their duty to report their financial information. Debtors’ listed the IRS as a creditor and provided the government with notice of Debtors’ filings. Moreover, the Debtors informed the court that they would provide for the IRS’ claim if it was filed. Given these actions, the IRS had an obligation to do something. See In re Ruti-Sweetwater, Inc., 836 F.2d 1263, 1267 (10th Cir.1988). But the government did not; it neither filed a claim (although it represented that it would) nor contested the Debtors’ eligibility at any reasonable time. While the government is free to ignore the proceedings it has notice of, it does so at its peril. IRS v. Norton, 717 F.2d 767, 774 (3rd Cir.1983); In re Gregory, 705 F.2d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir.1983); cf In re Moseley, 74 B.R. 791, 802 (Bkrtcy.C.D.Cal.1987) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, given the strong res judicata
holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case holding that creditor with notice of bankruptcy could have objected to confirmation of chapter 13 plan in order contest treatment of claim holding that there is no statutory authority in chapter 13 which grants a chapter 13 debtor independent standing to sue under the trustees  avoidance power holding that in chapter 13 cases irs cannot be excused on account of its size from its obligations as a creditor holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13