- 29 -
Court, have concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts to
decide various bankruptcy discharge issues.2
The second paragraph of Judge Vasquez’s concurring opinion
indicates some uncertainty about what aspect of respondent’s
determination with respect to 1994 and 1995 we are reviewing.
The Court is reviewing (1) respondent’s ultimate determination
that “The determination * * * to file the lien is sustained” and
(2) the determination in support of that ultimate determination
that the Bankruptcy Court did not discharge petitioners from
their unpaid tax liabilities for the taxable years 1994 and 1995.
Judge Vasquez states in his third paragraph that a challenge
to the appropriateness of collection action under section
6330(c)(2)(A)(ii) appears to him to be more about the type and/or
method of collection chosen by the IRS rather than being about
whether petitioners’ taxes were discharged in bankruptcy. In my
view, a question about the appropriateness of the collection
action includes whether it is proper for the IRS to proceed with
the collection action as determined in the notice of determina-
tion. I would conclude, and the parties agree, that if the
Bankruptcy Court discharged petitioners from their unpaid tax
liabilities for 1994 and 1995, any collection action for those
2See text infra at notes 3 and 4 and authorities cited for
the proposition that other courts have concurrent jurisdiction
with the district courts sitting in bankruptcy (and bankruptcy
courts under 28 U.S.C. sec. 157(a)) over all but certain
specified bankruptcy discharge issues.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011