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 modified the appeals procedure for tax deficiencies) was enacted while the case was being reviewed by the Board of Tax Appeals; this did not halt the judicial process sought by the petitioners. Taft maintained that the principle of res judicata resolved the jurisdictional issue because regardless of which court's decision came first, the earlier judgment would be properly appealable.