- 19 -
review process. In sum, the differences in the cases that the
estate points to are not meaningful.
B. Respondent’s Motion To Stay Proceedings
Respondent contends that, considering the procedural posture
of the Kanter deficiency cases, this collection case should be
stayed until final decisions are entered in the deficiency cases.
The estate opposes respondent’s motion to stay solely on the same
legal theory underlying its motion for abatement of assessments;
i.e., that the assessments are invalid and the liens should be
released.
We recognize that granting respondent’s motion to stay
proceedings, in effect maintaining the status quo, would preserve
his position in relation to other creditors, while the estate’s
assets would remain under the cloud cast by respondent’s lien.
However, practical realities weigh in favor of granting
respondent’s motion. In particular, if we do not stay this case,
it will be calendared for trial in due course. Given that we do
not know the exact amount (if any) of the estate’s tax liability
at this time, we risk wasting valuable judicial resources
addressing the question whether the Appeals Office abused its
discretion in rejecting the estate’s offer-in-compromise. Under
all the circumstances, we conclude that the interests of justice
would best be served by staying this case until the amount of the
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