- 5 -
properly invoked the Court’s jurisdiction, and (2) stay any
further proceedings pending the final disposition of petitioner’s
bankruptcy case. Petitioner did not aver that the bankruptcy
court had granted relief from the automatic stay, or that the
automatic stay otherwise was no longer in effect, on the date the
petitions were filed.
Discussion
It is well settled that the Court’s jurisdiction in a
collection review case under section 6330 depends upon the
issuance of a valid notice of determination and the filing of a
timely petition for review. See Sarrell v. Commissioner, 117
T.C. 122, 125 (2001); Moorhous v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 263, 269
(2001); see also Rule 330(b).
In a recent case, Prevo v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 326
(2004), we granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction in a collection review case on the ground the
petition for lien or levy action was filed with the Court in
violation of the automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. section
362(a)(8) (2000).4 In Prevo v. Commissioner, supra, the sequence
of relevant events unfolded as follows: (1) The Commissioner
issued to the taxpayer a notice of determination concerning
411 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8) (2000) expressly bars “the
commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the United
States Tax Court concerning the debtor.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011