In re Carter, Bankruptcy No. 89-20574-13.
Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Kansas |
Writing for the Court | JAMES A. PUSATERI |
Citation | 125 BR 832 |
Parties | In re Paul Dana CARTER, Janet Arlene Carter, Debtors. |
Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 89-20574-13. |
Decision Date | 28 February 1991 |
125 B.R. 832 (1991)
In re Paul Dana CARTER, Janet Arlene Carter, Debtors.
Bankruptcy No. 89-20574-13.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas.
February 28, 1991.
Jan Hamilton, Hamilton, Peterson, Tipton & Keeshan, Topeka, Kan., for debtors.
Charles S. Kennedy, III, Tax Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S.
William H. Griffin, Topeka, Kan., Trustee.
MEMORANDUM GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DETERMINING TAX LIABILITY
JAMES A. PUSATERI, Bankruptcy Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the debtors' motion for determination of tax liability and on the United States' motion for summary judgment. Paul and Janet Carter ("Debtors") are represented by Jan Hamilton. The United States ("U.S.") is represented by Charles S. Kennedy, III, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The U.S. has filed a Proof of Claim in the amount of $14,065.64 which consists of a priority claim of $12,770.57 and a general unsecured claim of $1,295.07. The Debtors are entitled to credits of $976.00, with respect to the 1986 income tax return of Janet Carter, and $1,350.00, with respect to their 1987 joint income tax return, and the U.S. is willing to offset these credits against its claim. The U.S. is seeking summary judgment to determine that the value of its general unsecured claim is $0.00 and that the value of its priority claim is $11,739.64. The Debtors, however, contend that the U.S. should have a priority claim of $1,916.891 and a general unsecured claim of $1,295.07.
The parties agree that the Debtors owe $3,522.28 as civil penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 66722 with regard to the unpaid employment taxes of J. Watsons 21, Inc. ("J. Watsons") for the first and second quarters of 1985. The Debtors dispute the contention of the U.S. that they also owe pre-petition interest of $76.76 on that amount.
The parties agree that the Debtors owe $2,341.14 as civil penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 with regard to the unpaid employment taxes of Midwest Operating Co., Inc. ("Midwest") for the second, third, and fourth quarters of 1987. The Debtors dispute the contention of the U.S. that they also owe pre-petition interest of $25.92 on that amount.
The parties agree that the Debtors owe $2,201.16 as civil penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 with regard to the unpaid employment taxes of Platos, Inc. ("Platos") for the fourth quarter of 1986. The Debtors dispute the contention of the U.S. that they owe pre-petition interest of $36.37 on that amount. The Debtors also dispute the contention of the U.S. that they owe $552.91 as civil penalties for the third quarter of 1985, and instead contend that they are entitled to a credit of $3,551.72 for that period. The parties agree that the Debtors paid
The parties agree that the Debtors owe $356.00, with pre-petition interest of $80.68, in federal income tax for 1986 and $3,575.00, with pre-petition interest of $2.35, in federal income tax for 1988 and that penalties on these liabilities amount to $1,295.07, which is an unsecured claim. The U.S. contends that the credits of $976.00, with respect to the 1986 income tax return of Janet Carter, and $1,350.00, with respect to the Debtors' 1987 joint income tax return, should be offset against the unsecured claim first, then against the priority claim, while the Debtors contend that the credits should be offset against the priority claim.
The Debtors claim the following refunds from their 1981-1984 individual tax liability due to loss carrybacks: $3,997.00 for 1981, $9.00 for 1982, $216.00 for 1983, and $62.00 for 1984. They contend that the refunds should be allowed to offset the I.R.S.'s claims. The U.S. contends that the Debtors are barred from claiming the refunds because the loss carrybacks were not claimed within the applicable time period.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The issues presented for determination are whether pre-petition interest accrues on the civil penalties owed by the Debtors under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 with regard to the unpaid employment taxes of J. Watsons, Midwest, and Platos; whether the U.S. can apply a voluntary undesignated payment in its discretion or whether it should have been applied to the trust portion; whether the U.S. may allocate setoff of the Debtors' income tax refunds in its discretion or only against the priority claim; and whether the statute of limitations bars recovery of the refunds arising from the 1984 and 1985 net loss carrybacks to offset the I.R.S.'s claims, and if so, whether equitable recoupment is appropriate.
Pre-petition interest accrues on the civil penalties owed by the Debtors under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 with regard to the unpaid employment taxes of J. Watsons, Midwest, and Platos. The Internal Revenue Code provides that if any amount of tax imposed is not paid by the last date prescribed for payment, interest on that amount accrues at the underpayment rate until the tax is paid. 26 U.S.C. § 6601(a). Furthermore, interest is assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner as taxes, and any reference in the Internal Revenue Code to any tax imposed also refers to any interest imposed on that tax. 26 U.S.C. § 6601(e)(1). The 100% penalty imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 is assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes, and except as otherwise provided, any reference in the Internal Revenue Code to any tax imposed also refers to the 100% penalty. 26 U.S.C. § 6671(a). Finally, this Court has held that priority claims under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(6) include any interest that accrued on the claim before the bankruptcy petition was filed. To the extent the underlying tax claim is allowed, interest that was matured as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed is a proper part of the claim. In re Coleman American Companies, Inc., 26 B.R. 825, 831 (Bankr.D.Kan.1983). Therefore, pre-petition interest on the 100% penalty assessment is allowed as a claim against the estate.
The I.R.S. may, absent a specific request by the taxpayer to allocate the funds in a particular way, allocate the funds to the corporation's unpaid tax liabilities in whatever way it feels appropriate. Gray v. U.S., 586 F.Supp. 1127, 1132 (D.Kan.1984). See, e.g., Liddon v. U.S., 448 F.2d 509 (5th Cir.1971), cert. denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ralston v. Department of Revenue, TC-MD 111202C
...and Mortg. Corp., 16 BR 165, 167 (1981). In particular, section 108(a) “extends the time to 'commence an action.' ” In re Carter, 125 BR 832, 836 (1991). “An 'action'ordinarily means a lawsuit brought in a court.” In re CGE Shattuck LLC (CGE), 272 BR 514, 518 (2001). “ 'Action' refers to * ......
-
Ralston v. Department of Revenue, TC-MD 111202C
...and Mortg. Corp., 16 BR 165, 167 (1981). In particular, section 108(a) “extends the time to 'commence an action.' ” In re Carter, 125 BR 832, 836 (1991). “An 'action'ordinarily means a lawsuit brought in a court.” In re CGE Shattuck LLC (CGE), 272 BR 514, 518 (2001). “ 'Action' refers to * ......
-
Ralston v. Dep't of Revenue, TC-MD 111202C
...and Mortg. Corp. , 16 BR 165, 167 (1981). In particular, section 108(a) "extends the time to 'commence an action.' " In re Carter, 125 BR 832, 836 (1991). "An 'action' ordinarily means a lawsuit brought in a court." In re CGE Shattuck LLC (CGE), 272 BR 514, 518 (2001). " 'Action' refers to ......
-
In re Hansen, Bankruptcy No. 90 B 5218 J.
...must file a Motion to Modify Plan, a Modified Plan, a new Plan Analysis, and a current budget. If he desires to extend the term of the plan 125 BR 832 beyond the original 36 months, he must also show justification for such extension. And, of course, he must send notice of the Motion to Modi......
-
Ralston v. Department of Revenue, TC-MD 111202C
...and Mortg. Corp., 16 BR 165, 167 (1981). In particular, section 108(a) “extends the time to 'commence an action.' ” In re Carter, 125 BR 832, 836 (1991). “An 'action'ordinarily means a lawsuit brought in a court.” In re CGE Shattuck LLC (CGE), 272 BR 514, 518 (2001). “ 'Action' refers to * ......
-
Ralston v. Dep't of Revenue, TC-MD 111202C
...and Mortg. Corp. , 16 BR 165, 167 (1981). In particular, section 108(a) "extends the time to 'commence an action.' " In re Carter, 125 BR 832, 836 (1991). "An 'action' ordinarily means a lawsuit brought in a court." In re CGE Shattuck LLC (CGE), 272 BR 514, 518 (2001). " 'Action' refers to ......
-
Ralston v. Department of Revenue, TC-MD 111202C
...and Mortg. Corp., 16 BR 165, 167 (1981). In particular, section 108(a) “extends the time to 'commence an action.' ” In re Carter, 125 BR 832, 836 (1991). “An 'action'ordinarily means a lawsuit brought in a court.” In re CGE Shattuck LLC (CGE), 272 BR 514, 518 (2001). “ 'Action' refers to * ......
-
In re Hansen, Bankruptcy No. 90 B 5218 J.
...must file a Motion to Modify Plan, a Modified Plan, a new Plan Analysis, and a current budget. If he desires to extend the term of the plan 125 BR 832 beyond the original 36 months, he must also show justification for such extension. And, of course, he must send notice of the Motion to Modi......