Alton Newton Evangelistic Ass'n v. South Carolina Tax Commission (In re Alton Newton Evangelistic Ass'n)

28 B.R. 144, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6773
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 22, 1983
DocketBankruptcy No. 82-01208; Complaint No. 82-0958
StatusPublished

This text of 28 B.R. 144 (Alton Newton Evangelistic Ass'n v. South Carolina Tax Commission (In re Alton Newton Evangelistic Ass'n)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alton Newton Evangelistic Ass'n v. South Carolina Tax Commission (In re Alton Newton Evangelistic Ass'n), 28 B.R. 144, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6773 (southcarolinaed 1983).

Opinion

ORDER

J. BRATTON DAVIS, Bankruptcy Judge.

In this adversary proceeding the plaintiff is seeking to compel the defendant to turn over funds to it pursuant to § 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 542(a)).1

FACTS

Alton Newton Evangelistic Association, Inc. (Alton Newton), operated a nursing home to which the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) was indebted.

On July 16, 1982, the South Carolina Tax Commission (the Tax Commission), served upon Alton Newton a notice of levy which stated that the funds held by DSS were levied upon in the amount of $20,293.91 for delinquent taxes owed by Alton Newton to the Tax Commission.

On July 28, 1982, when Alton Newton filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, it became a debtor in possession pursuant to § 1107(a).2

On August 18, 1982, the Tax Commission took possession of the funds held by DSS.

The Tax Commission asserts that its pre-petition notice of levy was evidence of a levy which prevented the DSS funds from becoming “property of the estate” under § 541(a)(1)3, and, if the funds are not “property of the estate”, Alton Newton has no right to the property by reason of the turnover provisions of § 542(a).4

Alton Newton contends that inasmuch as the seized funds are “property of the es[146]*146tate” because the notice of levy was not, in fact, a levy passing the property’s title to the Tax Commission, the Commission is in violation of the § 362(a)5 stay provisions as a result of their seizure of the funds after the petition for relief was filed.

ISSUES

The issue is whether the property seized by the Tax Commission is “property of the estate” (as defined in § 541 which, under §§ 363(b) and 363(c)(1)6, can be used, sold, or leased by Alton Newton in the operation of its business pursuant to § 11087) and, as such, is subject to turnover to Alton Newton pursuant to § 542(a).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

To determine whether the debt owed by DSS to Alton Newton is “property of the estate”, the court must first consider the effect of the notice of levy on the property.

The Tax Commission’s authority to levy on intangibles is set forth in S.C.Code § 12-53-20 (1976), which states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission, or its duly authorized representatives, may attach, levy upon, or seize bank deposits and all other choses in action, except for salaries and wages, on property incapable of manual levy or delivery, hereinafter called intangible, belonging, owing, or to become due to any taxpayer, subject to any provisions of any tax or license law of which the administration, enforcement, and collection is imposed upon the Commission. The person owning such intangible, matured or unmatured, or having the same in possession or control, shall become liable for all sums due by the taxpayer to the extent of the amount of the intangible belonging, owing, or to become due to the taxpayer, subject to the setoff of any matured or unmatured indebtedness of a taxpayer to said person. To effect such attachment or levy, the Commission, or its duly authorized representative, shall serve, or cause to be served upon the taxpayer and upon such person, notice of such attachment and levy, which notice may be served by any authorized representative of the Commission, or by any officer having authority to serve summonses.

Because it deals with intangibles — property which is defined as “a ‘right’ rather than a physical object,”8 — -the quoted section sets forth a notice procedure to evidence the fact that a levy has been made.9 [147]*147The service of notice is not to warn of an impending levy but rather to “effect such attachment or levy.” Id.

The court concludes that the levy here was pre-petition — having occurred upon the service of notice of levy on Alton Newton on July 16, 1982.

The issue of whether property subject to a pre-petition levy becomes “property of the estate” pursuant to § 541(a), was resolved by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Cross Electric Co. v. United States, 664 F.2d 1218 (4th Cir.1981), which held that a pre-petition Internal Revenue Service levy on an account receivable of a debtor operated as a virtual transfer of the account to the government. The court stated that the debtor had the right to redeem the property levied on by payment of the taxes due, with costs, but “absent such payment, neither the debtor nor its trustee has any right to the possession of the property, .... ” Id. at 1221; See also, Ford v. Southern Bank & Trust Co., 24 B.R. 616, 618 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C.1982), appeal dismissed (D.S.C. October 18, 1982).

The effect of the levy by the Tax Commission is substantially the same as the effect of the tax levy in Cross Electric. In both instances, the levies deprived the debt- or of possession of personal property leaving him only the right of redemption by payment of the debt. Ford v. Southern Bank & Trust Co., supra.

The funds are not “property of the estate” as defined in § 541; therefore, the debtor in possession, Alton Newton, is not entitled to turnover pursuant to § 542(a).

Because the funds are not “property of the estate,” the Tax Commission did not violate the § 362 stay by taking possession of the funds after Alton Newton’s filing the petition for relief. See, McCauley v. Levaine, Case No. 82-00856, Complaint No. 82-0803 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C. Jan. 19,1983); First Savings and Loan Assoc. v. Reece, Case No. 82-01714, Complaint No. 82-1132 (Bkrtcy. D.S.C. Dec. 12, 1982); Ford v. Southern Bank & Trust Co., supra; Campbell v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 20 B.R. 42 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C.1982); Hildreth v. Dean-Dempsey Corp., Case No. 81-81-00764, Complaint No. 81-0477 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C. July 12, 1982); Lexington State Bank v. Miller, Case No. 82-01174, Complaint Nos. 82-0829 and 82-0845 (Bkrtcy.D.S.C. Sept. 13, 1982).

It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complaint is hereby dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 B.R. 144, 1983 Bankr. LEXIS 6773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alton-newton-evangelistic-assn-v-south-carolina-tax-commission-in-re-southcarolinaed-1983.