2 FILED & ENTERED
4 MAY 27 2025
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 6 C B e Y n e t v r a a l n D g i e s l t i r i c D t E o P f U C T a Y li f C or L n E ia RK 7
8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LOS ANGELES DIVISION 11
13 In re: Case No.: 2:22-bk-13785-BB
14 Marine Wholesale & Warehouse Co. CHAPTER 11
15 ORDER RESOLVING PHASE III ISSUES IN
CONNECTION WITH LITIGATION OF 16 OBJECTION TO CLAIM NO 5-1
17 Date: May 14, 2025 Debtor(s). 18 Time: 1:00 PM Courtroom: 1539 19
21 22 The Court conducted a hearing on May 14, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., in Courtroom 23 1539 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California on the 24 issues identified as the Phase III issues in this Court’s March 26, 2025 “Scheduling 25 Order for Phase III of Litigation of Objection to Claim No. 5-1” [Docket No. 344] (the 26 "Scheduling Order"). Appearances were as noted on the record at the time of hearing. 27 The Court, having reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties and having considered 28 1 the legal authorities presented and the oral argument of counsel, hereby sets forth its 2 rulings on the Phase III issues: 3 4 I. 5 BACKGROUND 6 7 On March 26, 2025, the Court issued the Scheduling Order, which identified the 8 following as the Phase III issues to be resolved at the May 14, 2025 hearing: 9 1. Whether 26 U.S.C. § 5761(c) can itself be the basis for the imposition of 10 tax liability (as distinguished from liability for the payment of a penalty) or whether 11 this section only creates liability for the payment of penalties; 12 2. Whether a TTB Form 5220.4 qualifies as a "return" within the meaning of 13 26 U.S.C. § 6501; and 14 3. Whether a tax assessment be sustained on any applicable basis even if 15 that basis is not set forth in the assessment, or whether an assessment must 16 specify the correct code section(s) that is/are the basis for the tax liability in order 17 for an assessment to be valid. 18
19 20 II. 22 A. Interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 5761(c) 23 The Court concludes that 26 U.S.C. § 5761(c) does not itself provide an 24 independent basis for the imposition of tax liability but rather relates to the imposition of 25 penalties. The statutory language and the surrounding framework indicate that section 26 5761(c) is focused on penalties for the unauthorized sale or receipt of export-only 27 tobacco products, rather than the assessment of the underlying tax itself. 28 1 Section 5761(c) provides that any person who sells, relands, or receives within 2 the jurisdiction of the United States any tobacco products or cigarette papers or tubes 3 which have been labeled or shipped for exportation under this chapter, every person 4 who sells or receives these items and every person who aids or abets in selling, relating 5 or receiving these items shall “in addition to the tax and any other penalty provided for in 6 this title, be liable for a penalty equal to the greater of $1,000 or 5 times the amount of 7 the tax imposed by this chapter.” [Emphasis added.] The remaining subparts of section 8 5761 all discuss penalties, rather than the underlying taxes, and the plain language of 9 this section suggests that such persons’ liability for the taxes themselves derives from 10 other portions of the chapter. Therefore, the Court finds that any liability that the Debtor 11 may have for excise taxes on tobacco products must arise from a code section other 12 than section 5761(c). 13 14 B. Qualification of TTB Form 5220.4 as a "Return" 15 The Court in Beard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, 82 T.C. 766 16 (1984), aff'd, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), identified four factors that determine whether 17 a particular document submitted to the Internal Revenue Service constitutes a “return” 18 sufficient to trigger the running of the statute of limitations: 19 (1) the document must contain sufficient data to allow the taxing authority to 20 calculate the taxpayer's tax liability; 21 (2) the document must purport to be a return; 22 (3) the document must represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the 23 requirements of the tax law; and 24 (4) the document must be executed under penalties of perjury. 25 All four factors must be satisfied for the relevant document to constitute a “return” under 26 this standard. 27
28 1 Here, the reports submitted by the Debtor were signed under penalty of perjury, 2 and the Court is not in a position to adjudicate summarily whether the Debtor’s 3 submission of the reports constituted an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the 4 requirements of the tax law. However, even if the Court were to assume that both the 5 third and fourth factors have been satisfied, the reports would not qualify as “returns” 6 within the meaning of Beard because they do not satisfy the first two requirements set 7 forth in Beard. The Report does not purport to be a tax return, and it does not contain 8 all the information necessary for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (the 9 “TTB”) to calculate the Debtor's tax liability. 10 Most significantly, the reports do not purport to be tax returns, and the Debtor did 11 not intend them as such. The Debtor continues to insist that it was not then and is not 12 now liable for any taxes on the tobacco products in question. The Debtor did not submit 13 these reports for the purpose or with the intent of submitting a tax return. The form is 14 primarily used for inventory tracking and does not provide the comprehensive financial 15 information required for tax assessment purposes. The form does not require the Debtor 16 to identify outstanding tax liability and does not reflect any calculation of taxes. It does 17 not put the TTB on notice that taxes were going to be or should have been assessed. 18 Moreover, it does not contain all of the information necessary to enable the TTB 19 to calculate the Debtor’s tax liability. It omits a key fact necessary to ascertain the 20 Debtor’s tax liability – the fact that gave rise to its tax liability—the loss of its permit due 21 to the change of control. That is, the Report omits the critical fact that the Debtor had 22 lost its export warehouse permit due to a change of control, which was the basis for the 23 Debtor's tax liability. The Court agrees that this fact pattern is analogous to that relied 24 upon by the Tax Court in Ya Glob. Invs. L.P. v. Comm’r of Internal Rev., 161 T.C. 173 25 (2023) when it reached the conclusion that the form filed by the partnership did not 26 constitute a return and therefore did not trigger the running of the applicable statute of 27 limitations. 28 1 Therefore, the Court finds that the Report does not constitute a valid return for 2 purpose of triggering the statute of limitations under Section 6501. This ruling is 3 consistent with the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of what constitutes a "return" for tax 4 purposes, as articulated in United States v. Hatton (In re Hatton), 220 F.3d 1057, 1061 5 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The Beard definition was derived from two Supreme Court 6 cases, Germantown Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 304, 84 L. Ed. 770, 60 S. Ct. 7 566 (1940) and Zellerbach Paper Co. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 FILED & ENTERED
4 MAY 27 2025
CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 6 C B e Y n e t v r a a l n D g i e s l t i r i c D t E o P f U C T a Y li f C or L n E ia RK 7
8 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LOS ANGELES DIVISION 11
13 In re: Case No.: 2:22-bk-13785-BB
14 Marine Wholesale & Warehouse Co. CHAPTER 11
15 ORDER RESOLVING PHASE III ISSUES IN
CONNECTION WITH LITIGATION OF 16 OBJECTION TO CLAIM NO 5-1
17 Date: May 14, 2025 Debtor(s). 18 Time: 1:00 PM Courtroom: 1539 19
21 22 The Court conducted a hearing on May 14, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., in Courtroom 23 1539 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California on the 24 issues identified as the Phase III issues in this Court’s March 26, 2025 “Scheduling 25 Order for Phase III of Litigation of Objection to Claim No. 5-1” [Docket No. 344] (the 26 "Scheduling Order"). Appearances were as noted on the record at the time of hearing. 27 The Court, having reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties and having considered 28 1 the legal authorities presented and the oral argument of counsel, hereby sets forth its 2 rulings on the Phase III issues: 3 4 I. 5 BACKGROUND 6 7 On March 26, 2025, the Court issued the Scheduling Order, which identified the 8 following as the Phase III issues to be resolved at the May 14, 2025 hearing: 9 1. Whether 26 U.S.C. § 5761(c) can itself be the basis for the imposition of 10 tax liability (as distinguished from liability for the payment of a penalty) or whether 11 this section only creates liability for the payment of penalties; 12 2. Whether a TTB Form 5220.4 qualifies as a "return" within the meaning of 13 26 U.S.C. § 6501; and 14 3. Whether a tax assessment be sustained on any applicable basis even if 15 that basis is not set forth in the assessment, or whether an assessment must 16 specify the correct code section(s) that is/are the basis for the tax liability in order 17 for an assessment to be valid. 18
19 20 II. 22 A. Interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 5761(c) 23 The Court concludes that 26 U.S.C. § 5761(c) does not itself provide an 24 independent basis for the imposition of tax liability but rather relates to the imposition of 25 penalties. The statutory language and the surrounding framework indicate that section 26 5761(c) is focused on penalties for the unauthorized sale or receipt of export-only 27 tobacco products, rather than the assessment of the underlying tax itself. 28 1 Section 5761(c) provides that any person who sells, relands, or receives within 2 the jurisdiction of the United States any tobacco products or cigarette papers or tubes 3 which have been labeled or shipped for exportation under this chapter, every person 4 who sells or receives these items and every person who aids or abets in selling, relating 5 or receiving these items shall “in addition to the tax and any other penalty provided for in 6 this title, be liable for a penalty equal to the greater of $1,000 or 5 times the amount of 7 the tax imposed by this chapter.” [Emphasis added.] The remaining subparts of section 8 5761 all discuss penalties, rather than the underlying taxes, and the plain language of 9 this section suggests that such persons’ liability for the taxes themselves derives from 10 other portions of the chapter. Therefore, the Court finds that any liability that the Debtor 11 may have for excise taxes on tobacco products must arise from a code section other 12 than section 5761(c). 13 14 B. Qualification of TTB Form 5220.4 as a "Return" 15 The Court in Beard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, 82 T.C. 766 16 (1984), aff'd, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), identified four factors that determine whether 17 a particular document submitted to the Internal Revenue Service constitutes a “return” 18 sufficient to trigger the running of the statute of limitations: 19 (1) the document must contain sufficient data to allow the taxing authority to 20 calculate the taxpayer's tax liability; 21 (2) the document must purport to be a return; 22 (3) the document must represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the 23 requirements of the tax law; and 24 (4) the document must be executed under penalties of perjury. 25 All four factors must be satisfied for the relevant document to constitute a “return” under 26 this standard. 27
28 1 Here, the reports submitted by the Debtor were signed under penalty of perjury, 2 and the Court is not in a position to adjudicate summarily whether the Debtor’s 3 submission of the reports constituted an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the 4 requirements of the tax law. However, even if the Court were to assume that both the 5 third and fourth factors have been satisfied, the reports would not qualify as “returns” 6 within the meaning of Beard because they do not satisfy the first two requirements set 7 forth in Beard. The Report does not purport to be a tax return, and it does not contain 8 all the information necessary for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (the 9 “TTB”) to calculate the Debtor's tax liability. 10 Most significantly, the reports do not purport to be tax returns, and the Debtor did 11 not intend them as such. The Debtor continues to insist that it was not then and is not 12 now liable for any taxes on the tobacco products in question. The Debtor did not submit 13 these reports for the purpose or with the intent of submitting a tax return. The form is 14 primarily used for inventory tracking and does not provide the comprehensive financial 15 information required for tax assessment purposes. The form does not require the Debtor 16 to identify outstanding tax liability and does not reflect any calculation of taxes. It does 17 not put the TTB on notice that taxes were going to be or should have been assessed. 18 Moreover, it does not contain all of the information necessary to enable the TTB 19 to calculate the Debtor’s tax liability. It omits a key fact necessary to ascertain the 20 Debtor’s tax liability – the fact that gave rise to its tax liability—the loss of its permit due 21 to the change of control. That is, the Report omits the critical fact that the Debtor had 22 lost its export warehouse permit due to a change of control, which was the basis for the 23 Debtor's tax liability. The Court agrees that this fact pattern is analogous to that relied 24 upon by the Tax Court in Ya Glob. Invs. L.P. v. Comm’r of Internal Rev., 161 T.C. 173 25 (2023) when it reached the conclusion that the form filed by the partnership did not 26 constitute a return and therefore did not trigger the running of the applicable statute of 27 limitations. 28 1 Therefore, the Court finds that the Report does not constitute a valid return for 2 purpose of triggering the statute of limitations under Section 6501. This ruling is 3 consistent with the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of what constitutes a "return" for tax 4 purposes, as articulated in United States v. Hatton (In re Hatton), 220 F.3d 1057, 1061 5 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The Beard definition was derived from two Supreme Court 6 cases, Germantown Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 304, 84 L. Ed. 770, 60 S. Ct. 7 566 (1940) and Zellerbach Paper Co. v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 172, 79 L. Ed. 264, 55 S. 8 Ct. 127 (1934), and provides a sound approach under both the Bankruptcy Code and 9 the I.R.C.”). 10 11 C. Validity of Tax Assessment 12 The Court concludes that a tax assessment may be sustained on any applicable 13 basis, whether or not the specific basis is set forth in the assessment, so long as the 14 assessment otherwise complies with the relevant rules and regulations. The applicable 15 rules and regulations do not require the TTB to specify a particular code section in the 16 assessment, nor do they render an assessment invalid if it cites an incorrect code 17 section. As long as the assessment identifies the taxpayer, the type of tax or penalty 18 assessed, the taxable period, and the amount of the assessment, it is valid. 19 The cases the Debtor cites stand for the proposition that the assessment of a tax 20 is not the same as the assessment of a tax penalty and that a tax penalty must be 21 assessed before it may be enforced. The Court agrees that taxes and penalties are two 22 different things and that a tax or penalty must be assessed before it may be enforced, 23 but these principles have no bearing on the outcome of the instant dispute. Here, the 24 TTB assessed taxes, interest on those taxes and penalties for the Debtor’s failure to 25 pay those taxes. It did not assess (or has not yet assessed) either of the penalties 26 referenced in section 5761(c). The TTB has reserved the argument that it may even 27 now go back and assess these penalties – which argument is not presently before the 28 Court – but the TTB is not arguing that it has already assessed a penalty for either 1 $1,000 or 5 times the amount of the tax due The TTB’s contention is that it properly 2 assessed the tax itself (and the penalty for failure to pay that tax) and that its 3 assessment was made by an appropriate TTB officer and identified the taxpayer, the 4 type of tax or penalty assessed, the taxable period, and the amount of the assessment 5 None of the applicable rules and regulations requires the TTB to specify a particular 6 code section or stands for the proposition that, if the assessment specifies an incorrect 7 code section, it is invalid. Therefore, if the TTB can demonstrate that the Debtor should 8 be held liable for the taxes that it assessed under any code section, the assessment can 9 be upheld, even if the TTB specified the wrong code section or sections in its 10 assessments. 11 12 III. 13 CONCLUSION 14 15 Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby rules as follows: 16 1. 26 U.S.C. § 5761(c) does not itself provide an independent basis for the 17 imposition of tax liability, but rather relates to the imposition of penalties; 18 2. TTB Form 5220.4 does not qualify as a "return" within the meaning of 26 19 U.S.C. § 6501 and therefore will not trigger the running of the applicable statute 20 of limitations; and 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 3. A tax assessment may be sustained on any applicable basis, whether or 2 not the specific basis is set forth in the assessment, so long as the assessment 3 otherwise complies with the relevant rules and regulations. IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 HHH 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 □□ 24 a 7 CZ 25 Date: May 27, 2025 haa bs Al 26 United States Bankruptcy Fudge 27 28