Matter of Youngcourt

86 B.R. 715, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 837, 1988 WL 59483
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedJune 1, 1988
DocketBankruptcy 87-3626-8B3
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 86 B.R. 715 (Matter of Youngcourt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Youngcourt, 86 B.R. 715, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 837, 1988 WL 59483 (Fla. 1988).

Opinion

ORDER ON OBJECTION TO PROOF OF CLAIM

THOMAS E. BAYNES, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on an Objection to the Proof of Claim filed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for income tax deficiencies. The matter under consideration is whether the claim has priority pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7).

On July 31, 1986, John F. and Nadene Youngcourt (Debtors), filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy petition. Two Chapter 13 Plans were subsequently filed. The first Plan was filed on August 19, 1986. The second Plan, filed September 5, proposed payment to the IRS, as unsecured creditor, a priority claim of $7,621.00 and a non-priority claim of $60,000.00.

On October 28 the IRS timely filed its Proof of Claim for the tax years 1978 through 1984. The Proof of Claim depicted an unsecured priority debt of $89,645.82 consisting of $41,801.00 taxes due, $34,-757.07 interest due, and $13,087.75 penalty due. On November 12, 1986, the Debtors filed an Objection to the Proof of Claim alleging the claim was non-priority and the amount due incorrect.

On January 29, 1987 an order denying confirmation was entered and the Debtors were given 30 days to file an amended Plan. A tangled web of events occurred after this point. Several days after expiration of the 30-day period, the Debtors filed *716 a motion to extend the time to file an amended Chapter 13 Plan. They alleged negotiations were in progress with the IRS. These negotiations were consummated on March 12, 1987, when the Debtors and the Chief Appeals Officer of the IRS signed IRS Form 870-AD, Offer of Waiver of Restrictions on Assessment and Collection of Deficiency in Tax and of Acceptance of Overassessment. The amount agreed upon by the parties is set out below. It is this amount the Debtors assert as the correct amount of the IRS claim.

Form 870-AD

Offer of Waiver of Restriction

(Alleged Unsecured Nonpriority Claim)
Year Ended Tax IRS Section 6659
12-31-78 $ 3,983.00 $ 896.00
12-31-79 6,432.00 1,447.00
12-31-80 11,526.00 2,593.00
12-31-81 5,557.00 1,250.00
12-31-82 4,512.00 451.00
[TOTAL $32,010.00 $6,637.00]
[GRAND TOTAL = $38,647.00]

Since the Debtors did not file their amended Plan within the 30-day period as ordered by the Court, the case was dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal, dated March 19,1987, did not become effective until 10 days later (March 29), per order of the Court. On April 3, the Debtors filed a motion to set aside the dismissal.

On April 9, the Court entered an order granting the motion to extend the time to file the Amended Chapter 13 Plan to May 1. The Plan was timely filed. On May 14, the Debtors withdrew their Objection to the IRS Claim. It is inferred this decision was based upon the agreement between the parties evidenced by the executed Form 870-AD. The next day, May 15, the IRS assessed the Debtors. The assessed amount did not agree with Form 870-AD.

On June 11 the Court denied the motion to set aside the March 19 order dismissing the case.

If at first no one succeeds, try, try again. And the Debtors did. Another Chapter 13 petition accompanied by a Chapter 13 Plan was filed on July 2, 1987. The IRS filed three superseding Proofs of Claim. Only the last one, filed January 12, 1988, is relevant here. On November 2, 1987, the Debtor filed their Objection to the IRS claim, again alleging the amount due as incorrect and non-priority in nature. The third and final Proof of Claim, filed January 12, 1988, is set out below. It is the amount set out in this Proof of Claim for tax and interest the IRS alleges as their priority claim. The IRS conceded at the February 3 hearing the penalty was nonpri-ority. The IRS filed a post hearing memorandum and documents in support of their position followed by a response from the Debtors.

IRS Proof of Claim

(Alleged Unsecured Priority Claim for Tax and Interest)

Tax Period Date Tax Assessed Tax Due Interest Due

12-31-78 5-15-87 $ 3,983.00 $ 5,722.30

12-31-79 5-15-87 6,432.00 8,470.54

12-31-80 5-15-87 11,526.00 12,887.84

12-31-81 5-15-87 5,557.00 4,969.62

12-31-82 5-15-87 4,512.00 2,626.04

12-31-84 Prohibited 6,099.00 [pursuant to 1,520.39

11 U.S.C.

§ 362]

[TOTAL TAX DUE = $38,109.00]

[TOTAL INTEREST DUE = $36,196.73]

[TOTAL PENALTIES = $8,825.87]

[GRAND TOTAL DUE for the period 1978-1984 = $83,131.60]

The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act to determine all disputes regarding the amount and validity *717 of taxes claimed in a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act. 11 U.S.C. § 505.

There is no dispute some amount of money is due to the Internal Revenue Service. Their claim is unsecured. The issues challenging this Court are (1) what amount is due and (2) whether this amount is a priority claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)(A). A determination of priority status is significant in a Chapter 13 case because all priority claims must be paid in full over the life of the Plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(2). Otherwise, the Debtors’ Plan may not be confirmed. See In re Carter, 74 B.R. 613, 615 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987).

Income tax claims are given priority if assessed within 240 days before the date the petition was filed or assessable after the commencement of the case. 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7)(A)(ii) and (iii).

The Debtors’ first petition was dismissed without prejudice on March 29, 1987. The IRS assessed the taxpayer on May 15, 1987. Since the case was dismissed, the assessment was proper and did not violate the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362. A new petition was filed on July 2, 1987. The May 15 assessment was made within 240 days of this date. Yet, a closer look at the facts and record indicates that the May 15 assessment was beyond the three (3) year statute of limitations for assessment allowed by the Internal Revenue Code.

As a general rule, a taxpayer must be assessed, if at all, within three years after the tax return is filed. 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a). The testimony of the Internal Revenue Officer indicated the returns were timely filed.

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

Related

Greco v. United States (In re Greco)
164 B.R. 686 (M.D. Florida, 1994)
United States v. Youngcourt (In Re Youngcourt)
117 B.R. 689 (M.D. Florida, 1990)
Hartman v. United States (In Re Hartman)
110 B.R. 951 (D. Kansas, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 B.R. 715, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 837, 1988 WL 59483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-youngcourt-flmb-1988.