- 10 -
In concluding that the automatic stay was not reinstated in Allison v.
Commissioner, supra, we observed that the taxpayer there, as here, had failed
to show that the bankruptcy court would consider the tax issues pending before
this Court. Id. at 547.
While an argument might be made that the bankruptcy court's intent to
reinstate the automatic stay in the present case may be inferred from the fact
that the bankruptcy court vacated its order entered November 1, 1994, we
decline to decide the issue presented in this case on such an assumption. We
are mindful that the automatic stay respecting the commencement or
continuation of proceedings in this Court was adopted in part to avert
duplicative and inconsistent litigation over tax issues. Halpern v.
Commissioner, 96 T.C. 895, 902 (1991). Given the consequences, however, that
follow from a determination respecting the status of the automatic stay, the
soundest approach is to adhere to the reasoning in Allison v. Commissioner,
supra. Simply stated, where a bankruptcy court has taken action that serves
to terminate the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. section 362(c)(2) (1988), the
automatic stay remains terminated absent an express indication from the
bankruptcy court to the contrary. Certainly, if a bankruptcy court intends to
exercise its jurisdiction to resolve the issues surrounding petitioners' tax
liability, that court has the means to bring about a stay of the proceedings
in this Court. See Allison v. Commissioner, supra at 547 (referring to 11
U.S.C. section 105 (1988), which permits the bankruptcy court to issue any
order necessary to carry out title 11).
In sum, we shall proceed in this case consistent with the view that the
automatic stay was terminated on November 1, 1994, and was not reinstated by
virtue of the bankruptcy court's order entered January 23, 1995. In this
regard, it follows that the petition filed herein was not filed in violation
of the automatic
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011