                        T.C. Memo. 2014-231



                  UNITED STATES TAX COURT



           JANETTA LEE PERRY, Petitioner v.
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



Docket No. 13155-14.                          Filed November 10, 2014.



       P filed a petition for redetermination with this Court on June 6,
2014. Some 3½ hours later that same day P filed a petition for
bankruptcy with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
of California. Thereafter R moved to dismiss the case in this Court
for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the automatic stay imposed
by 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8) (2012) operated to bar the
commencement of a case in this Court.

       Held: P filed her petition with this Court before she filed her
petition with the bankruptcy court and thus before the automatic stay
took effect. Accordingly, P properly invoked this Court’s
jurisdiction.

      Held, further, R’s motion to dismiss will be denied.
                                         -2-

[*2] Janetta Lee Perry, pro se.

      John Chinnapongse, for respondent.



                           MEMORANDUM OPINION


      ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: This matter is before the Court on

respondent’s Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Jurisdiction, filed August 11, 2014.

Respondent moves to dismiss this case on the ground that petitioner filed a

petition for bankruptcy with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District

of California and is therefore precluded from filing a petition with this Court by

virtue of the automatic stay provided by 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8) (2012). For

reasons discussed hereinafter, we shall deny respondent’s motion.

                                    Background

      The record reflects and/or the parties do not dispute the following:

      At the time that the petition was filed, petitioner resided in the State of

California.

      By notice dated March 10, 2014, respondent determined a deficiency in

petitioner’s income tax for 2010 of $13,160 as well as a penalty for failure to

timely file under section 6651(a)(1) of $1,226.93 and a penalty for failure to
                                       -3-

[*3] timely pay under section 6551(a)(2) of $899.75.1 See sec. 6212(a). The

notice specified as follows: “Last Date to Petition Tax Court: June 9, 2014”. See

sec. 6213(a).

      On June 6, 2014, at 1:48 p.m. EDT, petitioner filed a petition for

redetermination with this Court, which petition served to commence the instant

case. See Rule 20(a). Later that same day, at 2:11 p.m. PDT, petitioner filed a

voluntary petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of

California, which petition served to commence a bankruptcy case under chapter 7

of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. Thus, petitioner’s bankruptcy petition was

filed approximately 3½ hours after petitioner’s Tax Court petition.

      By a Discharge Of Debtor And Final Decree dated September 17, 2014, the

bankruptcy court granted petitioner a discharge under 11 U.S.C. sec. 727 (2012)

and closed the bankruptcy case.

                                    Discussion

      Title 11 of the United States Code provides uniform procedures designed to

promote the effective rehabilitation of the bankrupt debtor and the equitable

distribution of her assets among her creditors. See Prevo v. Commissioner, 123

      1
        Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
                                          -4-

[*4] T.C. 326, 328-329 (2004); H.R. Rept. No. 95-595, at 340, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N.

5963, 6297 (1977). One element to achieving these objectives is the automatic

stay provided by 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a), “which generally operates to temporarily

bar actions against or concerning the debtor or property of the debtor or the

bankruptcy estate.” Prevo v. Commissioner, 123 T.C. at 328-329.

      The filing of a bankruptcy petition invokes the automatic stay, which

precludes the commencement or continuation of proceedings in this Court.

11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8); see Klein v. Commissioner, 135 T.C. 166, 169 (2010);

Guerra v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 271, 274 (1998); In re Rugroden, 481 B.R. 69,

74 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2012). The automatic stay generally remains in effect until

the earliest of the closing of the case, dismissal of the case, or the grant or denial

of a discharge. See 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(c)(2)(C); see also 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(d)

(permitting relief from the automatic stay upon order of the bankruptcy court); cf.

sec. 6213(f)(1).

      Petitioner filed her petition commencing the instant case with this Court

before she filed her petition with the bankruptcy court, albeit by only a few hours.

Because her case in this Court was commenced before the automatic stay came

into effect, the automatic stay cannot serve to preclude its antecedent

commencement. See 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a)(8). Accordingly, the petition filed
                                          -5-

[*5] herein was not filed in violation of the automatic stay, and petitioner properly

invoked this Court’s jurisdiction. See Kieu v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 387

(1995).

       Although 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a) did not bar the commencement of

proceedings in this Court, the continuation of proceedings in this Court is

generally stayed until (as discussed above) such time as the automatic stay is either

no longer in effect or is lifted by order of the bankruptcy court. See 11 U.S.C. sec.

362(c)(2)(C), (d).

       By order dated September 17, 2014, the bankruptcy court granted petitioner

a discharge and closed the bankruptcy case. Thus, the automatic stay terminated

on that day. See Sawyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-201, 2012 WL

2912751, at *2 n.7. Accordingly, the automatic stay does not serve to bar the

continuation of petitioner’s case in this Court, and we shall not therefore issue any

stay of proceedings on our own motion as we would otherwise do if the automatic

stay were still in effect.

       To give effect to the foregoing,


                                                      An order denying respondent’s

                                                motion will be issued.
