- 5 -
compromise-–the sole issue that petitioner purportedly raised
during the administrative proceedings-–because petitioner was not
current in filing her tax returns at that time.
Respondent’s motion was called for hearing at the Court’s
motions session held in Washington, D.C. During the hearing,
counsel for respondent informed the Court that respondent had
recently discovered that the final notice of intent to levy was
issued to petitioner while petitioner’s first bankruptcy case
remained open. The Court subsequently directed respondent to
file a supplement to his motion addressing the question whether
the final notice of intent to levy was issued to petitioner in
violation of the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. section
362(a)(2000). Respondent filed a supplement, as directed, and
the matter was called for further hearing at the Court’s motions
session. Respondent maintains that while the issuance of the
final notice of intent to levy may have violated the automatic
stay, petitioner should nevertheless be estopped from arguing
that the final notice of intent to levy was issued in violation
of the automatic stay because she failed to inform respondent
during the administrative proceedings that she had filed a
bankruptcy petition.4
4 Upon questioning by the Court, respondent was hesitant to
acknowledge that the final notice of intent to levy violated the
automatic stay. In a footnote to his supplement to the motion
for summary judgment, respondent states that “it is not clear
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011