- 14 -
automatic stay. One day later, the bankruptcy court lifted the
automatic stay.
Petitioner contends that we lack jurisdiction over this case
because the lifting of the stay by the bankruptcy court was void.
Petitioner contends that respondent lacked standing to seek the
lifting of the automatic stay, and that he had insufficient
service of respondent's motion in the bankruptcy court to lift
the stay. We disregard petitioner’s arguments because petitioner
may not collaterally attack the bankruptcy court’s proceeding in
this Court. See Shaheen v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 359, 364-365
(1974); Roberson v. Commissioner, 41 T.C. 577, 581 (1964).
Petitioner's claim that we lacked jurisdiction to hold the trial
lacks merit. See Noli v. Commissioner, 860 F.2d 1521, 1525 (9th
Cir. 1988) (the Tax Court may resume proceedings after the
bankruptcy court orders the lifting of the automatic stay).
B. Whether Arivada Is a Trust for Federal Tax Purposes
1. Whether Respondent Bears the Burden of Proof
Petitioner contends that respondent bears the burden of
proof because respondent’s determination was a “naked
assessment”. Petitioner cites United States v. Janis, 428 U.S.
433, 441-442 (1976); Portillo v. Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128,
1133 (5th Cir. 1991); and Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d
358, 360 (9th Cir. 1979). Petitioner's reliance on these cases
is misplaced. The Courts in those cases held that the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011