In Re Falwell Excavating Co., Inc.

40 B.R. 315, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 6128, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1128
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia
DecidedMarch 9, 1984
Docket19-70298
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 B.R. 315 (In Re Falwell Excavating Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Falwell Excavating Co., Inc., 40 B.R. 315, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 6128, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1128 (Va. 1984).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

WILLIAM E. ANDERSON, Bankruptcy Judge.

This case is before the Court upon the Trustee’s objection to the Internal Revenue Services’ (I.R.S.) unsecured claim for pre-petition penalties and interest. The debtor had its Chapter 11 plan confirmed by the Court on April 25, 1983, and provided for the payment of taxes within eighteen months. The Trustee has filed a memorandum of law in which he argues that the Court should disallow all prepetition penalties and interest, or alternatively, subordinate said penalties and interest to the claims of the general unsecured creditors.

The Court is of the opinion that the recent case of In re Program Management Design Associates, 25 B.R. 144, 7 C.B.C.2d 844 (Bkrtcy.Mass., 1982) is dispositive of the issue presented in the case at bar. In that case, the Court stated in pertinent part:

Under § 57(j) of the former Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 93(j) (repealed 1978), the claim of the United States for a penalty was not allowed except if it was compensation for actual pecuniary loss. There is no similar provision in the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. Section 502(b) of the Code specifies which claims should be disallowed by the court. There is no specific provision in § 502(b) disallowing claims for penalties.

The Court then went on to acknowledge that although there is no specific provision in Chapter 11 defining the status of penalty claims, an examination of the legislative history clearly reveals that penalties were not intended to be avoided in a Chapter 11 reorganization. Accordingly, it is the opinion of the Court that the proof of claim filed by the I.R.S. should be allowed in its entirety.

Copies of the foregoing Memorandum Opinion are directed to be mailed to all parties of record in said matter.

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

Related

Neier v. United States
127 B.R. 669 (D. Kansas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 B.R. 315, 1984 Bankr. LEXIS 6128, 53 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-falwell-excavating-co-inc-vawb-1984.