another, but only to permit a transaction which is made the subject of suit by plaintiff to be examined in all its aspects.” Id. at 611, 110 S.Ct. 1361 (quoting Rothensies v. Electric Storage Battery Co., 329 U.S. 296, 67 S.Ct. 271, 91 L.Ed. 296 (1946)). Pransky failed to seasonably contest the denial of his claims for the 1984 and 1985 tax years through a proper refund action instituted within two years of their denial in 1992. In addition, the IRS notices of disallowance were forwarded to Pransky at least four months before the filing of his 1987 tax return on July 20, 1992. See 1(A) supra. The debtor cannot revive the denied and unpursued claims from his 1984 and 1985 tax returns by affixing them to a later claim. See Strat-more v. United States, 463 F.2d 1195, 1197 (3d Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). Pransky filed for bankruptcy in January 1997,
holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims holding that the purpose of  6532a1 would be contravened if a taxpayer could raise previously denied claims holding that under texas law limited partner could not bring breach of fiduciary duty claims without the partnership because the partners claims would be indirect and duplicative of the partnerships claims holding testimony that would violate the confrontation clause if introduced for the truth may nonetheless be admissible if offered for the limited purpose of impeachment