§362 — Basis to corporations

Unlike the taxpayers in those cases, petitioners are not challenging the appropriateness of the imposition of the 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) automatic stay; rather, we are focused exclusively on determining whether an automatic stay that has been properly applied under 11 U.S.C.

362(a). Therefore, because 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a) does not apply to petitioner, respondent's collectionaction was not subject to a bankruptcy stay.

14, 2005, this amendment does not apply here .

362(a)(8) (2000) does not apply to this proceeding .

Therefore, we need not decide whether "against debtor" also encompasses any in rem actions .

Section 362 deals only with the basis of certain property to a corporation. The basis adjustment under section 362(c) has no bearing on whether the disbursement of grant proceeds by Empire State to petitioner qualified as a nonshareholder contribution to capital under section 118(a). To the contrary, Congress implied that money 16 contributed to a

section 362 separately. The so-called “exploding stay” of paragraph (3) appeared first in H.R. 3150, 105th Cong. (1998), entitled the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1998, introduced February 3, 1998; and paragraph (4) first appeared eight months later in the House conference report to H.R. 3150 on October 7, 1998. See H. Rept. 105-540, at 54 (1998); H. C

tomatic stay of Tax Court proceedings concerning the debtor. Actions which are'subject to the automatic stay are set forth in 11 U.S.C. section 362(a). At the time Mr. Kovitch filed for bankruptcy, 11 U.S.C. section 362(a) provided in relevant part: § 362. Automatic stay (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302, or 303 of this title, or an application filed under section 5(a)(3) of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, operates a

362 (b) (9) (D) (1994) . Because petitioner filed for bankruptcy on Apr. 7, 1994, the 1994 amendment to the bankruptcy code is inapplicable. 5 There are no Tax Court cases which define when a claim arises for income taxes in bankruptcy proceedings. I - 6 - Petitioner argues the Internal Revenue Service has a contemporaneous right to the payme

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings rea ized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

Thus, it is asserted that Decision Holdings, under section 362, had a carryover of TG's basis in the assets the limited partnership transferred to it, so that Decision Holdings realized a $1,073,835 loss on the sale of those assets to Autochthon.

led to appear at the face-to-face hearings. We therefore find no merit to petitioner's argument. B. Challenges to the Collection Action Petitioner asserts that respondent disregarded the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C.,sec. 362 (2006). We disagree. The .automatic stay.generally remains in effect until the earliest ofthe closing ofthe case, the - 18 - dismissal ofthe case, or the grant or denial ofa discharge. Id. sec. 362(c)(2); Prevo v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. 326,

d in the amount of gain recognized to the transferor on such transfer. The applicability of section 351 to the Kolonaki/GRS exchange is not in controversy. Similarly, it is not disputed that Kolonaki controlled GRS after the exchange as required by section 362. The use of fair market value by GRS to determine the basis of the assets is inappropriate. The present facts fit squarely within the language of the Code. Therefore, we sustain respondent's determination that the value of the opening inve

By including the $7 million debt in its basis for Orland Park, SRI underreported its income on the sale ofthe subdivision lots for 2005 and 2006. Petitioners argue that ifwe recharacterize the land transfer as a capital contribution, the income resulting from the sale ofthe subdivision lots should be taxed as capital gain under section 12

By including the $7 million debt in its basis for Orland Park, SRI underreported its income on the sale ofthe subdivision lots for 2005 and 2006. Petitioners argue that ifwe recharacterize the land transfer as a capital contribution, the income resulting from the sale ofthe subdivision lots should be taxed as capital gain under section 12

By including the $7 million debt in its basis for Orland Park, SRI underreported its income on the sale ofthe subdivision lots for 2005 and 2006. Petitioners argue that ifwe recharacterize the land transfer as a capital contribution, the income resulting from the sale ofthe subdivision lots should be taxed as capital gain under section 12

By including the $7 million debt in its basis for Orland Park, SRI underreported its income on the sale ofthe subdivision lots for 2005 and 2006. Petitioners argue that ifwe recharacterize the land transfer as a capital contribution, the income resulting from the sale ofthe subdivision lots should be taxed as capital gain under section 12

By including the $7 million debt in its basis for Orland Park, SRI underreported its income on the sale ofthe subdivision lots for 2005 and 2006. Petitioners argue that ifwe recharacterize the land transfer as a capital contribution, the income resulting from the sale ofthe subdivision lots should be taxed as capital gain under section 12

362 is still in effect because his bankruptcy was - 12 - [*12] reopened and (2) the additional $8,334 assessed for 2009 had not been previously assessed and was not stipulated in his case at docket No. 1146-12. Petitioner requested that he be awarded (1) "costs in connection with the filing of this petition" and (2) "the attorneys fees I have

(b) The tax basis for the Assets transferred from Parent to Sub- sidiary in the Contribution was a carryovertax basis in accordance with Section 362 ofthe Code.

(b) The tax basis for the Assets transferred from Parent to Sub- sidiary in the Contribution was a carryovertax basis in accordance with Section 362 ofthe Code.

(b) The tax basis for the Assets transferred from Parent to Sub- sidiary in the Contribution was a carryovertax basis in accordance with Section 362 ofthe Code.

_ 9 _ [*9] than that listed by petitioner on his Form 433-A (i.e., $5,535). Thus, the Table reflected monthly disposable income of$8,279 (i.e., $14,721 minus $6,442). On September 12, 2013, the SO faxed the Table with explanation to petitioner's representative and stated: Ifyou wish a collection alternative or want to supply addit

However, section 358(e) provides that section 358(a) does not apply to property acquired by a corporation by the exchange ofits stock as consideration in whole or in part for the transfer ofproperty to it.

That is ecause, according to respondent, the Ralphs transaction qualifies as a .reorganization under section 368 (a) (1),(B) , (C) ,- and (G) , and consequently RHC has' a carryover basis u der section 362 in t respective Ralphs common stock that its received from Holdings III and Allied., See sec.

That is ecause, according to respondent, the Ralphs transaction qualifies as a .reorganization under section 368 (a) (1),(B) , (C) ,- and (G) , and consequently RHC has' a carryover basis u der section 362 in t respective Ralphs common stock that its received from Holdings III and Allied., See sec.

(b) The tax basis for the ¯Canadian currency transferred from Parent to Subsidiary in the Contribu- tion was a carryover tax basis in accordance with Section 362 of the [Internal Revenue] Code.

362 (2000) as to any action that he took with respect to the subject liability . We likewise find no such action that violated the automatic stay . Cf . Beverly V. Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2005-41 (holding that a notice of intent to levy was invalid where .it was issued in violation of the automatic stay and that the Commissioner was there

Those findings and conclusions stated in pertinent part : 6 . Debtors [Mr . Hassell and Ms . Hassell] have for several years been involved in contentious litiga- tion with the IRS . In this Court, the Debtors have been uncooperative in discovery, have launched personal attacks on government counsel, and have begun to advance theories of

362 (b) (9) (D) (2000) . - 13 - (1994). Personal income taxes are due on the date the return is required to be filed. Sec. 6151(a); Holywell Corp. v. Smith, 503 U.S. 47, 58 (1992); Pan Am. Van Lines v. United States, 607 F.2d 1299, 1301 (9th Cir. 1979). Because the liability for the 1994 income tax arose .after the commencement of the case in

362 applied to petitioner as well as Barbara Drake, and that 11 U.S.C. sec. 1301 precluded any collection action against either Barbara Drake or petitioner. On October 27, 2003, Appeals Officer Kaplan requested legal advice from Attorney Forbes concerning the preclusion of any collection action against petitioner. Attorney Forbes advised that

section 362 (2000) and the collection review procedures established under sections 6320 and 6330. The Automatic Stay Title 11 of the United States Code provides uniform procedures designed to promote the effective rehabilitation of the bankrupt debtor and, when necessary, the equitable distribution of his or her assets. See H. Rept. 95-595, at 340

362(h) (2000); see also Meadows v. Commissioner, 95 AFTR 2d 2005-1785, 2005-1 USTC par. 50274 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Langlois v. United States, 155 Bankr. 818 (N.D.N.Y. 1993)) (sitting in bankruptcy jurisdiction and holding that the IRS’s application of a collected amount to penalties that were to be discharged in bankruptcy was a violation

month pursuant to the terms noted above. Pursuant to the Amended Order and Social Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-647, sec. 459, 88 Stat. 2357, amended by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-193, sec. 362, 110 Stat. 2242, codified at 42 U.S.C. sec. 659 (2000),4 the Defense Finance and Accounting 4The United States is required to withhold moneys due from the United States to any individual, including members of the Armed Forces, to enforce the

section 362 (2000) bars the commencement of a proceeding with the Court pursuant to the collection review procedures established under section 6320. -5- Before proceeding with our analysis, we briefly review both the automatic stay provisions and the collection review procedures. The Automatic Stay Title 11 of the United States Code provides unifo

Whether respondent violated the automatic stay under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code2 by auditing petitioner’s Forms 1040, U.S.

§362 is retroactively modified in favor of the United States of America (IRS) to permit the United States Tax Court to take all steps necessary to enter a Decision in Docket No. 26995-93 and conclude its case and to permit the IRS to assess the debtor's additional tax liabilities for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991. Since this Court had previously en

- 18 - Interlake v. Commissioner On March 18, 1999, the Court decided Interlake Corp. v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 103 (1999), on cross-motions for summary judgment. In the stipulation of facts and stipulation of settled issues in that case, the parties thereto, namely, Interlake and respondent, agreed that Interlake was the commo

The insurance claim survived the bankruptcy proceedings and remained an asset of BFI as of the close of the 1995 tax year. In those proceedings, the insurance claim was assigned a zero value. However, a disclosure statement dated Aug. 22, 1994, noted that “debtor believes that perhaps as much as $1 - 4 million could be recovered on

362 (1994) from the accuracy- related penalty for negligence. As a general rule, the filing of a petition in bankruptcy operates to stay the commencement or continuation of any action or proceeding against the debtor. 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a) (1994). However, 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(b)(9) (1994) provides an exception to the automatic stay for audits c

362 (1994); Freytag v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 35, 39 (1998). -- 2255 -- IV. Conclusion Congress enacted the TEFRA partnership provisions to separate the determination of partnership items from the determination of nonpartnership items. Nevertheless, it bears remembering that the partnership pays no tax, and it is the partners’ tax liabilities

In December 1994, Wells Fargo moved the bankruptcy court for relief from the automatic stay and requested permission to conduct a trustee’s sale of petitioner’s San Francisco residence. Petitioner opposed the relief from stay on the ground that the property had a value substantially greater than the outstanding debt. On January 23,

362 (1994); Freytag v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 35, 39 (1998).

Respondent subsequently filed an amended answer to the corporation's amendment to petition, responding that the appropriate amount of the section 362 adjustment was either $280,477 or the actual amount of net capital gain ultimately recognized by the Bowdens on the transfer of assets to the corporation.

505(c) (1994) provides: Notwithstanding section 362 of this title, after determination by the [bankruptcy] court of a tax under this section, the governmental unit charged with responsibility for collection of such tax may assess such tax against the estate, the debtor, or a successor to the debtor, as the case may be, subject to any otherwise applicable law.

An order granting relief from an automatic stay provided by section 362 * * * shall be [one of the] additional exceptions to Rule 62(a)." Fed.

505(c) (1994) provides: Notwithstanding section 362 of this title, after determination by the [bankruptcy] court of a tax under this section, the governmental unit charged with responsibility for collection of such tax may assess such tax against the estate, the debtor, or a successor to the debtor, as the case may be, subject to any otherwise applicable law.

An order granting relief from an automatic stay provided by section 362 * * * shall be [one of the] additional exceptions to Rule 62(a).” Fed.

362 (1994) on or about May 16, 1989, for the purpose of filing a petition and proceeding in the Tax court. - 27 - these mortgages is on the property where Ted’s Nursery had been, across the street from the Kenmore location. Gleave’s bankruptcy petition indicates that he was paid $550 per month ($6,600 per year) on this mortgage. Kenmore’s ban

d in the amount of gain recognized to the transferor on such transfer. The applicability of section 351 to the Kolonaki/GRS exchange is not in controversy. Similarly, it is not disputed that Kolonaki controlled GRS after the exchange as required by section 362. The use of fair market value by GRS to determine the basis of the assets is inappropriate. The present facts fit squarely within the language of the Code. Therefore, we sustain respondent's determination that the value of the opening inve

d in the amount of gain recognized to the transferor on such transfer. The applicability of section 351 to the Kolonaki/GRS exchange is not in controversy. Similarly, it is not disputed that Kolonaki controlled GRS after the exchange as required by section 362. The use of fair market value by GRS to determine the basis of the assets is inappropriate. The present facts fit squarely within the language of the Code. Therefore, we sustain respondent's determination that the value of the opening inve