In Re Johnson

190 B.R. 724, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1543, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7090, 1995 WL 755130
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedSeptember 18, 1995
Docket19-40189
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 190 B.R. 724 (In Re Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Johnson, 190 B.R. 724, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1543, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7090, 1995 WL 755130 (Mass. 1995).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

JOAN N. FEENEY, Bankruptcy Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the Court is the Debtors’ “Objection to the Administrative Claim of the Internal Revenue Service and Motion to Disallow, Reduce or Adjust Claim.” The issue to be decided is the status of the Debtors’ 1992 federal income tax liability. The Court conducted a hearing on June 21, 1995 and took the matter under advisement. The Debtors and the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) filed memoranda of law on July 31, 1995.

II. BACKGROUND

The Debtors, Walter and Janet Johnson (the “Johnsons” or the “Debtors”), filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on September 30, 1992. On June 15, 1995, the IRS filed an amended proof of claim in the amount of $51,495.00, relating to unpaid federal income taxes, interest and penalties for the taxable years 1992, 1993, and 1994. As part of that claim, it seeks $27,463.26 for unpaid federal income taxes, interest and penalties for the 1992 tax year.

On May 4, 1995, the Debtors objected to the classification of the 1992 tax liability as an administrative expense, seeking to reclassify 75% of the claim as an unsecured eighth priority claim to the extent that it pertains to taxes that accrued prior to the filing of the

Chapter 11 petition, 1 while classifying the balance as an administrative claim entitled to first priority. 2

In its memorandum, the IRS stated that the Debtors failed to make an election pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1398(d)(2)(A) to divide the 1992 tax year into two taxable periods. The Debtors do not controvert this position. The facts material to the resolution of the Debtors’ objection to the claim of the IRS are not in dispute.

III.POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

In support of their contention that the 1992 tax liability should not be classified in its entirety as an administrative expense since a portion of the claim relates to income earned prepetition, the Debtors point to section 503(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a tax liability to be “incurred by the estate” to be given priority as an administrative expense. The Debtors argue that a tax is “incurred” at the time it accrues, and, therefore, the bulk of their 1992 tax liability was not “incurred by the estate” since it accrued prior to September 30, 1992, the date they filed their Chapter 11 petition. Accordingly, the Debtors seek to treat 75% of the 1992 tax liability as an unsecured priority claim under section 507(a)(8) and 25% as an administrative expense under section 503(b)(1)(B)(i).

In its opposition to the Debtors’ objection, the IRS argues that the Debtors’ entire 1992 tax liability should be treated as a post-petition liability because the Debtors failed to elect to close their 1992 tax year pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1398, thereby causing the debt to be “incurred” after the filing of the Chapter *726 11 petition. In its initial response to the Debtors’ objection to its claim, the IRS maintained that it had an administrative expense claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1). However, in its memorandum it states the following:

The United States recognizes that these post-petition liabilities may be collected directly from the debtors, and states further that it is a cause for dismissal or conversion of the debtors’ case if the debtors cannot pay their post-petition liabilities. Consequently, these post-petition liabilities must be paid in full prior to the confirmation of the debtors’ plan.

IV. DISCUSSION

Section 1398 of the Bankruptcy Tax Act of 1980 3 was intended to eliminate both uncertainty and litigation by detailing how federal income tax attributes and liabilities are to be allocated between the bankruptcy estate and the individual debtor. In re Turboff, 93 B.R. 523, 525 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1988). Section 1398(d)(2)(A) 4 allows an individual debtor in a Chapter 7 or 11 case to elect to divide the taxable year in which the bankruptcy case is commenced into two “short years,” the first ending on the day before the date of commencement of the bankruptcy case, and the second beginning on the date the bankruptcy ease is filed. According to 26 U.S.C. § 1398(d)(2)(D), 5 the debtor must make an election on or before the due date for filing the return. When a debtor elects to partition the tax year under section 1398, the federal income tax liability for the first short taxable year becomes an allowable claim against the bankruptcy estate as a claim arising before the commencement of the case. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(5), 502(a), 502(i), 507(a)(8). See also In re Mirman, 98 B.R. 742 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1989); In re Turboff, 93 B.R. 523 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1988). Accordingly, any tax liability for that year is entitled to priority under section 507(a)(8) and is collectible from the estate to the extent assets are available to pay debts of that priority. See 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(A)(i).

A debtor’s failure to make an election under section 1398(d) makes the entire tax liability a post-petition liability. Thus, in this case, section 1398(d)(2)(A) makes the Debtors’ entire 1992 tax liability a post-petition liability. However, that post-petition liability is not a claim against the estate entitled to administrative priority under section 503(b)(1)(B)(i). The Debtors’ failure to make the election under section 1398 leaves the IRS with a post-petition tax claim against the Debtors individually, with no claim whatsoever against their bankruptcy estate for any part of the 1992 tax liability. See In re Saunders, 155 B.R. 405, 417 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1993); In re Moore, 132 B.R. 533, 535 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1991); In re Eith, 111 B.R. 311, 313 (Bankr.D.Hawaii 1990); In re Mirman, 98 B.R. 742, 744-745 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1989); In re Turboff, 93 B.R. 523, 525 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1988). See also Matter of Santiago Vela, 87 B.R. 229 (Bankr.D.P.R.1988).

The legislative history of the Bankruptcy Tax Act of 1980 provides, in relevant part, the following:

This bill, like present law, treats the bankruptcy estate of an individual as a separate taxable entity for federal income tax purposes.

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

Related

Darr v. Internal Revenue Service
D. Massachusetts, 2020
In Re Allen
359 B.R. 1 (D. Massachusetts, 2006)
In Re Shin
306 B.R. 397 (District of Columbia, 2004)
Katz v. Commissioner
335 F.3d 1121 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
Katz v. Commissioner
116 T.C. No. 2 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
United States v. Wood (In Re Wood)
240 B.R. 609 (C.D. California, 1999)
In Re McCready
255 B.R. 834 (M.D. Tennessee, 1999)
In Re: Sunnyside Coal Company
146 F.3d 1273 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
Sunnyside Coal Co v. United Mine Workers
146 F.3d 1273 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
Nussbaum v. United States (In Re Smith)
210 B.R. 689 (D. Maryland, 1997)
In Re Haedo
211 B.R. 149 (S.D. New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 B.R. 724, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1543, 76 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7090, 1995 WL 755130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-johnson-mab-1995.