- 6 -
1995 and 1985 tax years reflect that the application of the funds
from petitioners’ 1995 account to their outstanding 1985 tax
liability occurred on January 15, 1996. Petitioners did not file
their bankruptcy petition until October 15, 1996. Therefore, the
Court concludes that there could not have been a violation of any
bankruptcy order prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition.
In any event, if the IRS has violated an order of the
bankruptcy court, it has not been definitively established that
the authority of this Court extends to such questions and, if so,
the appropriate remedy for such violation.2 Even if we had the
authority, this Court might still defer to the bankruptcy court
based on comity and judicial efficiency, as well as our
recognition that this Court does not deal with bankruptcy matters
and does not have the expertise that the bankruptcy court would.
Meadows v. Commissioner, 95 AFTR 2d 2005-1785, 2005-1 USTC par.
50274 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Washington v. Commissioner, 120
T.C. 114, 125 (2003) (Wells, J., concurring)).
2We note that actions against creditors for violations of
automatic stays are to be brought in the bankruptcy court. See
11 U.S.C. sec. 362(h) (2000); see also Meadows v. Commissioner,
95 AFTR 2d 2005-1785, 2005-1 USTC par. 50274 (11th Cir. 2005)
(citing Langlois v. United States, 155 Bankr. 818 (N.D.N.Y.
1993)) (sitting in bankruptcy jurisdiction and holding that the
IRS’s application of a collected amount to penalties that were to
be discharged in bankruptcy was a violation of the automatic
stay). Thus, it is clear that the bankruptcy court is more
knowledgeable than the Tax Court about the scope and effect of
the automatic stay and about appropriate remedies.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011