McNaney et al v. Internal Revenue Service Franchise Tax Board of th

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re 	No. 09-40483 TM
Chapter 7
JOHN MARTIN MCNANEY, PAMELA
ELLEN MCNANEY
Debtors.
___________________________/
JOHN MARTIN MCNANEY, PAMELA 	A.P. No. 09-4196 AT
ELLEN MCNANEY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
MEMORANDUM RE STATUS OF ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
On April 24, 2009, the above-captioned debtors (the “Debtors”)
filed 	the 	above-captioned 	adversary 	proceeding, 	seeking 	a
determination 	that 	their 	tax 	obligations 	to 	the 	defendants 	for 	the
tax years 1988 through 1997 were subject to the Debtors’ discharge in
their bankruptcy case. 	The Debtors received their discharge on June
16, 2009. 	On October 13, 2009, the Internal Revenue Service filed a
Signed: February 25, 2010
________________________________________
LESLIE TCHAIKOVSKY
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
February 26, 2010
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 09-04196 Doc# 14 Filed: 02/25/10 Entered: 02/26/10 10:59:44 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Statement 	of 	Nonopposition 	to 	the 	complaint. 	On 	November 	3, 	2009,
the 	Franchise 	Tax 	Board 	filed 	a 	Statement 	of 	Nonopposition 	to 	the
complaint.
On October 5, 2009, the Debtors appeared at a status conference
in the adversary proceeding. 	The Court noted that the defendants had
each 	filed 	a 	Statement 	of 	Nonopposition 	to 	the 	complaint. 	It
directed the Debtors’ counsel to submit a proposed form of judgment
granting the relief requested: i.e., a declaration that the taxes in
question were discharged in the Debtors’ bankruptcy case. 	The Court
issued an order dismissing the proceeding in 60 days if the Debtors
failed to do so.
For 	some 	reason, 	the 	Debtors 	have 	failed 	to 	submit 	a 	proposed
form of judgment. 	Instead, they have moved to restore the proceeding
to 	the 	active 	calendar. 	They 	appear 	to 	believe 	that 	the 	amount 	of
the taxes being discharged must be quantified. 	There is no need to
do 	so. 	The 	hearing 	on 	the 	Debtors’ 	motion 	to 	restore 	will 	not 	be
vacated. 	However, the Debtors may submit a proposed form of judgment
prior 	to 	the 	hearing. 	If 	the 	judgment 	is 	entered, 	they 	need 	not
appear at the hearing on their motion.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case: 09-04196 Doc# 14 Filed: 02/25/10 Entered: 02/26/10 10:59:44 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
COURT SERVICE LIST
Gregory O. Slatoff
Law Offices of Gregory O. Slatoff
225 W Winton Ave. #205
Hayward, CA 94544
Patricia Montero
Internal Revenue Service
Office of the Chief Counsel
160 Spear St. 9th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Marguerite C. Stricklin
Franchise Tax Board
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 70550
Oakland, CA 94612-0550
Case: 09-04196 Doc# 14 Filed: 02/25/10 Entered: 02/26/10 10:59:44 Page 3 of 3