- 10 -
Southern District of New York discharged them from their respec-
tive unpaid liabilities for such years. Respondent does not
dispute that if we find that that court discharged petitioners
from such unpaid liabilities, respondent may not proceed with the
collection action as determined in the notice of determination
with respect to petitioners’ taxable years 1994 and 1995.
However, respondent disagrees with petitioners’ contention that
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
discharged petitioners from their respective unpaid liabilities
for those years. We must first determine whether we have juris-
diction to resolve the parties’ dispute over whether that court
discharged petitioners from such unpaid liabilities.7 It is the
position of the parties that the Court has that jurisdiction.
Where the Court has jurisdiction over the underlying tax
liability, the Court has jurisdiction to review a determination
by the Appeals Office to proceed by lien with respect to any such
7Shortly after having received the parties’ respective trial
memoranda in this case, the Court advised the parties during a
telephonic conference, inter alia, that an issue exists as to
whether the Court has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute that
they discussed in such memoranda over whether the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York discharged petition-
ers from their respective unpaid liabilities for their taxable
years 1994 and 1995. At the beginning of the trial in this case,
the Court reminded the parties about that jurisdictional issue.
After that trial, the Court directed the parties to address in
the posttrial briefs the jurisdictional issue that the Court had
raised.
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