Hoyt and Sons Ranch Properties, Ltd., A Nevada Limited Partnership, Walter J. Hoyt, III, Tax Matters Partner - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          Choice Produce, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 388, 394 (1990).              
          Stated differently, because a TEFRA partnership proceeding                  
          ultimately concerns the tax liability of the partnership's                  
          individual partners, and recognizing that a partnership in                  
          bankruptcy is an entity separate and distinct from its partners,            
          we concluded that a partnership level proceeding may be commenced           
          and concluded in this Court without violating the automatic stay.           
          1983 Western Reserve Oil & Gas Co. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. at              
          56-57.  Finally, we made the dual observations that section                 
          6213(f), which applies in deficiency proceedings, would not be              
          applicable to extend the period for filing a petition for                   
          readjustment under section 6226 in a TEFRA partnership                      
          proceeding, and that there is no provision similar to section               
          6213(f) under the TEFRA partnership provisions.  Id. at 59.                 
               Consistent with the WROG case, we hold that the automatic              
          stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8) (1988) did not  bar             
          the filing of the petition for readjustment in this case.  In               
          this regard, petitioner's reliance on the bankruptcy court's                
          order lifting the automatic stay for purposes of filing the                 
          petition for readjustment is misplaced.  In the first instance,             
          to the extent that the bankruptcy court's order can be read as an           
          affirmation that the automatic stay barred the filing of the                
          petition in this case, the order lacks any analysis of the issue            
          and, as such, does not persuade us of the need to reexamine our             
          holding in WROG.  On the other hand, the bankruptcy court's order           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011