- 2 -
Respondent’s motion for leave asserts that the stipulated
decision is void because it was entered in violation of the
automatic stay (automatic stay) of 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)
(2000). Respondent has lodged with the Court his related motion
to vacate the stipulated decision (respondent’s motion to
vacate).
We decide first whether we have jurisdiction to decide
respondent’s motion for leave. We hold we do. We decide second
whether we should grant respondent’s motion for leave. We hold
we shall. We decide third whether we should grant respondent’s
motion to vacate. We hold we shall. We decide fourth, sua
sponte, whether we should dismiss this case for lack of
jurisdiction in that petitioners’ petition to this Court was
filed in violation of the automatic stay. We hold we shall.
Background
On April 9, 2004, respondent issued to petitioners a notice
of deficiency determining a $2,107 deficiency in their 2001
Federal income tax. On the same day, respondent issued to
petitioners a second notice of deficiency determining a $2,557
deficiency in their 2002 Federal income tax. On May 20, 2004,
petitioners filed a petition for relief under chapter 13 of the
Bankruptcy Code with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
1(...continued)
applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code, and Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011