Koehl v. United States (In Re Koehl)

166 B.R. 74
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Louisiana
DecidedDecember 8, 1993
Docket19-10325
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 B.R. 74 (Koehl v. United States (In Re Koehl)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Koehl v. United States (In Re Koehl), 166 B.R. 74 (La. 1993).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JERRY A. BROWN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter came before the Court on the complaint for discharge of taxes filed by Clarence George Koehl (“C.G. Koehl”) and Corinne Dale Koehl (“Corinne Koehl”). The United States of America, through the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, objects to the discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C), alleging that the debtors willfully attempted to evade or defeat the income taxes they owed. A trial on the merits was held *’on May 26, 1993. After reviewing the pleadings, the evidence at trial, and the arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following determinations. 1

FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Tax Problems

1. The debtors’ income tax returns for the years 1978 through 1983 were prepared by Mi\ Jay West, CPA, (‘West”) who thoroughly reviewed the debtors’ books.

2. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) audited the debtors’ income tax returns for the years 1978 through 1983. (PI. 6, Pretrial Order, Uncontested Material Fact # 1). 3.The debtors were aware of the audit by 1985. (PI. 6, Uncontested Material Fact #2).

4.At the conclusion of the audit, by letter dated May 26, 1989, the IRS proposed to assess the debtors for tax deficiencies in the following amounts:

1978 $317,950.97
1979 371,131.88
1980 141,172.00
1981 90,489.64
1982 111,329.00
1983 115,037.00

Negligence and delinquency penalties were also proposed to be assessed. No fraud penalties were proposed to be assessed. (PI. 6, Uncontested Material Fact #3).

5. West, who originally prepared the returns, did not agree with the proposed assessment by the IRS. West testified that the IRS used the bank deposit method of calculating taxes, did not take into consideration inter-company transactions, did not account for all transfers, and did not correctly account for loans from outside banks. He advised the debtors that the assessment was a “joke” and “unrealistic”, and informed the debtors it would “be in their best interest to fight”. Although he was unsure exactly when he received the “30-day letter” from the IRS, dated September 28, 1988, he did not think it would have been before October 3, 1988.

6. By petition filed on August 28, 1989, the debtors petitioned the United States Tax Court for a redetermination of the proposed deficiency. (PI. 6, Uncontested Material Fact #4).

7.The debtors eventually agreed to the assessments as proposed. By stipulated decision entered on October 16, 1991, the Tax Court found the debtors liable for the taxes set forth above in Finding of Fact # 4, in the following amounts:

1978 $317,950.97
1979 371,131.88
1980 141,172.00
1981 90,489.64
1982 111,329.00
1983 115,037.00

*76 (PI. 6, Uncontested Material Fact # 5). The Tax Court decision also found the debtors liable for negligence and delinquency penalties on these amounts. (Id.)

8. The taxes and penalties, together with then-accrued interest, were assessed on November 25, 1991. The taxes and penalties are not now assessable. (PL 6, Uncontested Material Fact #6).

B. Other Financial Problems

9. In addition to the income tax debt, the debtors were experiencing other severe financial problems during 1988. These financial difficulties included a substantial loss of money from a salvage operation in Mexico; declining enrollment and decreased revenue from the Moler Beauty College, a business operated by Corinne Koehl through a company called Corinne Koehl Inc.; and declining revenues from a construction company owned by C.G. Koehl, such that the company was basically out .of business. The decline in the debtors’ businesses had been going on since approximately the mid-1980’s, due to the oil bust in the area. As a result of these problems, several mortgage loans owed by the debtors were in arrears, and real estate taxes were unpaid. The debtors were in a dire financial condition and needed to raise money.

C. The Trusts

10. The debtors established two trusts, called the C.G. Koehl Trust (Ex. 4) and the Corin Koehl Trust (Ex. 7) 2 , by separate instruments dated October 3, 1988. The debtors are the settlors of both of the trusts. The beneficiaries of both trusts are the debtors’ four children: Dale J. Koehl, Timothy D. Koehl, Robert G. Koehl (“Robert Koehl”), and Jonette Franks Koehl. (PI. 6, Uncontested Material Fact #7).

11. Robert Koehl, a son of the debtors, testified that the trusts were established as part of the estate planning recommended by R. Travis Douglas, the debtors’ attorney (“Douglas”). He stated that the trusts were established because of C.G. Koehl’s concern that he would soon pass away. The debtors were both at advanced ages and C.G. Koehl’s health was failing.

12. Douglas testified that C.G. Koehl was concerned about the expenses of probating wills, and wanted his children to avoid having to face this expense. (Ex. 26, Deposition of R. Travis Douglas).

13. When the trusts were established, the stock of C.G. Koehl, Inc. was placed into the C.G. Koehl Trust, and the stock of Corinne Koehl, Inc. was placed into the Corin Koehl Trust. In this way, C.G. Koehl’s construction business was in a trust bearing his name, and Corinne Koehl’s beauty college business (though named Moler 1 Beauty College) was in a trust bearing her name.

14. West testified that in October, 1988, C.G. Koehl, Inc. was worth nothing or was insolvent. The company may have had some small operations, but nothing significant, and was basically not operating. The company had few assets, mostly real estate, on which the mortgages either equalled or exceeded the value of the real estate.

15. West testified that the value of the stock of Corinne Koehl, Inc. on the date of transfer was $12,000. This value was obtained from the value of the stock on the income tax returns of Corinne Koehl, Inc.

16. The Louisiana Land Trust was also established on October 3, 1988, by the debtors’ four children. (Ex. 15). The debtors’ children were the beneficiaries and the set-tlors of the Louisiana Land Trust. (PI. 6, Uncontested Material Fact #8).

17. Robert Koehl testified that the Louisiana Land Trust was established by the debtors’ children to acquire the property of the debtors. He stated that there was no market for the property, and the children wanted to keep intact the property owned by the debtors.

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

Related

Sly v. United States (In Re Sly)
305 B.R. 72 (N.D. Florida, 2003)
Parker v. United States (In Re Parker)
196 B.R. 338 (W.D. Louisiana, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 B.R. 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koehl-v-united-states-in-re-koehl-laeb-1993.