In Re Norman H. Bates and Beverly Ann Bates, Debtors. Norman H. Bates and Beverly Ann Bates v. United States

974 F.2d 1234, 70 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5562, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 18749, 23 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 553, 1992 WL 198912
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedAugust 17, 1992
Docket92-8005
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 974 F.2d 1234 (In Re Norman H. Bates and Beverly Ann Bates, Debtors. Norman H. Bates and Beverly Ann Bates v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Norman H. Bates and Beverly Ann Bates, Debtors. Norman H. Bates and Beverly Ann Bates v. United States, 974 F.2d 1234, 70 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5562, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 18749, 23 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 553, 1992 WL 198912 (10th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

BRORBY, Circuit Judge.

Mr. and Mrs. Bates (Debtors) filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Their pre-petition federal tax liability was classified into secured and priority status. Debtors challenge this classification. We affirm.

The facts are neither complicated nor disputed. Debtors owned a lumber business and failed to pay all federal employment taxes that were due and owing. Debtors owed the government $61,212.89. Of this amount, $39,714.72 were trust fund taxes and $21,498.17 were non-trust fund taxes. 1 The Internal Revenue Service per *1235 fected its lien for the full amount due against Debtors’ property by timely and properly filing notices of lien.

Debtors then filed a petition seeking Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief. Only two creditors were listed: the mortgagee of Debtors’ residence, 2 and the IRS. Various unencumbered personal property was listed subject to the bankruptcy, which had an undisputed fair market value of $21,950.

Debtors ultimately presented an amended Chapter 13 plan whereby they proposed to classify the amount of the unpaid trust fund tax ($17,591.25), exclusive of interest, as a class two priority claim that would be paid in full and the balance of their federal tax liability as an unsecured claim that would be satisfied only to the extent of available income, which would amount to “at least $1,000.”

The government challenged this plan asserting: It was a secured creditor by virtue of filing the notices of tax liens; the non-trust fund tax liability ($21,498.17) is completely secured as the amount owed was less than the fair market value of the property ($21,950); and the balance of the tax liability should be classified as a priority claim. Debtors then filed a “Motion to Determine Characterization of Tax Claims as Secured or Priority Claims.”

The bankruptcy court classified the pre-petition non-trust fund tax liability (including the tax, associated interest, and the penalties thereon) as a secured claim against Debtors’ personal property as it had a higher value. The bankruptcy court classified the balance of the tax liability, being the amount of the trust fund liability including the actual taxes plus the associated interest, as a priority claim.

I

Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code mandates the debtor submit a plan dedicating future income to the payment of existing debts. Generally speaking, the debts are then classified into three general categories: secured, priority, and general unsecured debts. For a plan to be confirmed, secured debts must be paid to the extent of the value of the property securing the debt. Priority debts must be paid in full. General unsecured debts must be paid only to the extent of the available future income dedicated to this purpose. This appeal involves the questions of whether the debtor or the bankruptcy court has the power to classify a debt; how federal tax claims must be classified; and how the unsecured balance of a secured claim is classified.

II

Debtors assert a debtor in a Chapter 13 reorganization plan has the right to direct the IRS application of payments made under the plan. They argue the payments to be made should be applied to the payment of trust fund taxes only.

Given the posture of this case, Debtors’ assertions are inapposite. Debtors are not seeking to direct payments first to one category of debt and then to another. Rather, Debtors seek to change the classification of debts from one category, where full payment is required, to another category where less than full payment is required. Stated differently, Debtors seek to change the classification of the tax liability from priority to unsecured.

Debtors cite United States v. Energy Resources Co., 495 U.S. 545, 110 S.Ct. 2139, 109 L.Ed.2d 580 (1990) as supportive of their position. Debtors are wrong. Energy Resources involves a Chapter 11 reorganization where the debtor proposed to pay all taxes, both trust fund and non-trust fund. The Supreme Court held a bankrupt *1236 cy court may order the IRS to apply payments to the trust fund taxes if doing so is necessary to reorganization. Furthermore, although the Supreme Court held the bankruptcy court possessed broad authority to designate payments, it did not necessarily require the bankruptcy court to order payments first be applied to trust fund taxes before satisfying non-trust fund taxes. The Court specifically noted the designation would not compromise the government’s right to be assured of full payment of its tax claim. Id. at 549-51, 110 S.Ct. at 2142-43. However, in the case before us, Debtors propose to pay only a portion of their tax liability. Energy Resources is inapposite. In short, the issue of designation of payments is not presented by the facts in this case.

Ill

The resolution of this case is dependent upon the proper classification of Debtors’ federal employment tax liability.

We commence our analysis by noting Debtors owed federal employment taxes, both trust fund and non-trust fund. It is also significant to note the IRS properly and timely filed pre-petition notices of tax lien pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6321, 3 and this action had the effect of impressing upon Debtors’ property a lien in favor of the United States in the amount of $61,212.89. Pursuant to this statute, the amount of the lien included the amount of unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. This tax lien is a security established by statute which the government may avail itself in the event of default in payment. United States v. Phillips, 267 F.2d 374, 377 (5th Cir.1959).

Having established this necessary background, we turn now to the bankruptcy law. The IRS asserted its full claim of $61,212.89 was secured by virtue of its filing of the notices of tax lien. Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code provides this claim will be considered a secured claim only to the extent of the value of the property securing the debt. In re Dewsnup, 908 F.2d 588, 590 (10th Cir.1990), aff'd, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992). Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 506(a)) provides the balance of this secured claim is an allowed unsecured claim.

Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 507) establishes a priority for the payment of specified unsecured claims.

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

Related

Gould v. Wyse
D. New Mexico, 2025
In Re Brensing
337 B.R. 376 (D. Kansas, 2006)
Bair v. Ohio, Dept. of Taxation (In re Bair)
302 B.R. 564 (N.D. Ohio, 2003)
In Re Luarks
301 B.R. 352 (D. Kansas, 2003)
Tuttle v. United States
291 F.3d 1238 (Tenth Circuit, 2002)
Dunn v. Marrelli
3 F. App'x 710 (Tenth Circuit, 2001)
United States v. Haas (In Re Haas)
162 F.3d 1087 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Haas
162 F.3d 1087 (Eleventh Circuit, 1998)
In Re Thomas
222 B.R. 742 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1998)
In Re Mosbrucker
220 B.R. 656 (D. North Dakota, 1998)
In Re Rocky Mountain Refractories
205 B.R. 307 (D. Utah, 1996)
In Re Senise
202 B.R. 403 (D. South Carolina, 1996)
In Re Burgess
171 B.R. 227 (E.D. Texas, 1994)
Demarah v. United States
188 B.R. 426 (E.D. California, 1993)
In Re Schnabel
153 B.R. 809 (N.D. Illinois, 1993)
In Re Klaska
152 B.R. 248 (C.D. Illinois, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
974 F.2d 1234, 70 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5562, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 18749, 23 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 553, 1992 WL 198912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-norman-h-bates-and-beverly-ann-bates-debtors-norman-h-bates-and-ca10-1992.