In re EA Nord Co., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 86-01113
| Decision Date | 08 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | Adv. No. A86-07948.,Bankruptcy No. 86-01113 |
| Citation | 75 BR 634 |
| Parties | In re E.A. NORD COMPANY, INC., Debtor. E.A. NORD COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Washington |
Jerome E. Westby, Asst. Atty. Gen., Temple of Justice, Olympia, Wash., for defendant/State of Wash.
W. Jeff Davis, Hatch & Leslie, Seattle, Wash., for debtor/plaintiff.
The facts are not in dispute. Under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington employers are required to provide workman's compensation coverage for employees. This obligation may be satisfied either by qualifying as a self-insurer or by making compulsory contributions to the Washington State Industrial Insurance Fund. From January of 1974 until December of 1985 the debtor was certified by the State as a self-insurer. After decertification, the debtor was required to post a bond.
This Chapter 11 case was filed on February 18, 1986. The State of Washington (Department of Labor and Industries) filed a claim in the amount of $109,005.70 based on unpaid premiums of $99,421.70 and penalties of $9,584.00 for the debtor's failure to pay its premiums for October of 1985 through February 16, 1986. The claim asserts priority for the principal under Section 507(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code and priority under Section 507(a)(7)(G) for the penalty.
The debtor has objected to the claim, contending that the required payments to the fund are not taxes but are insurance premiums which are not entitled to a priority status. The objection was converted to an adversary proceeding, and the debtor has now moved for summary judgment.
There are two issues before the Court. The first is whether the payments required to be made by employers to the Industrial Insurance Fund are taxes within the meaning of Section 507(a)(7) of the Code. The second is whether a penalty imposed for nonpayment, assuming the payments are taxes, is entitled to priority.
In the briefs the parties have cited innumerable cases which come to varying conclusions. However, there are two cases which this Court deems particularly applicable as precedents, one decided by the District Court of the Western District of Washington and the other by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In re Farrell, 211 F. 212 (D.C., W.D. Wash., 1914), which arose under the Bankruptcy Act, involved the precise issue now before the Court. In Farrell, the Court defined a tax as a pecuniary burden imposed for the support of the government, and as an enforced proportionate contribution levied on persons and property for the support of government and for all public things. The Court concluded, under the then version of the Washington Workman's Compensation Law, that the requirement to pay into the fund was an assessment against a class for the benefit of a class; and that Congress intended to include within the priority section of the Act only such taxes as were required to be paid into a common fund for the support of government. The Court also concluded that the general assessment provisions of the Industrial Insurance Act did not assess a tax which was paid into a fund for the support of government, but created an "accident fund" for a special purpose. The Court then held that the claim of the State was not a tax entitled to a priority status.
The second case (also a Bankruptcy Act case) is that of In re Lorber Industries of California, Inc., 675 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir. 1982), which involved a priority claim filed by a sewer district for use fees assessed against the debtor. The district contended that the fees were taxes entitled to priority, while the debtor argued that the district was a general unsecured creditor.
The Lorber Court first held that if a claimant is to be granted priority, the status must be justified by clear statutory authorization. The Court also held that to be classified as a tax entitled to priority, the charges had to be taxes as defined by federal law, and their classification as priority claims had to be consistent with the terms and provisions of the Bankruptcy Act.
The Court proceeded to define a tax for the purpose of Section 64(a) of the Act (the predecessor to Section 507(a)(7) of the Code) as follows:
The Court further defined a tax as an "involuntary pecuniary burden" and as a non-contractual obligation imposed by state statute upon taxpayers who had not consented to its imposition. The Court concluded that the debtor's obligation to the sewer district was based on a voluntary contractual agreement, and therefore was not a tax and was not entitled to priority.
As applied to the case now before the Court, Lorber's definitions of a tax are far more important than the result of the case. It is interesting to note that Lorber does not cite Farrell. It is also interesting to note that the Washington Workman's compensation statute has been amended in significant particulars since the 1914 ruling in Farrell.
This Court concludes that the resolution of this case is dependent upon the definition of a "tax" for priority purposes in bankruptcy and finds itself in the unusual situation of being bound by conflicting decisions of its District Court and a more recent ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court concludes that it is required to apply the Ninth Circuit's definition of a tax as set forth in Lorber, which does not include the "common...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Morgan
... ... SOUTH TEXAS HOME SERVICES, INC. and First Texas Savings Assoc., Defendants ... Bankruptcy ... Co. v. Mannix, 557 S.W.2d 755, 764 (Tex.1977) where the Court ... ...