- 16 -
dated February 6, 1995, and closed the case on May 18, 1995. The
order confirming the plan specifically discharged petitioner and
Mrs. Wood. Therefore, the automatic stay of Bankruptcy Code
section 362 was lifted no later than May 18, 1995, when the order
closing the case was entered.
Respondent issued to petitioner and Mrs. Wood a notice of
deficiency for 1994 on December 21, 1998, and a notice of
deficiency for 1995 and 1996 on July 19, 1999. Thus, the notices
of deficiency were issued, and the petitions in these cases were
filed, well after the automatic stay in petitioner and Mrs.
Wood’s bankruptcy case was lifted.
Petitioner contends, and asks us to rule, that respondent’s
claims against him were discharged in bankruptcy. We do not have
authority in these cases to decide whether respondent’s claims
against petitioner have been discharged because in a deficiency
proceeding our subject matter jurisdiction is generally limited
to the redetermination of the correct amount of a deficiency
determined by the Commissioner and is unrelated to the collection
of the tax. Swanson v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 1180, 1184 (1976).
An action brought for redetermination of a deficiency “has
nothing to do with collection of the tax nor any similarity to an
action for collection of a debt”. Id. Thus, in deficiency
proceedings commenced in this Court under section 6213, such as
these cases, while we have jurisdiction to redetermine the
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011