- 8 -
affd. without published opinion 935 F.2d 1282 (3d Cir. 1991).
The Pietanza principle is particularly compelling in the present
cases inasmuch as the Court is confronted with two alternative
grounds for dismissal, one of which will have the effect of
denying petitioner the opportunity to obtain judicial review of
respondent’s notices of determination in this Court. See Prevo
v. Commissioner, supra.
Before proceeding with our analysis, we first review the
pertinent portions of the automatic stay provisions set forth in
11 U.S.C. section 362 (2000) and the collection review procedures
established under sections 6320 and 6330.
The Automatic Stay
Title 11 of the United States Code provides uniform
procedures designed to promote the effective rehabilitation of
the bankrupt debtor and, when necessary, the equitable
distribution of his or her assets. See H. Rept. 95-595, at 340
(1977). One key to achieving these aims is the automatic stay,
which generally operates to temporarily bar actions against or
concerning the debtor or property of the debtor or the bankruptcy
estate. See Allison v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 544, 545 (1991);
Halpern v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 895, 897-898 (1991).
The automatic stay provisions are set forth in 11 U.S.C.
section 362(a) (2000), which provides in pertinent part:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011