- 27 -
presented with a matter of discretion. At the two extremes, we
are presented either with a purely factual question (whether the
Appeals officer did it) or a purely legal question (whether his
actions were legally sufficient).
VII. Conclusion
In the case before us, the Appeals officer had before him
the Bankruptcy Court’s discharge order (the discharge order),
which, in pertinent part, provided that “the Debtor is released
from all dischargeable debts.” The Appeals officer examined the
pertinent provisions of the bankruptcy law (in particular, 11
U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(2000)) and determined that petitioners’
1994 and 1995 Federal income tax liabilities had not been dis-
charged. The Appeals officer did not abuse his discretion in
determining that the discharge order did not discharge petition-
ers’ 1994 and 1995 tax liabilities.
GERBER, BEGHE, and GALE, JJ., agree with this concurring
opinion.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011