In the Matter of Kenneth Edward Johnson, Sr., and Essie W. Johnson, Bankrupts, Steve M. Watkins, Trustee v. United States

Fifth Circuit

In the Matter of Kenneth Edward Johnson, Sr., and Essie W. Johnson, Bankrupts, Steve M. Watkins, Trustee v. United States

429 F.2d 579, 26 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5085, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8393

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1970

Docket29307_1

StatusPublished

This text of 429 F.2d 579 (In the Matter of Kenneth Edward Johnson, Sr., and Essie W. Johnson, Bankrupts, Steve M. Watkins, Trustee v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Matter of Kenneth Edward Johnson, Sr., and Essie W. Johnson, Bankrupts, Steve M. Watkins, Trustee v. United States, 429 F.2d 579, 26 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5085, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8393 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Edward Johnson, Sr. and Essie W. Johnson, husband and wife, filed a petition in bankruptcy. Steve M. Watkins is the Trustee in bankruptcy and the appellant here. The Johnsons had not filed income tax returns for 1966 and 1967. The Internal Revenue Service filed a claim in the bankruptcy for taxes and asserted priority. Subsequent to the time for filing claims, the Internal Revenue Service filed an amended claim. The Referee allowed the original claim and disallowed the amended claim on the primary ground that the amended claim was so different from the original that it could not be properly called an amendment. The Referee’s order was reviewed by the district court which reversed the determination of the Referee and allowed the Government’s amended claim. The matter is before us on appeal from the district court’s order.

A great deal of the brief of the appellant trustee is devoted to the contention that the Referee was correct in his conclusion that the amended claim was so different from the original that it was improper as an amendment and was barred by the lapse of time. This contention is no longer urged and the Trustee concedes that the amendment was properly filed. The Trustee urges here that the matter was within the equitable powers of the Referee in bankruptcy and that it was error for the district court to overrule the Referee’s determination. We find no merit in this position and are not persuaded that there was any error in the tax determination. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Edward Johnson, Sr. and Essie W. Johnson, husband and wife, filed a petition in bankruptcy. Steve M. Watkins is the Trustee in bankruptcy and the appellant here. The Johnsons had not filed income tax returns for 1966 and 1967. The Internal Revenue Service filed a claim in the bankruptcy for taxes and asserted priority. Subsequent to the time for filing claims, the Internal Revenue Service filed an amended claim. The Referee allowed the original claim and disallowed the amended claim on the primary ground that the amended claim was so different from the original that it could not be properly called an amendment. The Referee’s order was reviewed by the district court which reversed the determination of the Referee and allowed the Government’s amended claim. The matter is before us on appeal from the district court’s order.

A great deal of the brief of the appellant trustee is devoted to the contention that the Referee was correct in his conclusion that the amended claim was so different from the original that it was improper as an amendment and was barred by the lapse of time. This contention is no longer urged and the Trustee concedes that the amendment was properly filed. The Trustee urges here that the matter was within the equitable powers of the Referee in bankruptcy and that it was error for the district court to overrule the Referee’s determination. We find no merit in this position and are not persuaded that there was any error in the tax determination. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

429 F.2d 579, 26 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5085, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-kenneth-edward-johnson-sr-and-essie-w-johnson-ca5-1970.