- 24 -
within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(B).15
Accordingly, we hold that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. sec.
523(a)(1)(B), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
of Texas did not discharge petitioner from his unpaid liabilities
for the taxable years 1993, 1994, and 1995.
B. Petitioner’s Additional Arguments
In his petition, petitioner raises additional arguments
relating to his bankruptcy filing. Petitioner alleges that
respondent is enjoined from collecting the unpaid liabilities and
that a default judgment occurred because respondent made no
challenge to the bankruptcy filing. The record in this case is
unclear regarding whether these issues were raised at the Appeals
hearing. Respondent has not argued that petitioner did not raise
these issues at the Appeals hearing. In the answer to the
amended petition, respondent claims that it was unnecessary to
object to the bankruptcy filing because the unpaid liabilities
are excepted from discharge. Because it appears that
petitioner’s additional arguments were raised at the Appeals
15Although not argued by respondent or addressed by the
parties, we note that if the SFRs were deemed returns for
purposes of 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(B) then it appears that
petitioner’s unpaid liabilities would still be excepted from
discharge because copies of MFTRA-X transcripts indicate that the
SFRs were filed less than 2 years before the start of the
bankruptcy proceeding. See 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(B)(ii);
Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 48-49 (2002); Washington v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. at 121-122; Thomas v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-231.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011