In Re Tam Specialty Co., Inc.

N.D. California

In Re Tam Specialty Co., Inc.

57 B.R. 37

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California

DecidedAugust 26, 1985

Docket19-40218

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 B.R. 37 (In Re Tam Specialty Co., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Tam Specialty Co., Inc., 57 B.R. 37 (Cal. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING ALLOCATION OF PAYMENT TO TRUST FUND TAXES

WARREN C. MOORE, Bankruptcy Judge.

Application has been made to the Court for an Order requiring the allocation of certain payments on an Internal Revenue Service proof of claim to what are commonly referred to as “Trust Fund Taxes.” The United States has pointed out that such an allocation benefits the potential “Responsible Officers” of the debtor but not necessarily the debtor and most certainly not the Internal Revenue Service as a creditor.

The Court has reviewed the caselaw on this matter. See e.g., In Re Mister Marvins, Inc., 48 B.R. 279 (D.C.Mich.1984); In the Matter of Avildsen Tools & Machines, Inc., 40 B.R. 253 (D.C.Ill.1984); In Re Rubler Rentals, 79-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9621 (E.D.Pa.1979); and In Re Vincent-McCall Co., 68-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9591 (E.D.Wisc.1968). Based on the aforementioned cases, the arguments of counsel, and the documents on file with the Court, the Court concludes it would be inappropriate for the Court to direct the allocation requested by the Responsible Persons.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

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

ORDER DENYING ALLOCATION OF PAYMENT TO TRUST FUND TAXES

WARREN C. MOORE, Bankruptcy Judge.

Application has been made to the Court for an Order requiring the allocation of certain payments on an Internal Revenue Service proof of claim to what are commonly referred to as “Trust Fund Taxes.” The United States has pointed out that such an allocation benefits the potential “Responsible Officers” of the debtor but not necessarily the debtor and most certainly not the Internal Revenue Service as a creditor.

The Court has reviewed the caselaw on this matter. See e.g., In Re Mister Marvins, Inc., 48 B.R. 279 (D.C.Mich.1984); In the Matter of Avildsen Tools & Machines, Inc., 40 B.R. 253 (D.C.Ill.1984); In Re Rubler Rentals, 79-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9621 (E.D.Pa.1979); and In Re Vincent-McCall Co., 68-2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9591 (E.D.Wisc.1968). Based on the aforementioned cases, the arguments of counsel, and the documents on file with the Court, the Court concludes it would be inappropriate for the Court to direct the allocation requested by the Responsible Persons.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 B.R. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tam-specialty-co-inc-canb-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack