- 6 -
Respondent later assessed the deficiencies and penalties against
him.3
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, with respect to his
1989, 1990, and 1991 tax years, which were decided in docket No.
26995-93, petitioner argued that the decision entered in that
case was invalid because this Court was required to take further
action when the U.S. District Court issued its order lifting the
bankruptcy stay. Petitioner bases that argument on the wording
of the U.S. District Court's order that required the Tax Court
"to take all steps necessary to enter a decision in Docket No.
26995-93 and conclude its case" against petitioner. Petitioner
argues that, because this Court took no further action in this
case, the decision is invalid. The Court rejects that argument.
Petitioner further argues that, had his case been reopened, he
intended to file pleadings with the Court to allow him the
benefit of carryforward of net operating losses he had sustained
in 1975, which remained after his bankruptcy estate filed its
income tax return for the last year he was in bankruptcy. The
Court also rejects that argument because, in Beery v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-464 involving petitioner's 1989,
3 Under sec. 6213(f), the period for filing a petition in
this Court was suspended during the pendency of the bankruptcy
proceeding and for 60 days after the bankruptcy proceeding was
concluded. Since petitioner was discharged in his bankruptcy on
Dec. 17, 1997, he was allowed 60 days from that date to file a
petition in this Court to challenge his 1992, 1993, and 1994 tax
deficiencies, which he failed to do.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011