- 9 -
avoid payment of taxes under the Bankruptcy Code.’
This is an express congressional policy judgment that
we are bound to follow.” [In re DePaolo, supra at 376
(quoting Grynberg v. United States, 986 F.2d 367, 371
(10th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gurwitch,
794 F.2d 584, 585 (11th Cir. 1986))); fn. ref.
omitted.]
The facts of this case and the facts in In re DePaolo,
supra, are substantially similar. Here, the claims respondent
filed in petitioners’ bankruptcy were for the type of debts
described in 11 U.S.C. sec. 523. The only factual difference of
any significance between the case we consider and In re DePaolo,
supra, is that petitioners chose to file a petition in the Tax
Court rather than moving to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding.
That distinction does not make a difference with respect to the
issue we consider here.
In Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678 (1988), we
held that a taxpayer was precluded from relitigating tax
liabilities that the bankruptcy court had allowed. In Fla. Peach
Corp., upon the Commissioner’s filing of a proof of claim, the
debtor’s objection created a need for a hearing under 11 U.S.C.
sec. 505 to determine the viability of the underlying tax claim.
In the present case, there is no indication that the
bankruptcy court inquired into the merits of petitioners’ tax
liability in the process of confirmation. Petitioners did not
object to respondent’s proof of claim, and there was no need for
an 11 U.S.C. sec. 505 hearing to determine the merits of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011