- 6 -
collection actions; (2) the taxpayer filed a bankruptcy petition;
and (3) the taxpayer filed with the Court a petition for lien or
levy action. In granting the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction, we noted that the taxpayer had fallen
victim to a trap for the unwary in that the automatic stay that
arose by operation of law upon the filing of her bankruptcy
petition barred her from subsequently filing a petition with the
Court. Moreover, in the absence of a tolling provision in the
collection review provisions similar to that contained in section
6213(f),5 the taxpayer lost the opportunity to contest the
Commissioner’s notice of determination in this Court.
The facts in the present cases are materially different from
those in Prevo v. Commissioner, supra. As previously described,
these cases developed as follows: (1) Petitioner filed a
bankruptcy petition; (2) the Commissioner issued to petitioner
notices of determination concerning collection actions; and (3)
petitioner filed with the Court petitions for lien or levy
action.
5Although 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8) (2000) bars the
commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the Tax
Court, by reason of sec. 6213(f) the period for filing a petition
for redetermination of a deficiency with the Tax Court under sec.
6213(a) is suspended for the period during which the taxpayer is
prohibited by reason of the automatic stay from filing a petition
in this Court and for 60 days thereafter. See Olson v.
Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1314, 1318-1319 (1986), and cases cited
therein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011