In Re Poleshuk

115 B.R. 716, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 1291, 66 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5856, 20 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1089, 1990 WL 84840
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedJune 19, 1990
DocketBankruptcy 89-01002-BKC-6C3, 89-01003-BKC-6C3
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 115 B.R. 716 (In Re Poleshuk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Poleshuk, 115 B.R. 716, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 1291, 66 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5856, 20 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1089, 1990 WL 84840 (Fla. 1990).

Opinion

ORDER ON DEBTORS’ OBJECTIONS TO CLAIMS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND SCHEDULING CONFIRMATION HEARING

C. TIMOTHY CORCORAN, III, Bankruptcy Judge.

THESE CAUSES came on for hearing on March 27, 1990, of the objections filed by Stephen J. Poleshuk (Documents Nos. 43, 48, and 49) and Bruce A. Poleshuk (Documents Nos. 25 and 44) to claims in their respective Chapter 13 cases. The hearings were consolidated because the factual and legal issues are identical. In each case, the debtor has objected to the claim of the Internal Revenue Service on the ground that the IRS claim does not reflect a credit to the amount of taxes each owes for a payment made to the Service by Alpha Printing, Inc., a corporation owned and operated by the debtors. The claims asserted by the Service in the individual cases arise from a 100 per cent penalty assessed against them as responsible officers for the unpaid trust fund portion of Alpha’s corporate tax obligations.

The court heard argument of counsel and considered the briefs submitted before and after the hearing. The court has also considered the file in In re Alpha Printing Co., Case No. 89-00679-6X7, pending in this court. The debtors carry the burden of going forward with the evidence to rebut the presumed validity of the claims under Section 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Service, however, has the ultimate burden of establishing the validity of its claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Rasmussen v. Gresly, 77 F.2d 252 (8th Cir.1935); In re Palm Investments of Pinellas County, 2 B.R. 646, 649 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1980).

The uncontested facts before the court can be simply stated:

The individual debtors here are principals and shareholders of Alpha Printing Company, Inc. Alpha and the individual debtors are each represented in this court by the same attorney.

On March 3, 1989, the debtors’ corporation, Alpha, filed a petition in this court for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On March 30, 1989, each individual debtor filed his Chapter 13 case. A week later, on April 7, 1989, Alpha caused a cashier’s check in the amount of $7,700 to be issued to “Internal Revenue Service, payable to the trust fund account only.” Alpha made the payment because it chose to do so, rather than because of any enforced collection procedures or the participation of the Service in the Alpha Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

The tax or penalty assessed against the individuals was for Alpha’s tax period ending September 30, 1988, which is some five months before Alpha filed its petition. The payment by Alpha, therefore, was a post petition payment of Alpha’s prepetition tax obligation. That payment was made by Alpha without an order of this court in the Alpha Chapter 11 case authorizing either the expenditure on account of the pre petition tax obligation or the designation of the payment as one for trust fund taxes.

The Service received the Alpha check but did not allocate the payment to the trust fund portion of the corporate tax obligation. As a result, there was no reduction of the penalty assessed against the individual debtors.

On April 19, 1989, only 12 days after making the payment, the Alpha corporate *718 case was converted from Chapter 11 to a case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The conversion was made pursuant to a notice of conversion filed by Alpha on April 7, 1989 — the very day it made the payment.

Based upon those facts, the debtors here assert that the payment by Alpha should have been credited to the trust fund account because the payment was a voluntary payment on the part of Alpha. Under the Service’s own internal rules, they say, such a payment must be allocated as directed by the corporation. In addition, the debtors contend that the court has the discretion, regardless of the voluntary nature of the payment, to decide and direct the allocation on a case-by-case basis. See In re A & B Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 823 F.2d 462 (11th Cir.1987), remanded on other grounds, 486 U.S. 1002, 108 S.Ct. 1724, 100 L.Ed.2d 189 (1988), reaffirmed, 861 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir.1988).

The Service takes the position that the payment was an involuntary payment and, as such, Alpha was not entitled to designate the application of the payment. The Service cites numerous and substantial authorities for the proposition that a payment under a confirmed Chapter 11 plan is not a voluntary payment. In answer to the debtors’ second contention, the Service asserts that the test provided in the Eleventh Circuit’s A & B Heating opinion is not binding upon the court because the opinion was later vacated.

The A & B Heating analysis was adopted by the First Circuit in deciding In re Energy Resources Co., Inc., which was pending before the Supreme Court at the time of the hearing of the instant cases. See In re Energy Resources Co., Inc., 871 F.2d 223 (1st Cir.1989), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 402, 107 L.Ed.2d 369 (1989). After the parties filed their briefs, the Supreme Court rendered its decision. In re Energy Resources Co., Inc., — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2139, 109 L.Ed.2d 580 (1990).

As a preliminary matter, the court first notes that the Supreme Court’s decision in Energy Resources does not provide an answer to the debtors’ objections here. The issue framed by Energy Resources is whether the bankruptcy court has the discretion to direct the allocation of payments to the Service under the terms of a Chapter 11 plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(ll). The Energy Resources analysis begins with the premise that, in order to confirm a proposed Chapter 11 plan, the court must find that the reorganization will succeed and that the priority claims of the Service will be paid in full within six year from the date of assessment. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(9)(C). In that context, the right to direct the allocation of payments merely determines which portion of the tax obligation is satisfied first.

That analysis is inapplicable to the facts presented here. Here there is no proposed Chapter 11 plan, and there is no evidence that the Alpha tax obligation was or will be paid in full. In fact, there is no proposed payment because the Alpha case has been converted to Chapter 7.

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

Related

In Re Tillery Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
319 B.R. 695 (S.D. Alabama, 2004)
In Re Poydras Manor, Inc.
242 B.R. 603 (E.D. Louisiana, 2000)
In Re Optics of Kansas, Inc.
132 B.R. 446 (D. Kansas, 1991)
Matter of Visiting Nurse Ass'n of Tampa Bay, Inc.
128 B.R. 835 (M.D. Florida, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 B.R. 716, 1990 Bankr. LEXIS 1291, 66 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5856, 20 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1089, 1990 WL 84840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-poleshuk-flmb-1990.