- 3 -
In response to the petition, respondent filed a Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction asserting that the petition
should be dismissed on the ground that the petition was not filed
within the 90-day period prescribed in section 6213(a).
Petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion to dismiss
asserting that the petition was timely filed pursuant to section
6213(f), which suspends the period for filing a petition with
this Court for the period during which a taxpayer/debtor is
prohibited by reason of bankruptcy from filing a petition and for
60 days thereafter. Petitioner's objection includes a statement
that petitioner was dissolved under California State law prior to
filing for bankruptcy. Respondent filed a reply to petitioner's
objection asserting that: (1) Petitioner did not file a
bankruptcy petition, and, thus, is not entitled to rely on
section 6213(f); and (2) petitioner's purported dissolution under
California State law would not preclude petitioner from filing a
petition with this Court.
A hearing was conducted in this case in Washington, D.C.
Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and presented a
new theory in support of respondent's motion to dismiss. In
particular, respondent offered evidence indicating that, rather
than being dissolved, petitioner's corporate charter was
suspended by the State of California as of May 3, 1993, for
failure to pay State franchise taxes. Relying on Cal. Rev. & Tax
Code sec. 23301(b) (West 1992), and Condo v. Commissioner, 69
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011