In re Daigle, 22937.
| Citation | 111 F. Supp. 109 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 22937.,22937. |
| Parties | In re DAIGLE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Alton A. Lessard, U. S. Atty., and Edward J. Harrigan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Me., for United States.
William P. Donahue, Biddeford, Me., pro se.
This case comes before this Court on the petition of the United States of America for review of an Order by the Referee in Bankruptcy in the above-captioned matter, dated November 15, 1950, wherein the Referee, in effect, directed the Trustee in Bankruptcy to pay and allow wage claims of five employees in accordance with his Order of Distribution, free and clear of income withholding taxes claimed to be due by the United States.
The United States contends that such Order was, and is, erroneous and contrary to law, and that the Referee erred in authorizing the payment of the said wage claims free and clear of the claim of the United States for withholding taxes.
The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: Paul Daigle, a general contractor, employing a number of individuals, filed a petition in bankruptcy on October 7, 1948, and was adjudged a bankrupt on October 9, 1948. Five of his former employees properly filed proofs of claims for wages earned within three months from the date of bankruptcy. The Referee determined that the five employees were entitled to allowance of their claims for wages and assigned to the claims the priority to which they were entitled under the provisions of Section 64, sub. a(2) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 104, sub. a(2).
On the 11th day of October, 1950, the Referee ordered the United States to appear before him to show cause why he, the said Referee, should not order payment of the wage claims by the Trustee in Bankruptcy free and clear of any claim of the United States, that income withholding taxes should be withheld and paid by the said Trustee to the Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Maine.
The United States seasonably filed its Answer to the show cause Order and, among other things, it asserted that such claims for wages should not be paid to these employees free and clear of the obligation that taxes on said amount be withheld by the Trustee and paid by him to the appropriate Collector of Internal Revenue.
On November 10, 1950, the Referee filed his opinion setting forth his reasons why the taxes should not be so withheld, disagreeing with the authorities cited by the United States. On November 15, 1950, the Referee filed his Order to the effect that the Trustee was authorized to pay and allow wage claims in accordance with his Order of Distribution free and clear of claims for withholding.
On the 17th day of November, 1950, the Government filed a motion for extension of time for filing a Petition for Review of the Referee's Order. This motion was granted and the time was extended for thirty days beyond the ten days provided by statute 11 U.S.C.A. § 67, sub. c. Although the Petition for Review was not filed until eleven days beyond the extension allowed by this Court, this Court in the exercise of its discretion, permitted the Petition for Review to be filed and allowed, in view of the fact that no monies involved had been disbursed, and no injury had been suffered by any one as a result of the late filing of the Petition for Review. In re C & P Co., D.C., 63 F.Supp. 400; Pfister v. Northern Illinois Finance Corporation, 317 U.S. 144, 63 S.Ct. 113, 87 L.Ed. 146.
The only issue with which this Court is concerned is whether or not the Trustee in Bankruptcy is an employer within the meaning of the withholding provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 1621(d), 26 U.S.C.A. § 1621(d) and therefore, bound to withhold income taxes upon claims for wages earned by employees of the Bankrupt within the prescribed period.
The United States contends that a Trustee in Bankruptcy is bound to withhold income taxes from claims of wages earned by employees within three months of the date of bankruptcy because the Trustee is an employer, for income withholding tax purposes, and is obligated to pay the amounts withheld as income taxes to the Collector of Internal Revenue in the appropriate District, citing as its authority United States v. Fogarty, 8 Cir., 164 F. 2d 26, 174 A.L.R. 1284, and United States v. Curtis, 6 Cir., 178 F.2d 268, which are directly in point.
These contentions are based upon section 1622(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, as added by section 2 of the Current Tax Payment Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1622(a), which requires an employer making payment of wages to deduct and withhold from such wages a tax equal to an amount there specified, and section 1623 which makes the employer liable for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Otte v. United States 8212 375
...857, 78 S.Ct. 86, 2 L.Ed.2d 64 (1957); In re Connecticut Motor Lines, Inc., 336 F.2d 96 (CA3 1964). To the same effect is In re Daigle, 111 F.Supp. 109, 111 (Me.1953). A. The requirement of withholding. Section 3402(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3402(a), requires '(e)very emp......
- OTTE V. UNITED STATES
-
In re Main, Inc.
...78 S.Ct. 86, 2 L.Ed.2d 64 (1957); In re Connecticut Motor Lines, Inc., 336 F.2d 96 (C.A.3 1964). To the same effect is In re Daigle, 111 F.Supp. 109, 111 (D.Me.1953). 419 U.S. at 48, 95 S.Ct. 247. See also In re Armadillo Corp., 561 F.2d 1382, 1385 (10th Cir.1977). The reason for this is cl......
-
In re Freedomland, Inc.
...in United States v. Curtis, 178 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1949) cert. den., 339 U.S. 965, 70 S.Ct. 1001, 94 L.Ed. 1374 (1950); In re Daigle, 111 F.Supp. 109 (D.C.Me.1953); Lines v. State of California, 242 F.2d 201 (9th Cir. 1957) cert. den., 355 U.S. 857, 78 S.Ct. 86, 2 L.Ed.2d 64; In re Connecti......