Robert J. Hoaglund - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         

          the Bankruptcy Code.  See, e.g., City of New York v. Feiring, 313           
          U.S. 283 (1941); In re Cassidy, 983 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1992)2; In          
          re Lorber Indus. of Cal., Inc., 675 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1982).              
               The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction conferred by          
          statute.  Sec. 7442; Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co.,          
          320 U.S. 418 (1943); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529               
          (1985).  As such, our jurisdiction does not extend to deciding              
          whether a deficiency was discharged in a prior bankruptcy                   
          proceeding.  Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 8-9 (1990); Graham         
          v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 389, 399 (1980).  "In exercising our               
          jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies, we are without                    
          jurisdiction to 'allow or disallow a claim against a debtor's               
          estate * * * or to discharge taxes as a bankruptcy court might.'"           
          Neilson v. Commissioner, supra at 9 (quoting Fotochrome, Inc. v.            
          Commissioner, 57 T.C. 842, 847 (1972)).  Consequently, we are               
          unable to address the proper characterization of the deficiency             
          arising under section 72(t) for purposes of determining its                 
          dischargeability under the Bankruptcy Code.  This issue is properly         
          resolved by the bankruptcy court, not the Tax Court.  Therefore,            
          respondent's motion will be denied.  However, because petitioner            
          does not dispute any of the underlying deficiencies nor the                 

               2    Interestingly, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth                 
          Circuit in In re Cassidy, 983 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1992), held               
          that the 10-percent additional tax under sec. 72(t) was                     
          characterized as a nonpecuniary loss penalty rather than a tax              
          for purposes of priority under the Bankruptcy Code.                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011