Legal Document

345 U.S. 502 73 Supreme Court Reporter 807 97 L.Ed. 1182 UNITED STATESv.INTERNATIONAL BLDG. CO. Number 508. Argued April 8, 1953. Decided May 4, Rehearing Denied June See 978, 1120. Mr. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Malcolm I. Frank, St. Louis, Mo., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent, a Missouri corporation, owns leasehold plot ground together with an office building erected on it. In 1942 Commissioner assessed deficiencies against respondent taxable years 1933, 1938, and 1939, determining that it had claimed excessive value as its basis depreciating property. These were predicated $385,000 amortized over life lease. who base $860,000 shorter period, filed petitions review Tax Meanwhile petition under ch. X Bankruptcy Act, 11 United States Code Annotated KF65 U5 § 501 et seq. which ended in confirmed plan reorganization. Although Collector proof claim those proceedings, he later withdrew stipulation withdrawal was 'without prejudice' did not constitute determination or prejudice rights to any taxes respect year other than involved claim. Shortly thereafter stipulations pending proceedings stating 'there is no deficiency Federal income tax due' from question, liability each nil, jeopardy assessment abated.1 The Court, pursuant stipulation, entered formal decisions there question. however, held hearing; fact into; briefs argument had. issue correctness depreciation used by was, appeal And so, when 1948 1943, 1944, 1945, challenging once more depreciation, paid brought this suit recover, alleging inter alia 1939 res judicata $860,000. District F.Supp. 595. Appeals reversed, 8 Cir., 199 Reporter, 2nd Series 12. Because conflict between decision Trapp versus States, 177 1, decided Tenth Circuit, we granted certiorari. 2 governing principle stated Cromwell County Sac, 94 351, 352—353, 24 195. A judgment absolute bar subsequent action same 3 'But where second parties upon different demand, prior operates estoppel only matters points controverted, finding verdict rendered. all cases, therefore, sought apply rendered one cause arising action, inquiry must always be point question actually litigated determined original action; what might have been thus determined. Only such conclusive another action.' 4 see Tait Western Md. R. Co., 289 620, 623, 53 706, 707, 77 1405; Mercoid Corporation Mid-Continent 320 661, 671, 64 268, 273, 88 376; Sunnen, 333 591, 597—598, 68 715, 719, 92 898. Estoppel judgment, collateral often called, applicable federal field. supra, at page 624, 707; 598, 719. 5 We conclude pro forma acceptance agreement settle their controversy reasons undisclosed. There showing either record extrinsic evidence, Russell Place, 606, 608, 214, issues raised pleadings submitted court. They may agreed parties. Perhaps, inferred, agree depreciation. Perhaps settlement made reason, some exigency out bankruptcy proceeding. As case reaches us, are unable tell whether based merits consideration. Certainly judgments claims agreements they rest reached merits. But unless can say adjudication merits, doctrine would serve unjust cause: become device shown forever foreclose into includes proceeding presented earlier suit. consent involve questions law case, has greater dignity, so far concerned, compromise 6 Reversed. typical, reads follows: 'It hereby stipulated due petitioner 1933 following statement shows petitioner's 1933: "Tax liability.................None "Assessment (Jeopardy): January 23, (not paid).$2,188.12 abated.$2,188.12"

Classification Label: 8