Furthermore, the fact that the Revenue Act of 1926 (which altered the appeals process for tax deficiencies) was passed while the case was under review by the Board of Tax Appeals did not cut off the judicial process sought by the petitioners. Taft held that the principle of res judicata resolved the jurisdictional issue, because regardless of whether the District Court action or the Board's action were decided first, the judgment which was first in time would then be properly appealable.
Furthermore, the Revenue Act of 1926, which altered the appeals process for tax deficiencies, was enacted while the case was under review by the Board of Tax Appeals. This did not prevent the petitioners from seeking a judicial resolution. Taft believed that the principle of res judicata resolved the jurisdictional issue because regardless of whether the District Court or the Board's decision came first, the earlier judgment would be valid.