- 5 -
(2000); Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181-183 (2000). In
this case, respondent’s determination regarding whether
petitioner’s unpaid liabilities were discharged in bankruptcy
requires the interpretation of bankruptcy law. If respondent’s
determination was based on erroneous views of the law and
petitioner’s unpaid liabilities were discharged in bankruptcy,
then we must reject respondent’s view and find that there was an
abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,
496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990); Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111,
119 (2003).
Respondent argues that petitioner’s tax liabilities were not
discharged in the bankruptcy proceedings because they are
precluded from discharge under section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Bankruptcy Code. Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that
the liabilities were discharged.
As a preliminary matter, we note that we have jurisdiction
to decide whether a tax liability for which collection is at
issue in a section 6330(d)(1) proceeding has been discharged in
bankruptcy. See Swanson v. Commissioner, supra; Washington v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 114, 120-121 (2003).
Section 523(a)6 of the Bankruptcy Code excludes from a
6 Sec. 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)
(2000), provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
SEC. 523. EXCEPTIONS TO DISCHARGE.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011