- 11 -
We do not need to decide whether Magana v. Commissioner,
supra, precludes our consideration of petitioner’s bankruptcy
discharge. Even if we were to assume arguendo that the effect of
the discharge may be considered, petitioner could not prevail in
the instant case because, for reasons explained below, we
conclude that petitioner’s tax debts remain collectible by levy.
Moreover, because we do not believe that it will be either
necessary or productive, we shall not remand this case to
respondent’s Appeals Office to consider petitioner’s arguments.
See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001).
II. Jurisdiction Over the Bankruptcy Discharge Issue.
This Court has jurisdiction in a levy proceeding instituted
under section 6330(d)(1) to decide whether a taxpayer’s unpaid
tax liabilities were discharged in bankruptcy. Swanson v.
Commissioner, supra at 117; see also Washington v. Commissioner,
120 T.C. 114, 120-121 (2003).
Title 11 section 523 provides exceptions to discharge from
bankruptcy. Bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction for
debts listed in 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2), (4), (6), and (15).
Title 11 section 523(c)(1); Swanson v. Commissioner, supra at 126
(citing In re McKendry, 40 F.3d 331, 335 (10th Cir. 1994); In re
Galbreath, 83 Bankr. 549, 550 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. 1988); Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 4007 Advisory Committee’s Note (1983); 4 Collier on
Bankruptcy, par. 523.03, at 523-17 (15th ed. rev. 1996)). “With
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