- 10 -
barred respondent from issuing to petitioner the final notice of
intent to levy dated November 26, 2001.6
Our holding that the issuance to petitioner of the final
notice of intent to levy violated the automatic stay is
consistent with both bankruptcy case law and respondent’s
administrative guidance. See In re Parker, 279 Bankr. 596,
602-603 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2002) (The Commissioner conceded, and
the bankruptcy court held, that the issuance of a final notice of
intent to levy under section 6330 violated the automatic stay.);
In re Covington, 256 Bankr. 463, 465-466 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2000)
(The bankruptcy court held that a final notice of intent to levy
did not constitute a notice and demand for payment within the
meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 362(b)(9)(D)) and that such notice
was issued to the debtor in violation of the stay); see also
Chief Counsel Adv. 00-18-005 (May 5, 2000) (A Final Notice of
Intent to Levy issued to a person who had filed a bankruptcy
petition violated the automatic stay and was void).
At this point, a brief comment regarding the Court’s
jurisdiction is warranted. We recently held in Smith v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. __, that a notice of determination under
section 6330 issued to a taxpayer/debtor while the automatic stay
was in effect was invalid, and we dismissed the case for lack of
6 Respondent does not contend that the final notice of
intent to levy qualified under any of the exceptions to the
automatic stay prescribed in 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(b)(2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011