- 12 -
previously issued administrative guidance in the form of a Chief
Counsel Advisory (cited above) concluding that the issuance of a
final notice of intent to levy to a person with an open
bankruptcy case would violate the automatic stay. Considering
respondent’s administrative guidance on this specific point, we
disagree with respondent that petitioner should be estopped.
Considering all the circumstances, we decline to apply an
equitable principle to bar consideration of the validity of the
final notice of intent to levy.
We recently noted that collection activity undertaken in
violation of the automatic stay generally is considered void or
invalid. See Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. __ (2005) (citing
9B Am. Jur. 2d, Bankruptcy, sec. 1756 (1999)). The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the court to which an appeal in
this case would lie, adheres to this view. See Middle Tenn. News
Co. v. Charnel of Cincinnati, Inc., 250 F.3d 1077, 1082 (7th Cir.
2001).
In sum, we conclude that the final notice of intent to levy
was issued to petitioner in violation of the automatic stay, and
therefore, it was invalid. It follows that respondent abused his
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011