-9-
the liability for purposes of section 6330(c)(2)(B). See
Kendricks v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 69 (2005). We noted that 11
U.S.C. sec. 505(a) (2000) empowers a bankruptcy court in a
bankruptcy proceeding to determine “the amount or legality of any
tax, any fine or penalty relating to a tax, or any addition to
tax, whether or not previously assessed, whether or not paid, and
whether or not contested before and adjudicated by a judicial or
administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction.” In that
respondent in this case filed a proof of claim in petitioners’
previous bankruptcy case, we conclude on the basis of Kendricks
that petitioner had the opportunity to dispute his underlying tax
liability before commencing this lawsuit and thus may not do so
in this proceeding.
Respondent and petitioner rely upon Washington v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 114 (2003). We conclude that this
reliance is misplaced. In Washington, the taxpayers challenged
the appropriateness of respondent’s proposed collection action
because, they stated, a bankruptcy court had discharged them from
the unpaid tax liabilities underlying the proposed action. Id.
at 120 n.9. Section 6330(c)(2)(A)(ii) specifically provides that
a person may challenge the appropriateness of a collection action
at a hearing conducted under section 6330. Here, by contrast,
petitioner makes no assertion that the bankruptcy court
discharged him from any of the liabilities now sought by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011