In Re Klefstad

95 B.R. 622, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 2315, 1988 WL 146946
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin
DecidedJuly 22, 1988
Docket3-14-10344
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 95 B.R. 622 (In Re Klefstad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Klefstad, 95 B.R. 622, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 2315, 1988 WL 146946 (Wis. 1988).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

THOMAS S. UTSCHIG, Bankruptcy Judge.

The identical issue is presented in all four of the above-captioned bankruptcy cases. The debtors by their attorney, L.R. Reinstra, have brought motions pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 502 and 505 requesting the Court to determine the status of real estate *624 tax penalties in their respective Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. Specifically, the debtors ask the Court to disallow the imposition of postpetition real estate tax penalties. The taxing authorities Dunn County and Barron County appear by their attorneys Pamela J. Kahler and Susan M. Zabel, respectively, and contend that the tax penalties should be allowed. The parties have submitted the issues to the Court for determination through briefs.

In Wisconsin, all real estate taxes levied on a parcel of land become a lien on the parcel of land. Wis.Stat. § 74.01. 1 Interest is assessed on overdue or delinquent real estate taxes at a rate of one percent per month. Wis.Stat. § 74.80(1). 2 It is further provided that counties or cities may by ordinance impose a penalty of up to 0.5% per month in addition to the interest on the overdue or delinquent real estate taxes. 3 It is not disputed that, absent the bankruptcy, the real estate tax interest, and penalty assessments would become a lien on the real estate under § 74.01 of the Wisconsin Statutes. 4 “When a bankruptcy [is] filed, however, the priority of liens as set forth by Congress in the Bankruptcy Code governs.” In re Cropper Co., 63 B.R. 874, 876 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1986). “[The] Bankruptcy Code governs in determining the priority of liens in [a] bankruptcy case.” In re Hirsch-Franklin, Enterprises, Inc., 63 B.R. 864, 868 (Bankr.M.D.Ga. 1986).

It is clear that the prepetition real estate taxes, interest, and penalties to the date a Chapter 11 petition is filed all constitute liens against the real estate. 11 U.S. C. § 502(b). It is well established that postpetition interest on prepetition real estate taxes and postpetition real estate taxes and interest act as a lien against the real estate on which they are assessed. Maryland Nat’l. Bank v. Mayor & City of Baltimore, 723 F.2d 1138 (9th Cir.1983); In re *625 Stanford, 826 F.2d 363 (5th Cir.1987). 5 Hence, the only issue remaining is how to treat the postpetition penalty on the prepet-ition real estate taxes and the penalty on the postpetition real estate taxes.

Penalties are not in harmony with the overall philosophy of the Bankruptcy Code which is to effectuate a fair and equitable distribution of the asséts of the estate to creditors. In re Tastyeast, Inc., 126 F.2d 879 (3rd Cir.1942). A penalty is discordant with this philosophy because it serves the function of preferring one creditor at a detriment to other creditors of the estate. “A bankruptcy court is essentially a court of equity and will therefore not enforce a penalty.” Id. at 881. The Court notes that oversecured creditors are generally allowed interest on their claims but they are not allowed penalties. 11 U.S.C. *626 § 506(b) 6 . However, the Code does allow for an administrative expense priority for any penalty relating to “... any tax incurred by the estate, except a tax of a kind specified in section 507(a)(7) of this title;” 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B). See In re Bergin Corp, 77 B.R. 210 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987), and Matter of Patch Press, 71 B.R. 345 (Bankr.W.D.Wis.1987). Accordingly, the Court does allow the postpetition penalty on postpetition tax as an administrative expense.

The counties argue that the imposition of the tax penalty is actually another form of interest and not punitive in nature. They cite In re Norton, 77 B.R. 682 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1987), in support of this proposition. This reliance on Norton is misplaced. In Norton the ordinances creating the penalties were not enacted until after the filing of the debtor’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and the counties were stayed from imposing penalties on prepetition taxes.

There is a presumption that penalties assessed on tax deficiencies are punitive and the taxing entity must show otherwise in order to rebut this presumption. In re Patco Photo Corp., 82 B.R. 192 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988). When a taxing entity assesses both penalties and interest it is unlikely that a compensatory role is provided by both the penalty and the interest. In re Hirsch-Franklin, Enterprises, Inc., 63 B.R. 864, 873 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1986); see also In re New England Carpet Co., 26 B.R. 934 (Bankr.Vt.1983). In the case at hand it appears that the imposition of a penalty of 6% on top of interest of 12% is punitive. In any event, the taxing entities have not provided, sufficient argument to rebut the presumption that the penalties are in fact punitive.

In conclusion, generally there is no personal liability for real estate taxes in Wisconsin. 7 Instead, real estate taxes act as a lien upon the property against which they are assessed, superior to all other liens. Under state law the interest and penalties associated with the real estate tax would also become a lien on the property. After a bankruptcy petition is filed, the Bankruptcy Code provides a different system of priority. The real estate taxes and interest represent a benefit to the property and the estate, and the Bankruptcy Code allows for the perfection of the counties’ pre-existing interests in the real estate to this extent while treating penalties on qualified taxes as an administrative expense. However, the postpetition penalty on the prepetition tax is punitive in nature. The Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the imposition of this penalty because it would deprive other creditors of their fair share.

This decision shall constitute findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 7052.

1

.

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

Related

In Re Barton
359 B.R. 681 (N.D. Illinois, 2006)
In Re Stewart
190 B.R. 846 (C.D. Illinois, 1996)
In Re Mort Hall Acquisition, Inc.
181 B.R. 860 (S.D. Texas, 1994)
In Re Schneider
162 B.R. 199 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1993)
Alliance Railroad Community Credit Union v. County of Box Butte
503 N.W.2d 191 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1993)
NL Industries, Inc. v. GHR Energy Corp.
932 F.2d 422 (Fifth Circuit, 1991)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Shipley
809 P.2d 1073 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 B.R. 622, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 2315, 1988 WL 146946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-klefstad-wiwb-1988.