TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Traci Standifer & Michael X. Henderson
Docket Number: 2518-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/10/2009
Pages: 8

. A . U, -69/L UO._ a, (V Lam , UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 TRACI STANDIFER & MICHAEL X . HENDERSON, Petitioners v COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent Docket No . 2518-09S . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s . ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent ,a copy of the pages of the transcript of the hearing of the above case before Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . at Dallas, Texas, on December 1, 2009, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the hearing . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an Order and Order of Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction will be entered . (Signed ) Robert N . Armen, Jr. Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . December 10, 2009 2 1 Bench Opinion by'Special Trial Judge Robert N . Armen, Jr . 2 Traci Standifer & Michael X . Henderso n 3 Docket Number 2518-09S December 1, 200 9 4 I . THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDING S 6 OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE, AND THE FOLLOWIN G 7 REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDING OF FACT AND OPINION . I I .. This proceeding was heard as a Small Tax Cas e 10 pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the 11 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended . 1 2 III . 13 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 14 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Interna l 15 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax 16 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 17 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, and unless 18 otherwise indicated, all section numbers refer to th e 19 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended . 20 IV . 21 Traci Standifer and Michael X . Henderson 22 appeared on their own behalf . Linda L . Wong appeared on 23. behalf of Respondent . 2 4 25 V . By Notice dated and served June 29, 2009 , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 this case was calendared for trial at the Court's trial 2 session beginning on November 30, 2009, in Dallas, Texas . 3 However, on October 5, 2009, respondent filed a Notice of 4 Proceeding in Bankruptcy notifying the Court tha t 5 "pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U .S .C . Section 6 362(a)(8), this Court should stay its proceedings with 7 respect to the petitioners, Traci Standifer and Michael 8 X . Henderson, who on December 1, 2008 filed a Chapter 13 9 petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court for th e 10 Northern District of Texas under 11 U .S .C . Chapter 13 11 after filing a timely petition with this Court o n 12 February 2, 2009 . 13 In the preamble to .an Order to Show Cause 14 dated and served October 8, 2009, this Court observed 15 tha t 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 "the record demonstrates that petitioners filed their petition in bankruptcy before filing a petition with this Court ; and it would appear that the bankruptcy case was ongoing at the time that the petition was filed with this Court . Under thes e circumstances, it would appear that this Court lacks jurisdiction and that the instant case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the petitio n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 herein was filed in violation of th e 2 automatic stay provided by 11 U .S .C . sec . 3 362(a) .11 4 This Court then ordered the parties to show cause in 5 writing on or before October 27, 2009, why this cas e 6 should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the 7 ground that the petition was filed in violation of the 8 automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code . 9 Neither petitioners nor respondent responded 10 to the Court's October 8, 200J Order to Show Cause . B y 11 Order to Show Cause dated November 5, 2009, and served 12 November 6, 2009, the Court ordered the parties to show 13 cause in person at Dallas, Texas why this case should not 14 be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that 15 the petition was filed in violation of the automatic stay 16 provisions of the Bankruptcy Code . 17 On November 20, 2009, prior to the show cause 18 hearing , respondent filed an Amended Notice of Proceeding 19 in Bankruptcy . In the amended notice, responden t 20 acknowledged that petitioners filed their petition in 21 bankruptcy before filing a petition with the Tax Court . 22 Nevertheless , respondent again notified the Court that 23 pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code, the Court should stays 24 its proceedings with respect to petitioners, who o n 25 December 1, 2008, filed a Chapter 13 petition with the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District 2 of Texas under 11 U .S .C . Chapter 13 before filing a 3 timely petition with this Court on February 2, 2009 . 4 Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in 5 Dallas, Texas on December 1, 2009 . 6 VI . 7 Because this Court may only hear and decide a 8 case on the merits if it has jurisdiction, the threshold 9 issue for decision is necessarily whether the petition i n 10 this case was filed in violation of the automatic stay 11 provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, i .e ., 11 U .S .C . 12 section 362(a)(8) . If the petition was filed in 13 violation of the automatic stay provisions of th e 14 Bankruptcy Code, then the law requires that we dismiss 15 this case for lack of jurisdiction . 16 VII . 17 The facts necessary to a resolution of the 18 jurisdictional issue are as follows : 19 On November 3, 2008, respondent issued a 20 notice of deficiency to petitioners . See sec . 6212 . The 21 notice determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federa l 22 income taxes for the taxable years 2004, 2005, and 2006 23 in the amounts of $6,331, $13,214, and $11,011 , 24 respectively . 25 On December 1, 2008, petitioners filed a Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 6 1 voluntary petition for debt adjustment under chapter 13 2 of the Bankruptcy Code . with the United States Bankruptcy 3 Court for the Easter District of Texas, Sherman Division . 4 The petition for debt adjustment was docketed by th e 5 Bankruptcy Court as Bankruptcy Petition Number 08-43266 6 and assigned to Judge Brenda T . Rhoades . 7 On February 2, 2009, petitioners filed, a 8 petition for redetermination with this Court in respect 9 of the foregoing notice of deficiency . See section 10 6213(a) . The petition was received by the Court in an 11 envelope bearing a private postmeter postmark date of 12 January 31, 2009 . At the time that the petition wa s 13 filed with this Court, petitioners resided in the State 14 of Texas . 15 As of February 2, 2009, the . date that the 16 petition for redetermination was filed with this Court, 17 the petition for debt adjustment was pending before the 18 Bankruptcy Court . Also as of February 2, 2009, no order 19 had been issued by the Bankruptcy Court either granting 20 or denying a discharge, nor had that court issued an y 21 order lifting the automatic stay imposed by section 22 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code . 23 VIII . 24 The Bankruptcy Code, and in particular 11 25 U .S .C . section 362(a )( 8) as amended by the Bankruptcy Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7 1 Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 , 2 Public Law 109-8, 119 Stat . 23 (April 20, 2005), provides 3 as relevant herein that the filing of a petition i n 4 bankruptcy invokes an automatic stay with respect to the 5 commencement or continuation of a proceeding before the 6 Tax Court concerning the tax liability of a debtor who is 7 an individual for a taxable period ending before the date 8 of the order for relief under Title 11 . See Allison v . 9 10 Commissioner , 97 T .C . 544, 545 (1991) ; Halpern v . Commissioner , 96 T .C . 895, 897-898 (1991) . The period 11 that the automatic stay remains in effect is generally 12 prescribed in 11 U .S .C . section 362(c) . As relevant, 13 that section provides that unless relief from th e 14 automatic stay is granted by order of the Bankruptc y 15 Court, see 11 U .S .C . section 362(d), the automatic stay 16 generally remains in effect until the earliest of the 17 closing of the case, dismissal of the case, or th e 18 granting or denial of a discharge . 11 U .S .C . sec . 19 362(c)(2) ; see Allison v . Commissioner , supra at 545 ; 20 21 Smith v . Commissioner , 96 T .C . 10, 14 (1991) ; Neilson v . Commissioner , 94 T .C . 1, 8 (1990 ) 22 In the present case, the date of the orde r 23 for relief under Title 11 was December 1, 2008, i .e ., the 24 date that petitioners filled their voluntary petition for 25 debt adjustment under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 See 11 U .S .C . sec . 302(a) . Thus, the automatic stay 2 became operative on December 1, 2008, and the automatic 3 stay was in effect on the date that petitioners file d 4 their petition for redetermination with the Tax Court on 5 February 2, 2009 . Thus, because the petition fo r 6 redetermination was filed in violation of the automati c 7 stay, we are constrained to dismiss this case for lack of 8 jurisdiction . 9 IX . 10 In order to give effect to the foregoing, an 11 appropriate Order and Order of Dismissal for Lack o f 12 jurisdiction will be entered making absolute our Orders 13 to Show Cause dated October 8, 2009, and November 5 , 14 2009, and dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction 15 on the ground that the petition was filed in violation of 16 the automatic stay imposed by 11 U .S .C . sectio n 17 362(a)(8) . 18 X . 19 THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF 20 FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE . 21 (Whereupon, at 11 :09 a .m ., the bench opinion 22 was concluded . ) 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888