Junes v. United States Government (In Re Junes

99 B.R. 978, 1989 Bankr. LEXIS 930, 64 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5256, 19 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 792, 1989 WL 61698
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 8, 1989
DocketBAP No. OR 87-1724-AsMoJ, Bankruptcy No. 386-04572-H13
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 99 B.R. 978 (Junes v. United States Government (In Re Junes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Junes v. United States Government (In Re Junes, 99 B.R. 978, 1989 Bankr. LEXIS 930, 64 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5256, 19 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 792, 1989 WL 61698 (bap9 1989).

Opinion

OPINION

ASHLAND, Bankruptcy Judge:

FACTS

On August 28, 1986, the debtors Alan and Cynthia Junes filed a petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. The debtors listed the Internal Revenue Service as an unsecured creditor in the amount of $36,529 for unpaid taxes accrued in 1980 and for penalties and interest on all the taxes due and as a priority creditor for the years 1983 through 1985 in the amount of $10,271. The debtors did not schedule the IRS as a secured creditor. The debtors did not provide for the IRS’s secured claim in the reorganization plan confirmed on October 27, 1986. When the debtors filed this petition, they had real and personal property amounting to $8,405.

On September 29, 1986, the IRS filed a proof of claim for income tax, penalties, and interest, alleging that the debtors were indebted to the United States in the amount of $46,882.50. The United States’ claim stated that the amounts owing were secured with the exception of $121.44 of tax and $43.22 of interest.

On October 17, 1986, the debtors filed an objection to "the IRS’s designation of its entire claim as secured. The debtors’ plan provided, as required under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(2) and § 507, for the full payment of all priority claims, and nothing for the unsecured creditors. The debtors proposed to allow the IRS’s claim as a priority claim *979 in the amount of $9,160.91 and as a nonpri-ority claim in the amount of $37,721.59.

At the hearing on the objection to the IRS’s claim, the IRS asserted that it was entitled to treat the 1980 taxes (nonpriority) as secured claims to the extent of available security ($8,405 of debtor’s real and personal property). However, the debtors, while acknowledging the IRS’s tax lien in the amount of $8,405 took the position that they were entitled to allocate the payment of the priority claims to extinguish the tax lien against the debtors’ real and personal property.

The bankruptcy court held that $8,405 of the IRS’s claim was an allowed secured claim, and $11,986.62 was an allowed priority claim. In the memorandum opinion, the court stated that the priority payments to be made by the debtors pursuant to the confirmed Chapter 13 plan, were involuntary payments, and therefore the IRS could elect to apply those payments in any manner it chose to maximize the collection of tax revenue from the estate, 76 B.R. 795 (Bank.Or.1987). The debtors appeal from this opinion.

ISSUES

1. Whether a debtor may apply the post-confirmation payments on priority tax claims to extinguish a federal tax lien in a Chapter 13 case, when the tax lien is not provided for in the plan of reorganization.

2. Whether a federal tax lien survives bankruptcy unaffected if it is neither avoided nor provided for in the plan.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law under a de novo standard. Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794, 795 (9th Cir.1986).

DISCUSSION

A taxpayer who makes a voluntary payment to the IRS may designate how the payment will be allocated to satisfy the taxpayers’ liabilities. In re Technical Knockout Graphics, Inc., 833 F.2d 797, 801 (9th Cir.1987); In re Ribs-R-Us, Inc., 828 F.2d 199, 201 (3rd Cir.1987). See also Rev.Rul. 79-284, 1979-2 C.B. 83, modifying Rev.Rul. 73-305, 1973-2 C.B. 43, su-perceding Rev.Rul. 58-239, 1958-1 C.B. 94. However, when the payment is involuntary, the IRS may designate which of the taxpayers’ liabilities will be satisfied by the payment. Slodov v. United States, 436 U.S. 238, 252, n. 15, 98 S.Ct. 1778, 1788, n. 15, 56 L.Ed.2d 251 (1978); Technical Knockout, 833 F.2d at 801; Ribs-R-Us, 828 F.2d at 463. See also IRS Policy Statement P-5-60, IRS Manual (May 30, 1984). “The IRS is entitled to allocate tax payments from [a] ... debtor in a manner that maximizes its ability to fully recover taxes owed.” Ribs-R-Us, 828 F.2d at 204.

The IRS relies heavily on Technical Knockout, 833 F.2d 797 (9th Cir.1987). In Technical Knockout, the Chapter 11 debt- or defaulted on payment of corporate income, social security and income withholding taxes. Prior to confirmation of the plan, the debtor sought to make payments on the IRS’s claims in order to escape personal liability, which is imposed on those responsible for collecting and forwarding the trust 1 funds to the IRS. Id. at 798-99. The court held that: “payment made by a debtor in possession after filing a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11, but prior to confirmation of a reorganization plan, are involuntary and the bankruptcy court does not have equitable jurisdiction to order otherwise.” Id. at 802 (emphasis added).

The IRS also cites, Matter of Ribs-R-Us, Inc., 828 F.2d 199 (3rd Cir.1987), which was relied on by the Technical Knockout court and applies the voluntary — involuntary analysis to a Chapter 11 post-confirmation payment. In Ribs-R-Us, the IRS’s priority tax claims were to be paid out over the maximum six-year period under the plan. The plan also provided for the payments to *980 be allocated first to decrease the secured trust fund portion of the IRS’s claim, then to the remaining claims. The court concluded that “payment[s] to the IRS on pre-petition priority tax liabilities by the debtor in reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code are involuntary and therefore cannot be allocated by the debt- or” to pay trust-fund liabilities. Id. at 204.

In Technical Knockout, the debtor sought to allocate preconfirmation payments to extinguish personal liability for trust fund claims. In Ribs-R-Us, the debt- or wished to make an allocation of post-confirmation payments of its priority tax claim to reduce the debtors’ non-priority tax liabilities (trust fund personal liabilities). Ribs-R-Us, 828 F.2d at 200. In this case, the debtors did not provide for the IRS’s tax lien in the plan, nor did the Chapter 13 plan provide any designation for the allocation of payments. Further, under the debt- or’s plan, the debtors did not have any other non-priority tax liabilities to which they could allocate their post-confirmation payments of priority tax claims. The debtors’ plan provided for unsecured creditors to receive nothing on their claims and did not provide for the IRS’ secured claims.

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

Related

In Re Tong Seng Vue
364 B.R. 767 (D. Oregon, 2007)
In Re Mitchell
281 B.R. 90 (S.D. Alabama, 2001)
In Re Harpole
260 B.R. 165 (D. Montana, 2001)
Brown v. Salliemae Servicing Corp. (In Re Brown)
227 B.R. 540 (S.D. California, 1998)
Norrell Health Care, Inc. v. Clayton (In Re Clayton)
168 B.R. 700 (N.D. California, 1994)
Bisch v. United States (In Re Bisch)
159 B.R. 546 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
In Re Martin
130 B.R. 951 (N.D. Iowa, 1991)
In Re Reed
127 B.R. 244 (D. Hawaii, 1991)
Bank of Maui v. Estate Analysis, Inc.
904 F.2d 470 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)
In Re Glow
111 B.R. 209 (N.D. Indiana, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 B.R. 978, 1989 Bankr. LEXIS 930, 64 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5256, 19 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 792, 1989 WL 61698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/junes-v-united-states-government-in-re-junes-bap9-1989.