1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 143 | Tax Ct. | 1997
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GALE,
Petitioner claims that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable for the 1985, 1986, and 1987 taxable years because the prior proceedings did not determine the amount of underpayment, the elements for collateral estoppel are not otherwise met, and the facts support an exception to the applicability of collateral estoppel. Thus, the Court must decide whether petitioner is collaterally estopped from disputing that a portion of the deficiencies in his Federal income tax for 1985, 1986, and 1987 was due1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 143">*145 to fraud within the meaning of
Harold Wapnick filed a Federal income tax return for each of the 1985 and 1986 taxable years, but not for the 1987 taxable year.
By notice of deficiency dated October 21, 1993, respondent determined deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income tax as follows:
Additions to Tax | ||||
Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6653(b)(1) | Sec. 6653(b)(2) | Sec. 6661 |
1985 | $ 296,275.88 | $ 155,784.40 | 1 | $ 74,056.47 |
Additions to Tax | ||||
Sec. 6653 | Sec. 6653 | |||
Year | Deficiency | (b)(1)(A) | (b)(1)(B) | Sec. 6661 |
1986 | $ 389,855.00 | $ 169,812.76 | $ 97,463.75 |
Additions to Tax | ||||
Sec. 6653 | Sec. 6653 | |||
Year | Deficiency | (b)(1)(A) | (b)(1)(B) | Sec. 6654 |
1987 | $ 387,838.00 | $ 290,878.50 | $ 119.43 |
Petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determination1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 143">*146 of deficiencies on January 3, 1994, at which time he resided in Brooklyn, New York. Respondent's answer included affirmative allegations that petitioner is liable for additions to tax for fraud under
Previously, petitioner was a defendant in the criminal case of
Summary judgment may be granted as to all or any part of the legal issues in dispute "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law."
For 1985,
Fraud is defined as an intentional wrongdoing with a specific intent to evade a tax believed to be owing.
As noted, respondent contends that petitioner's prior criminal conviction under
Many of petitioner's arguments appear to be based on the fact that in the prior criminal proceeding the Government did not prove the exact amount of income received by him or the exact amount of tax owed by him. A determination of the amount of the underpayment is not an element for a criminal conviction under
Petitioner challenges whether the elements required for application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel have been met. First, petitioner claims that the issues in the criminal proceeding for tax evasion and the subsequent proceeding for civil tax fraud are not identical. Second, petitioner claims that the issues material to liability1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 143">*151 for civil tax fraud were not actually litigated or actually decided in the criminal proceeding. As discussed above, it is well settled that a conviction under
Petitioner also argues that an exception to collateral estoppel should apply because he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, in that witnesses necessary to his defense did not appear and his counsel was ineffective. These alleged deficiencies are not of the character to warrant an exception to the application of collateral estoppel. See
Finally, petitioner claims that respondent's determinations are precluded because the 6-year period of limitations has run. Because there is fraud as to the years 1985, 1986, and 1987 resulting from the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the period of assessment remains open for such years.
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing,