- 9 -
filed Forms 1040 for the years in issue. Respondent argues that
the bankruptcy court did not enjoin collection of petitioner’s
unpaid liabilities and that a default judgment has not occurred.
I. Jurisdiction
Before deciding the substantive issues, we must decide a
jurisdictional issue because petitioner’s contention that the
bankruptcy court is the only court that can determine whether the
unpaid liabilities were discharged raises the question of whether
we have the authority to decide this issue. We addressed this
question in the context of a lien proceeding in Washington v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 114 (2003). The instant case involves a
levy proceeding under section 6330(d)(1).
In Washington v. Commissioner, supra at 120-121, we stated:
We have held in deficiency proceedings commenced
in the Court under section 6213 that we do not have
jurisdiction to determine whether a U.S. bankruptcy
court has discharged a taxpayer from an unpaid tax
liability in a bankruptcy proceeding instituted by such
taxpayer. Neilson v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 1, 9
(1990); Graham v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 389, 399
(1980). In so holding, we relied on Swanson v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 1180, 1184 (1976), in which we
observed that an action brought for redetermination of
a deficiency “has nothing to do with collection of the
tax nor any similarity to an action for collection of a
debt”.
In contrast to a deficiency proceeding, a lien
proceeding commenced in the Court under section
6330(d)(1), such as the instant lien proceeding, is
closely related to and has everything to do with
collection of a taxpayer’s unpaid liability for a
taxable year. * * * We hold that in the instant lien
proceeding commenced under section 6330(d)(1) the Court
has jurisdiction to determine whether the U.S.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011