- 3 -
because there is no timely petition. We agree. Although
petitioners filed their petition with the Court on March 21,
2005, that petition was filed in violation of the automatic stay
of 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(8) and (c) (2000). The automatic
stay arises by operation of law upon the commencement of a
bankruptcy action and, absent a granting of relief from the stay
by the bankruptcy court, see 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(d) (2000),
generally continues unimpaired until the earliest of the closing
of the case, the dismissal of the case, or the grant or denial of
a discharge. See 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(c)(2); see also Allison v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 544, 545 (1991); Smith v. Commissioner,
96 T.C. 10, 14 (1991). Actions prohibited by the automatic stay
include “the commencement * * * of a proceeding before the United
States Tax Court concerning the debtor”, 11 U.S.C. sec.
362(a)(8), and actions taken in violation of the automatic stay
are void ab initio, see Roberts v. Commissioner, 175 F.3d 889,
893 n.3 (11th Cir. 1999). Petitioners’ filing of their petition
with this Court is void ab initio and, hence, a nullity.
Petitioners argue that respondent has waived the right to
challenge this Court’s jurisdiction. We disagree. Whether the
Court has jurisdiction is an issue that either party may raise at
any time, and the failure to question our jurisdiction by a
certain time is not a waiver of the right to do so. See Ins.
Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011