He directs our attention to the following cases that he contends are more persuasive and relevant. Plains Buying & Selling Association, 5 B.T.A. 1147(1927); M. R. Hoffman, 7 B.T.A. 303(1927); Robert T. Cunningham, 20 B.T.A. 428(1930); Comas, Inc., 23 T.C. 8(1954); Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 30 B.T.A. 587(1934); Molly-‘es Doll-Outfitters, Inc., 38 B.T.A. 1(1938). The petitions were filed prior to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings in all of these cases except the last case cited.
In that case, decided under the old Bankruptcy Act and before the Bankruptcy Code was enacted (Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95–598, 92 Star. 2549), we held that where a bankruptcy court had decided all the issues that were before the Tax Court and the taxes had been assessed, the case should be dismissed for lack of “jurisdiction”. In reaching this result we relied upon Comas, Inc. v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 8, 1954 WL 301 (1954). To understand the holdings in these cases, it is necessary to also understand the statutory context in which they arise.
As a result, mutuality of parties exists sufficient to activate the principle of estoppel, so that petitioner is not attempting to use ‘nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel‘ against respondent. The Bankruptcy Code, Pub. L. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2582, 11 U.S.C. section 505(a)(1) (1982 ed.), authorizes a bankruptcy court to ‘determine the amount or legality of any tax * * *.‘ This Court in Comas, Inc. v. Commissioner, 23 T.C. 8, 12 (1954), has concluded that ‘* * * Congress intended that once a bankruptcy court allowed a deficiency for which claim was filed and that court's action became final, the amount and validity of the deficiency was not thereafter to be the subject of a consideration by the Tax Court.‘