8
the automatic stay has been removed there is no bar to this
Court's accepting jurisdiction or continuing a proceeding that
had been petitioned prior to the automatic stay." Neilson v.
Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 8 (1990). Where taxpayers file a joint
petition, the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by one taxpayer
individually does not affect the jurisdiction of the Tax Court to
redetermine the deficiency with respect to the other taxpayer.
See McClamma v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 754, 758 (1981); Baron v.
Commissioner, 71 T.C. 1028 (1979).
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction conferred
by statute. See sec. 7442; Neilson v. Commissioner, supra at 9.
Generally, the Court's jurisdiction is dependent upon a notice of
deficiency and a timely filed petition. Secs. 6212 and 6213.
The Court does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a
deficiency was discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. See
Neilson v. Commissioner, supra; Graham v. Commissioner, 75 T.C.
389, 399 (1980); Tortu v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-243.
Petitioner received a discharge in bankruptcy on December 9,
1993. Thus, we are not barred from continuing these proceedings
as to petitioner. Furthermore, we do not believe that there is
any reason to stay these proceedings with respect to petitioner
as a result of the automatic stay imposed with respect to Mr.
Zavitz.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011