Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4~ <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />e <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />ZO <br />21 <br />22 <br />Z3 <br />2t <br />25 <br />A couple of pouts prelisiiaarily, first of all, <br />rich regard to the Eaiser Steel` Decision by the baakraptcy <br />court, I'st sure thi• ras as honest sisunderstaading by <br />counsel for the Debtor, but that sass ha• been appaalsd. It <br />ras appsalsd is the District Coact and is nor an appeal is <br />the Tenth Circuit oa thir vary issoa. <br />Nitb tagard to the collateral estoppel asquaent of <br />the Debtor, accepting the Dsbtor'• theory of chat aollateral <br />estoppel scans, chat it could swan is that if a government <br />agency litigates a cas• against anybody aayrbere is this <br />country and looses, they could be collaterally •stopped Eros <br />litigating that case again aayrhsrs also is the country <br />against any other party. That is not hoc collateral estoppel <br />corks. Heedless to say, if the govsras+ent could have roe the <br />81ue Diaaond Case, oz if the govsznseat could Nava roe the <br />miser Steel Case sad sovsd is this Court that CliI vas <br />collaterally •stopped from litigating the issna• all aver <br />again, obviously collateral estoppel could not apply. So it <br />doesn't apply against the gavar~aat either. <br />2 do agree rith Debtors' aonasei that this issue <br />involves tro geestions. lust of all, acs the reiapnraement <br />claiss of the Dapartseat of Labor a tae sad, if so, era they <br />as excise taa7 The first ~asne as to.rhethar or eat it is a <br />tax, if the cord tax has to be placed as th'e seiabursement <br />claim, then clearly this is not a tax because the cord tax <br />