- 12 -
cases, and, therefore, respondent is obliged to release the
liens. We disagree.
We begin our analysis by noting that there is no suggestion
that respondent acted improperly in assessing the deficiencies
and additions to tax set forth in the decisions that the Court
entered in the Kanter deficiency cases or in filing a notice of
Federal tax lien against the estate. In this regard, section
7485(a) provides in pertinent part that the filing of a notice of
appeal from a Tax Court decision under section 7483 “shall not
operate as a stay of assessment or collection of any portion of
the amount of the deficiency determined by the Tax Court” unless
the taxpayer has filed with the Court (1) a bond in a sum fixed
by the Tax Court (not exceeding double the amount of the portion
of the deficiency being appealed) and with surety approved by the
Tax Court or (2) a jeopardy bond. The estate did not file an
appeal bond as described in section 7485(a) at the time it filed
its notices of appeal in the Kanter deficiency cases.
Consequently, respondent entered assessments against the estate
in accordance with this Court’s decisions, and, contemporaneously
with that action, a lien under section 6321 arose in favor of
respondent by operation of section 6322. To give vitality to the
lien against the estate’s other creditors, if any, respondent was
obliged under section 6323(a) to file a notice of Federal tax
lien. This respondent did.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011