- 8 - granted,[6] because they were imposed with respect to transactions or events that occurred more than three years before the filing of the petition. * * * On December 24, 2003, Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell filed a notice of appeal with the District Court regarding the Bankruptcy Court’s final judgment with respect to the adversary proceedings. On November 30, 2004, the District Court affirmed that final judgment. On February 12, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to a motion that the United States filed in Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case requesting relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. sec. 362. Those findings and conclusions stated in pertinent part: 6. Debtors [Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell] have for several years been involved in contentious litiga- tion with the IRS. In this Court, the Debtors have been uncooperative in discovery, have launched personal attacks on government counsel, and have begun to advance theories of tax protest, questioning the federal income tax, the authority of the IRS to collect taxes, and the authority of a Department of Justice lawyer to represent the IRS. Those arguments are frivolous and have been rejected by this Court. * * * * * * * 4. The automatic stay of Section 362 will be lifted effective March 8, 2004. After that day the IRS may seek appropriate orders from Judge Fish to enforce the judgment [District Court judgment] obtained in his court. 6Mr. Hassell and Ms. Hassell were not granted a discharge under Chapter 7. On Sept. 3, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court dis- missed Mr. Hassell’s bankruptcy case.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011