Professional Membership
Bankruptcy | Case Law | Dischargeability 523 A 1
DISCHARGEABILITY - 523(a)(1)
Severo v. C.I.R., 586 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2009)
Debtors IRS tax debt was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(1)(A). The fact that their tax
liability did not fall within § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) doesn’t matter, since the exceptions to discharge
under this section are in the disjunctive.
In re Savaria, 317 B.R. 395 (9th Cir. BAP 2004)
“We conclude that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii). . .applies to postpetition filing of a late
return for prepetition taxes. Since the bankruptcy distribution priority created by 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(A)(iii) and the exception to discharge created by § 523(a)(1)(B) are mutually exclusive, it follows that the postpetition filing of a late income tax return does not promote the tax debt to priority status.” In re George, 361 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2004) Claim by California Uninsured Employers Fund against employer who failed to purchase workers’ compensation insurance was not “excise tax” for purposes pf bankruptcy law. In re Bliemeister, 296 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2002) Following DeRoche, where employee was injured in 1993 and bankruptcy not filed until 1998, transaction occurred more than three years before bankruptcy. In re DeRoche, 287 F.3d 751 (9th Cir. 2002) A “transaction” under Arizona Special Fund is the act of employing a worker without carrying the required insurance when the worker is injured; the date of the transaction for purposes of determining the three-year period of nondischargeability under the bankruptcy code is the date on which the worker is injured. In re Hatton, 220 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2000) Return filed by I.R.S. and agreed to by taxpayer did not satisfy statutory requirement for filing of return as prerequisite to dischargeability of tax debt. In re Jackson, 184 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 1999) Filing a return with the IRS was tantamount to filing with the FTB. In re Nunez, 232 B.R. 778 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1999) Tax Forms filed by debtor after IRS independently calculated debtor’s tax liability were“returns” for purposes of bankruptcy discharge statute.
In re Rowley, 208 B.R. 942 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997) Husband and wife did not fail to file mandatory “return” for purposes of discharge by failing to notify state when I.R.S. imposes tax deficiency assessment. In re Vitaliano, 178 B.R. 205 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995) I.R.S. agent’s report on changes in individual’s tax returns not “notice” to state tax board 129 for purposes of statute that sets time limits for board’s assessing deficiency based upon changes.“[O]ther than a tax specified in section 523(a)(1)(B) or 523(a)(1)(C) of this title, not
assessed before, but assessable, under applicable law or by agreement, after, the commencement of this case . . .“The trial court rule that since the taxes were properly assessable (and did not come within
the definition of 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(1)(B) or (C)), they were allowed priority claims under 11 . . . ” In re Camilli, 94 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, Camilli v. Industrial Com’n of Arizona, 519 U.S. 1113 (1997) Claim by state agency for reimbursement of workers’ compensation benefits paid to debtor’s employee does not constitute nondischargeable excise tax. It is a fee. In re Bracey, 170 B.R. 398 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1994), aff’d in part and reversed in part, 77 F.3d 294 (9th Cir. 1996) Discharge of Franchise Tax Board obligations - when a protest is “filed.” See also In re King, 961 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1992). In re King, 122 B.R. 383 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1991), aff’d, 961 F.2d 1423 (9th Cir. 1992) Tax assessment not dischargeable when 60 day final period fell within 240 days of petition In re George, 95 B.R. 718 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989), aff’d, George v. Calif. State Bd. Of Equalization, 905 F.2d 1540 (9th Cir. 1990) Responsible officer liability is a nondischargeable tax. 130