- 7 -
Like the taxpayer in Prevo v. Commissioner, supra,
petitioner filed his petitions for lien or levy action with the
Court after filing his bankruptcy petition and while the
automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(8) (2000)
remained in effect. The fact that respondent issued the notices
of determination in question after petitioner filed his
bankruptcy petition presents a ground for dismissal that was not
available in Prevo v. Commissioner, supra. Specifically, the
question arises whether respondent was barred by the automatic
stay from issuing the notices of determination to petitioner in
the first instance. If so, it would follow that these cases
should be dismissed on the ground that the notices of
determination were void or invalid.
The Court can, sua sponte, question its jurisdiction at any
time. Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191, 193 (2002); Neely
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287, 290 (2000); Romann v.
Commissioner, 111 T.C. 273, 280 (1998). Where the application of
the automatic stay may act as an impediment to the Court’s
jurisdiction in a collection review proceeding, it is incumbent
on the Court to determine the proper ground for dismissal. Cf.,
e.g., Pietanza v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 729, 735-736 (1989)
(holding that, where appropriate, the Court will dismiss on the
ground that the Commissioner failed to issue a valid notice of
deficiency rather than for lack of a timely filed petition),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011