-4-
On December 13, 2005, before this Court held a trial of this
case, this Court ordered the case stayed on account of the
bankruptcy petition and the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. sec.
362(a)(8) (2000). On February 15, 2006, the bankruptcy court
dismissed petitioner’s bankruptcy case and vacated the automatic
stay. Petitioner moved the bankruptcy court to vacate its order
of dismissal. On March 8, 2006, the bankruptcy court denied
petitioner’s motion, stating: “The debtor [petitioner] failed to
appear at two scheduled creditors meetings and such failures were
not satisfactorily explained. In addition, the motion was not
served on the trustee or creditors in accordance with Local
Rules.” On March 22, 2006, this Court ordered that the automatic
stay was no longer in effect as to this case.
Discussion
Whether a corporation may engage in litigation in this Court
is determined by applicable State law, which here is the law of
California. See Rule 60(c); see also David Dung Le, M.D., Inc.
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 268, 270-271 (2000), affd. 22 Fed.
Appx. 837 (9th Cir. 2001); Condo v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 149,
151 (1977). On the basis of our review of that law, in
particular Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code secs. 23301 and 23302, we
conclude that petitioner, although it had the capacity to
commence this case upon the filing of its petition with this
Court, now lacks the requisite capacity to continue prosecuting
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011