DocketNumber: Docket No. 24231-88
Filed Date: 12/27/1990
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
*723
*2152 MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case was assigned pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) of the Code and Rule 180 et seq. Additions to tax Year Tax Sec. 6653(b) Sec. 6654 Sec. 6661 1980 $ 4,962.40 $ 2,481.00 $ 211.00 -- 1981 34,512.86 17,257.00 2,415.00 -- 1982 30,757.00 15,379.00 1,169.00 $ 7,689.00 1983 14,766.00 7,383.00 789.00 3,692.00
When petitioner timely filed his petition herein he was a resident of San Francisco, California. On February 3, 1989, after the filing of his petition, petitioner filed a petition under Chapter 7 with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. As a result of that proceeding, the automatic stay provisions of
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the automatic*727 stay provisions are terminated by operation of law and that this case should be restored to the general docket for trial on the substantive issues in the case. He also contends that the bankruptcy was a "no asset" bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 7 in which creditors were not required to file claims and respondent did not do so. We agree with respondent that the automatic stay provision has been terminated and this case should be restored to the general docket.
We will not consider whether the tax deficiencies are discharged. We held, in
As a general rule, the Tax Court's jurisdiction to consider tax matters depends on a notice of deficiency and a timely filed petition. Rule 13; secs. *728 6212 and 6213. This Court has limited jurisdiction conferred by statute. See sec. 7442;
In exercising our jurisdiction to redetermine deficiencies, we are without jurisdiction to "allow or disallow a claim against a debtor's estate * * * or to discharge taxes as a bankruptcy court might."
We held to similar effect in
Both parties are in agreement that the automatic stay under
Further, we decline the request of petitioner to ascertain which party has the obligation, if any, of going forward to the bankruptcy court for a ruling on dischargeability. Just as we have no jurisdiction to decide whether taxes are discharged, we similarly have no jurisdiction to decide which, if any, party has the obligation to go to the bankruptcy court to seek a ruling on whether the taxes have been discharged. We do, however, have jurisdiction to redetermine the taxes for the years in question, and in order to do that, our stay order will be terminated and this matter will be restored to the general docket.
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the year in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
*. The correct statutory reference is section 6653(b)(1) for each year. Respondent also determined an addition to interest in 1982 and 1983 under section 6653(b)(2).↩
2. All references to 11 U.S.C. are to the 1988 edition.↩