- 25 -
Petitioners herein have presented no facts to support a
finding that their bankruptcy estate contained no assets. We
need not consider a no-asset bankruptcy situation. Further, in
section 6503(h), unlike section 6503(b), there is no reference to
assets nor reason to infer that thereunder the suspension of the
limitations period lasts only as long as there are assets of the
taxpayer in the control of the court.
Lastly, petitioners argue that section 6503(h)(2) did not
suspend the collection period of limitations as to petitioners’
postpetition assets, and petitioners argue that as to their
postpetition assets the 10-year collection period of limitations
expired before respondent’s 2005 NFTL and before petitioners
requested their Appeals Office collection hearing.
However, the automatic stay prevented respondent, during
the bankruptcy proceeding, from collecting any of petitioners’
assets. Bankruptcy Code sec. 362(a)(1), (6); see also Smith v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 44 (2005). Therefore, the collection
period of limitations was suspended even as to petitioners’
postpetition assets.
For the reasons stated, this Court sua sponte will dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction all issues pertaining to respondent’s
2005 notice of levy, we shall deny petitioners’ motion for
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008