- 9 -
not provide a basis for concluding that the automatic stay
remains in effect. See Moody v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 655, 661
(1990); see also Allison v. Commissioner, supra at 546; Roth v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-229. Further, petitioners' appeal
of the bankruptcy court's order of dismissal, standing alone,
does not provide a basis for concluding that the automatic stay
remains in effect. See Olson v. Commissioner, supra at 1318
(absent an order staying dismissal, the automatic stay is
terminated upon dismissal).
In concluding that the bankruptcy court's order of dismissal
terminated the automatic stay in these cases, we find it
particularly significant that the order makes no mention of the
status of the automatic stay. Consistent with the approach taken
by this Court in Allison v. Commissioner, supra at 546-547, and
Kieu v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. ___ (1995), we proceed on the
premise that the automatic stay is terminated upon dismissal of a
bankruptcy case (whether conditional or otherwise) absent a clear
indication from the bankruptcy court to the contrary. See
Zimmerman v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 220 (1995). 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 (see
Halpern v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. at 902), we note that a
bankruptcy court has the means to bring about a stay of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011