- 10 -
Consequently, on October 27, 2003, Appeals Officer Kaplan advised
Mr. Burke that the collection action could and would proceed
against petitioner. In addition, Appeals Officer Kaplan advised
Mr. Burke that information previously requested had not been
received by the Appeals Office and that the Appeals Office would
close the case and issue a determination based on information
already in its possession unless Mr. Burke submitted the
information immediately. Appeals Officer Kaplan did not receive
the requested information and closed the case file on October 29,
2003. Subsequently, respondent sent petitioner a notice of
determination (notice of determination), determining that all
statutory administrative and procedural requirements had been met
and that available information did not establish that an offer-
in-compromise was a viable collection alternative. On January
29, 2004, the Appeals Office issued to Barbara Drake a Final
Notice of Determination Concerning Your Request for Relief from
Joint and Several Liability under I.R.C. sec. 6015, denying the
requested relief. This Court dismissed Barbara Drake’s
8(...continued)
(2) the case is closed, dismissed, or converted to
a case under chapter 7 or 11 of this title.
Respondent contends that tax debt is not considered consumer debt
for purposes of 11 U.S.C. sec. 1301(a). In re Stovall, 209
Bankr. 849 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1997); In re Dye, 190 Bankr. 566
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995). Consequently, respondent contends that
the stay of 11 U.S.C. sec. 1301(a) did not preclude the
collection action against petitioner. In the instant case,
petitioner does not dispute respondent’s contention that the stay
did not preclude collection against petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011