Blake v. United States (In re Blake)

154 B.R. 590, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 2317, 71 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1300
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedDecember 3, 1992
DocketBankruptcy No. 92-01040-APG; Adv. No. 92-00110-APG
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 B.R. 590 (Blake v. United States (In re Blake)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blake v. United States (In re Blake), 154 B.R. 590, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 2317, 71 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1300 (Ala. 1992).

Opinion

OPINION ON COMPLAINT

A. POPE GORDON, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor commenced this adversary proceeding on April 28, 1992 to determine the dischargeability of income taxes under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1).

The parties submitted this proceeding to the court based on documentary evidence, oral arguments, and the parties’ joint pretrial statement filed November 2, 1992.1

The debtor filed a petition under chapter 7 on March 4, 1992. On April 2, 1992, Internal Revenue Service issued a statutory notice of tax deficiency to the debtor for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983 in the amounts of $6,762.50, 6,762.50, and $6,586.34, respectively.2

11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A) does not discharge income taxes “... not assessed before, but assessable, under applicable law or by agreement, after[], [sic] the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)(A)(iii).

The Service did not assess the income taxes referenced above prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case.

The issue is whether the taxes are currently “assessable.” If the taxes are currently assessable, the taxes are excepted from discharge.

Generally, the Service has three years after a tax return is filed to assess a tax. 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a). However, the Service and taxpayer may agree in writing to extend the time for assessment. The agreement must be executed before the expiration of the time for assessment. See 26 U.S.C. § 6501(c)(4).

In the instant case, the debtor signed an agreement for each tax year in question designated “Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax” (Form 872-A). The [591]*591debtor signed the agreements within the applicable limitation periods.3

With specified exceptions, the agreements extended indefinitely the time for the Service to assess the taxes.4 See In re Youngcourt, 117 B.R. 689 (M.D.Fla.1990) (similar agreement upheld).

The Service contends that the taxes are currently assessable because the extension agreements are in full force and effect.

The debtor concedes his execution of the extension agreements but contends that the agreements terminated in February 1987 or shortly afterward pursuant to paragraph 2 of each of the three agreements which provides in part as follows:

This agreement ends on the earlier of ... the assessment date of an increase in the above tax that reflects the final determination of tax and the final administrative appeals consideration.

The debtor is referring to the disposition of litigation relating to his tax liability for the years 1979 and 1980. The litigation ended in February 1987 by a ruling of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.5

If the debtor signed the agreements pending resolution of the above-referenced litigation, the debtor simply failed to terminate the agreements once the litigation ended.6

The debtor has not pointed out how under paragraph 2 the end of the litigation could otherwise have terminated the agreements. Indeed, the 1983 agreement was executed after the Eleventh Circuit case was decided.7

Under the debtor’s argument, the extension agreement relating to tax year 1983 terminated before it was executed. The debtor’s argument is inconsistent with his actions.

Even though the automatic stay currently prohibits the making of an assessment,8 the taxes are still “assessable” because the limitation period for assessments has not run.9

The taxes are not discharged.

A separate order in consonance with this opinion will enter.

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

Related

Estate of Marvin E. Greenfield v. Comm'r IRS
297 F. App'x 858 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
154 B.R. 590, 1992 Bankr. LEXIS 2317, 71 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blake-v-united-states-in-re-blake-almb-1992.