In Re Turner

420 B.R. 711, 63 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 270, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 3970, 2009 WL 4981234
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedDecember 21, 2009
Docket14-55757
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 420 B.R. 711 (In Re Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Turner, 420 B.R. 711, 63 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 270, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 3970, 2009 WL 4981234 (Mich. 2009).

Opinion

OPINION GRANTING THE STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY’S OBJECTION TO CLAIM NUMBER 10 FILED BY THE DEBTOR ON THE STATE’S BEHALF

MARCI B. McIVOR, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the State of Michigan Department of Treasury’s (“Treasury”) Objection to Claim Number 10 Filed by the Debtor on Treasury’s behalf. Treasury objects to the claim on the grounds that the taxes owed to the State of Michigan for tax year 2008 are a postpetition liability and cannot be paid as a prepetition claim. For the reasons stated in this Opinion, the Objection *712 is sustained and the claim is disallowed as an improper claim for prepetition taxes.

I. Facts

Debtor Michael Turner filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on January 13, 2009. The State of Michigan Department of Treasury did not file a claim for any taxes owed for the 2008 tax year. An Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan was entered on April 7, 2009. 1 On August 12, 2009, Debtor filed a priority claim on behalf of Treasury for his 2008 tax obligation in the amount of $2,396. Treasury objected to the claim, contending that the 2008 tax obligation is a postpetition liability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1305, and asserted that the claim should be disallowed as a prepetition claim.

At first blush, it is not clear why a taxing authority would object to the classification of its claim as a prepetition claim to be paid through the plan. Treasury is entitled to payment in full regardless of whether the claim is viewed as arising prepetition or postpetition (a prepetition claim would be handled through the plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 507(a)(8) and 1322(a)(2), while a postpetition liability is, at Treasury’s option, payable through the Plan or collectible outside of the plan pursuant to routine non-bankruptcy collection procedures. 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1)). However, in larger context, whether a tax claim is a prepetition or postpetition claim impacts the taxing authority’s ability to collect on tax obligations owed by debtors. This Court concludes that, in Chapter 13 cases, the question of whether a claim for taxes is a prepetition claim or a postpetition claim is controlled by the date on which the taxing authority has the ability to ascertain whether a tax liability actually exists the date on which the tax return is due.

II. Jurisdiction

This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B.) This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).

III. Analysis

The issue before the Court is a narrow one: in Chapter 13 cases, which date controls the status of a tax claim — the end of the tax year (December 31 of the relevant tax year), or the date on which the tax return is due (April 15 of the following year)? 2 Debtor argues that tax claims become claims on December 31 of the year for which the taxes are due. Debtor further argues that if a bankruptcy is filed after December 31, the claim for the tax year ending December 31 of the year prior to filing is a prepetition claim. 3

Treasury argues, based on the language of 11 U.S.C. § 1305, that the prepetition or postpetition status of a tax claim is determined by when the tax “becomes payable”. 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) states that “[a] proof of claim may be filed by any entity that holds a claim against the debtor for taxes that become payable to a governmental unit while a case is pending.” Treasury asserts that a tax claim “becomes payable” on the date the tax return is due and the tax is ascertainable, that is to say on April 15 of the year following the year the tax obligation was incurred. Therefore, for any Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed between January 1 and April 15, the *713 taxes for the prior year are a postpetition § 1305 claim because the taxes do not “become payable” until April 15, after the date of the filing of the bankruptcy. '

The majority of cases addressing this issue support Treasury’s position. In U.S. v. Ripley (In re Ripley), 926 F.2d 440 (5th Cir.1991), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that income taxes do not become “payable” until the final tax return for the tax year is required to be filed, April 15. Thus, a claim for taxes could be filed as a postpetition claim under § 1305(a)(1) only if the return was due after the Chapter 13 petition was filed. In concluding that taxes are payable on the date the tax return is due, the Ripley court relied on “the customary usage of the word ‘payable’ and the context of section 1305”:

According to a noted authority, ‘payable’ means not only ‘[cjapable of being paid’ but also ‘justly due’ and ‘legally enforceable.’ Black’s Law Dictionary 1128 (6th ed.1990). The latter of these is the only reasonable meaning to be affixed to the word as it is used in section 1305. Black’s continues, ‘A sum of money is said to be payable when a person is under an obligation to pay it. Payable ... normally means that the debt is payable at once. Id.

Ripley, 926 F.2d at 444.

Relying on Ripley, the court in Rosander v. Michigan, unpub. case no. 1:02-cv-504 (W.D. Mich, filed March 27, 2003), affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling that for purposes of § 1305, taxes “become payable” on the date the tax return is due. In that case, the debtor purposely filed her bankruptcy petition on January 12, 2001, so that she could pay her 1999 and 2000 tax debts as part of her Chapter 13 plan. The state taxing authority did not file a claim until December 13, 2001. The claim covered only the 2000 tax liability and was filed under § 1305. Debtor objected to the claim, and the Court overruled the objection. In addition to relying on the plain language of the statute, the court cited the Michigan Income Tax Act.

The Michigan Income Tax Act requires a taxpayer such as debtor to file an income tax return on or before April 15 of the year following the tax year in question. M.C.L. 206.315. Indeed, the state cannot seek payment or collection of these taxes until after the time for filing the return and voluntarily remitting payment has passed. M.C.L. 205.24.

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

Related

In Re Senczyszyn
426 B.R. 250 (E.D. Michigan, 2010)
In Re Hight
426 B.R. 258 (W.D. Michigan, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
420 B.R. 711, 63 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 270, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 3970, 2009 WL 4981234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-turner-mieb-2009.