a Tax Court deficiency case is an “action taken with respect to a debt” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. section 362(c)(3). b. “\T\erminate with respect to the debtor” The provision at issue applies, inter alia, to stays arising from actions “taken with respect to a debt” (which we have held includes a Tax Court deficiency case), but it terminates the stay “with respect to the debtor”. (Emphasis added.) The bankruptcy courts have interpreted this latter phrase in two different ways, but neither approach restricts the termination of the automatic stay on the commencement or continuation of a debtor’s Tax Court deficiency case. Some of the courts interpreting “with respect to the debtor” note that 11 U. icated in section 362(c)(3). See, e.g., In re Daniel, 404 Bankr. 318 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009) (<HOLDING>). However, a Tax Court case does not involve
holding that the automatic stay terminates completely as to a serially filing spouse but remains in force as to a newly filing spouse holding that the automatic stay terminates as to the debtor personally and as to his nonestate property but that the stay persists as to property of the bankruptcy estate holding that absent an actionable injury to one spouse the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium holding that knowledge of prohibited activities is not necessarily the same as fraudulent intent and that the code does not allow attribution of intent from spouse to spouse holding that the automatic stay did not bar the filing of a proof of claim where the debtor actively litigated a separate action during the pending bankruptcy proceeding because to permit the automatic stay provision to be used as a trump card played after an unfavorable result was reached  would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the automatic stay