- 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