Thomas H. Cassel III & Jonita M. Cassel - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          U.S. 694, 702 (1982); Charlotte’s Office Boutique, Inc. v.                  
          Commissioner, 121 T.C. 89, 102 (2003), supplemented by T.C. Memo.           
          2004-43, affd. 425 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2005); Reagoso v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-450, affd. without published                  
          opinion 39 F.3d 1171 (3d Cir. 1994).                                        
               Petitioners also argue that respondent’s motion should be              
          denied because they are time barred from petitioning this Court             
          with respect to the notice of deficiency.  We disagree.  Because            
          the automatic stay was in effect when the petition was filed, the           
          petition is invalid and must be dismissed for lack of                       
          jurisdiction.                                                               

                                        An order will be issued granting              
                                   respondent’s motion and directing that             
                                   this case be dismissed for lack of                 
                                   jurisdiction.                                      




















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  

Last modified: May 25, 2011