bars respondent's action in this matter. 3
Petitioners concede that the issue in 2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 36">*40 this case is identical to the issue in Rambacher I and have stipulated that record into this case. Since the issue decided by Rambacher I is identical to the issue in this case, we issued an Order to Show Cause (order) on November 16, 1999, asking petitioners to demonstrate why this case should not be decided on the same grounds as Rambacher I. Petitioners' response to the order was filed with this Court on December 16, 1999.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, sometimes called issue preclusion, generally "applies to tax proceedings involving similar claims containing the same legal points, or different tax years, when there has been no change in the controlling facts or applicable legal principles."
In
Building on the Supreme Court's analysis in Montana, this Court has identified five criteria that must be satisfied for collateral estoppel to apply. They are: (1) The issue in the second suit must be identical in all respects with the one decided in the first suit; (2) there must be a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) collateral estoppel may only be invoked against parties and their privies to the prior judgment; (4) the parties must have actually litigated the issue and the resolution of the issue must have been essential to the prior decision; and (5) the controlling facts and applicable legal rules must remain unchanged from those in the prior litigation. See
On the basis of the record, we find that all five conditions have been satisfied in the instant case, and, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, find that the holding in Rambacher I is controlling here. We therefore hold that petitioners are liable for the additions to tax pursuant to
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
1. The order of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lists petitioner wife as "Francis L. Rambacher" in the case caption. The unpublished order was entered on Sept. 28, 1999.↩
2.
3. Petitioners now concede that the statute of limitations does not bar an assessment with respect to the 1983 tax year.↩