In Re Wang Zi Cashmere Products, Inc.

202 B.R. 228, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 1407, 1996 WL 653893
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland
DecidedOctober 23, 1996
Docket19-11238
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 202 B.R. 228 (In Re Wang Zi Cashmere Products, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Wang Zi Cashmere Products, Inc., 202 B.R. 228, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 1407, 1996 WL 653893 (Md. 1996).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DENYING MOTION FOR PAYMENT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE

E. STEPHEN DERBY, Bankruptcy Judge.

I. Statement of Issues.

Before the court is the motion of Howard County, Maryland for payment of personal property taxes as an administrative expense. The Chapter 7 Trustee opposed this motion because the personal property, namely, inventory, furniture and equipment, had been sold by the Trustee before the beginning of the tax year, although after the date of finality for fixing the assessment. Because the extent of a Chapter 7 Trustee’s obligation to file Maryland personal property tax returns was involved, the court requested the United States Trustee to comment. The United States Trustee responded, and the court has found the U.S. Trustee’s comments quite helpful.

II. Findings of Fact.

This ease was commenced on February 10, 1995 by an involuntary petition under Chapter 7. An order for relief was entered on February 21, 1995, and immediately thereafter on the same day, debtor’s motion to convert to Chapter 11 was granted. In cooperation with its secured creditors, debtor sold its inventory and some office furniture by private sale on notice in late March or early April, 1995. The case was converted to Chapter 7 by order entered on May 26,1995, and the Chapter 7 Trustee was appointed on the same day. On twelve days’ notice, approved by the court and mailed on June 23, 1995, the Trustee sold by private sale debt- or’s remaining furniture and equipment for $6,800.00.

Howard County holds a claim for $10,-207.81 in personal property taxes for the year beginning July 1,1995, plus interest and penalties. In Maryland, personal property *230 taxes become due on July 1 of each year. Md.Tax-Prop.Code Ann. § 10-102(a) (1994 Repl.Vol.). Because the personal property taxes came due after the order for relief was entered, and after the case was reconverted to Chapter 7, Howard County asserts that they constitute a Chapter 7 administrative expense.

III. Conclusions of Law.

The date of finality as of which the value of personal property is fixed in Maryland for personal property tax purposes is the January 1 preceding the beginning of the tax year. Md.Tax-Prop.Code Ann. §§ 8-107(a), 1 — 101(i). “ ‘Date of finality’ means January 1, when assessments become final for the taxable year next following.” Id. at § 1-101(i). Assessment means “for personal property, the value to which the property tax may be applied.” Id. at § 101(c)(2). Therefore, in the instant case the date of finality as of which the value of personal property being taxed became final was prepetition, namely, January 1,1995, for the taxes that were first due postpetition on July 1,1995.

The tax return on which a personal property assessment is calculated is due on April 15. Id. at § ll-101(a). This date occurred during the Chapter 11 administration of this case, although the debtor-in-possession did not file a personal property tax return.

The owner of personal property on the January 1 date of finality is liable for the personal property tax, unless otherwise provided. Id. at § 10-401. If there is a transfer of all personal property between January 1 and July 1, the transferee, and not the transferor, will be liable for the personal property tax that becomes due on July 1, if a report is promptly filed before October 1. Id. at § 10^402(b). Otherwise, both transfer- or and transferee are jointly and severally liable for the personal property taxes. Id. at § 10-402(b)(2). Here, no such report was filed by either the debtor-in-possession or by the Chapter 7 Trustee. Therefore, the debt- or’s bankruptcy estate is subject, jointly and severally, to a claim by Howard County for the full amount of the personal property taxes first due on July 1, 1995. The issue is whether this claim is an administrative claim based on the due date for the taxes or treated as a prepetition tax priority claim based on the date of finality.

Howard County’s claim for the personal property taxes is a prepetition claim. The term “claim” is defined in the Bankruptcy Code to include any right to payment. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). This right to payment need not be fixed and may be contingent or unliq-uidated. Id. From and after January 1, 1995, i.e. both on February 10,1995 when the involuntary petition was filed and on February 21, 1995 when the order for relief was entered, Howard County’s claim was a contingent and unliquidated claim against Debt- or. It was contingent because the 1995 due date had yet to pass. It was unliquidated because the State and County had not yet set the tax rates and because the assessment valuation — based on Debtor’s personal property tax return due on April 15, 1995 that had not been filed — had not yet been made. Therefore, this claim qualifies under the definition of “claim” in 11 U.S.C. § 101(5) and Howard County held the subject personal property tax claim as of the commencement of the case.

As a prepetition claim, Howard County’s claim for the 1995-96 personal property taxes does not qualify as an administrative claim. 11 U.S.C. § 503. A tax must have been “incurred by the estate” before it can acquire administrative expense status. 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(l)(B)(i). A claim which Howard County had against Debtor prepetition could not have been incurred by the estate. In re Friendship College, Inc., 737 F.2d 430, 431 (4th Cir.1984). The estate was created when the petition was filed, and any claim which arose before this time was incurred by Debtor and not by the estate. Id. Therefore, Howard County’s claim is not entitled to an administrative expense priority, and it is entitled to priority treatment only to the extent it qualifies for one of the other priorities set forth in Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 507.

While Howard County’s claim may not be given a first priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1), it may acquire a priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(B). Section *231 507(a)(8)(B) assigns an eighth priority to “a property tax assessed before the commencement of the case and last payable without penalty after one year before the date of the filing of the petition; ...”.

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

Related

In re Bos
561 B.R. 868 (N.D. Florida, 2016)
In re K Lunde, LLC
513 B.R. 587 (D. Colorado, 2014)
In Re Anchor Glass Container Corp.
375 B.R. 683 (M.D. Florida, 2007)
In Re Baltimore Marine Industries, Inc.
344 B.R. 407 (D. Maryland, 2006)
In Re the Pasta Cafe Corp.
284 B.R. 564 (D. Maryland, 2002)
In Re McGee
258 B.R. 139 (D. Maryland, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 B.R. 228, 1996 Bankr. LEXIS 1407, 1996 WL 653893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-wang-zi-cashmere-products-inc-mdb-1996.