In Re Bowman

308 B.R. 37, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 1556, 93 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1504, 2003 WL 23415015
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska
DecidedJuly 14, 2003
Docket19-40171
StatusPublished

This text of 308 B.R. 37 (In Re Bowman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Bowman, 308 B.R. 37, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 1556, 93 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1504, 2003 WL 23415015 (Neb. 2003).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

TIMOTHY J. MAHONEY, Chief Judge.

Hearing was held on April 28, 2003, on the debtors’ Objection to Claim of Internal Revenue Service, Filing No. 88, and the Resistance by Creditor, Filing No. 95. Richard Register appeared for the debtors, and Hilarie Snyder appeared for the Internal Revenue Service. This memorandum contains findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52. This is a core proceeding as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (O).

The following statements in numbered paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 are taken from the Joint Pretrial Statement, Filing No. 115. Paragraph 5 contains findings of fact and conclusions of law as determined by the court.

1. Summary of the Case and the Defenses or Objections.

The IRS filed an amended proof of claim in June 2001. The proof of claim sought *38 overdue personal income taxes, as well as penalties pursuant to § 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code. Debtors objected to the proof of claim for two reasons. First, debtors argued that Mr. Samuel Bowman was not a responsible person and should not be liable for the § 6672 penalties. Second, debtors argued that the manner in which the proof of claim was drafted made the IRS’s claim appear approximately two times larger than what it should be.

The first issue goes to the heart of this case. Employers are required to withhold federal income taxes from their employees’ wages and pay those taxes over to the government, 26 U.S.C. § 7501; see also Hartman v. United States, 538 F.2d 1336, 1339 (8th Cir.1976). If a corporate employer defaults with respect to sums withheld by it, a corporate officer or employee may be held liable for the unpaid taxes through § 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code if the individual was a “responsible person” and acted willfully. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6672; see also Hartman, 538 F.2d at 1340. The government contends that Mr. Bowman is jointly and severally liable for the § 6672 taxes with Mrs. Bowman. Debtors argue that Samuel Bowman is not a responsible person and/or did not act willfully; accordingly, he should not be liable for the § 6672 penalties.

The second issue is merely one of organization of the proof of claim. It is the IRS’s position that Mr. and Mrs. Bowman are jointly and severally responsible for the § 6672 penalties, although the IRS can only collect the amount due for these taxes once. The IRS’s proof of claim highlighted this issue. Debtors contend that the proof of claim, because it totals the amounts due, creates an ambiguity with respect to the total amount the IRS can collect pursuant to § 6672. Debtors argue that this ambiguity, in conjunction with the Trustee’s normal business practices, effectively makes the IRS’s proof of claim approximately two times what it should be. If debtors successfully show that Mr. Bowman is not liable for the § 6672 penalties, this organizational issue is moot. Alternatively, if Mr. Bowman is liable for these taxes, the parties are confident they can submit a proposed order highlighting the joint and several nature of the debtors’ liability, while also taking into account the Trustee’s calculation practices and any potential ambiguities. Debtors have the burden of proof. In re Schroeder, 1994 WL 527177 (Bankr.D.Neb.1994).

2. Summary of Uncontroverted Facts

A. Debtors, Samuel and Karen Bowman, are a married couple. They were married prior to October 1992.

B. Debtors, Samuel and Karen Bowman, filed a Chapter 13 petition with this court in June 2000.

C. Debtors, Samuel and Karen Bowman, owe the following personal income tax:

Tax Period Tax Assessed Tax Due Interest to Petition Date

12/31/96 1/3/00 $3,101 $1,156.76

12/31/98 9/25/00 581 69.69

$3,681 $1,226.45

D. In October 1992, Sam Bowman Trucking, Inc. (“Bowman Trucking”) was incorporated in the State of Nebraska.

E. Debtors, Samuel and Karen Bowman, along with their son, S. Douglas Bowman, were the incorporators of Sam Bowman Trucking, Inc.

F. From 1992 through May 1994, Samuel Bowman, Karen Bowman, and S. Douglas Bowman were all directors of Bowman trucking.

G. From 1992 through October 1993, Karen Bowman was the secretary and treasurer of Bowman Trucking. Beginning in October 1993 through Bowman Trucking’s 2000 bankruptcy, Karen Bowman was the president, secretary, and treasurer of Bowman Trucking.

*39 H. From October 1992 through October 1993, S. Douglas Bowman was the president of Bowman Trucking.

I. From October 1992 through May 1994, Samuel Bowman was the chairman of the board of Bowman Trucking.

J. On May 20, 1994, Samuel Bowman tendered his resignation as chairman of the board and as a director because his health was poor and he had to give up his corporate officership in order to receive Social Security benefits.

K. From October 1992 through Bowman Trucking’s 2000 bankruptcy, Samuel Bowman owned 50% of the stock of Bowman Trucking. Karen Bowman owned 25% and S. Douglas Bowman, debtors’ son, owned the remaining 25%.

L. Karen Bowman and Samuel Bowman were authorized to sign checks on behalf of Bowman Trucking.

M. Bowman Trucking did not pay all of the required employment taxes to the government.

N. Bowman Trucking filed for bankruptcy on June 26, 2000.

O. Taxes were assessed against debtors, Samuel and Karen Bowman, individually and severally, pursuant to § 6672 of the Internal Revenue Code in the following amounts:

Interest to Tax Period Assessed Tax Due Petition .Date

09/30/96 $ 3,251.42

09/30/97 12/31/97 11,175.26 5,171.28

03/31/98 7,832.39

06/30/98 8,972.22

12/31/98 12,331.24

06/21/99 $48,733.81 $4,248.03

06/30/99 06/17/02 $ 3,014.27

09/30/99 06/17/02 7,774.72

12/31/99 06/17/02 8,281.21

03/31/00 06/17/02 5,355.32

06/30/00 06/17/02 4,235.90

09/30/00 06/17/02 4,235.90

$32,897.32 0

TOTAL $81,631.13 4,248.03

(At trial the parties stipulated to an amended balance due of $81,077.23 tax and penalty, plus $5,474.48 interest, for a total trust fund tax obligation of $86,551.71.)

P.

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

Related

George D. Hartman, Jr. v. United States
538 F.2d 1336 (Eighth Circuit, 1976)
Douglas A. Olsen v. United States
952 F.2d 236 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)
Clark Jenson v. United States
23 F.3d 1393 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
308 B.R. 37, 2003 Bankr. LEXIS 1556, 93 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1504, 2003 WL 23415015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-bowman-nebraskab-2003.