-10-
the lack of a tolling provision analogous to section 6213(f),
this Court would have jurisdiction over this case.5
We emphasize and note that Congress did not include in
sections 6320 and 6330 a tolling provision comparable to section
6213(f) that would extend the period for petitioner to file a
petition for lien or levy action with the Court. Although the
outcome in this case appears harsh, the gap in the collection
review procedures that this case highlights is not one that can
be closed by judicial fiat. A remedy, if any, must originate
with Congress. In the end, we are obliged to grant respondent’s
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order of dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction will be
entered.
5See, however, sec. 6330(d), which provides in part: “If a
court determines that the appeal was to an incorrect court, a
person shall have 30 days after the court determination to file
such appeal with the correct court”. We do not decide herein
whether our determination in this opinion that we lacked
jurisdiction over the petition filed during the pendency of
petitioner’s bankruptcy case means that we are or are not the
“incorrect” court for purposes of the above-quoted flush
language. If we were the “incorrect” court, petitioner would
have 30 days from the date decision is entered in this case to
refile in the “correct” court. That issue, however, is not
currently before the Court and was not briefed by the parties.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011