In re Vaughan
| Decision Date | 06 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-3483.,65-3483. |
| Citation | 292 F. Supp. 731 |
| Parties | In the Matter of George Franklin VAUGHAN, Jr., Debtor. (In Proceedings for an Arrangement under Chapter XI) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
James Park, of Stoll, Keenon & Park, Lexington, Ky., for debtor.
Elwood Rosenbaum, Lexington, Ky., for trustee.
James L. McBride, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., George I. Cline, U. S. Atty., J. T. Frankenberger, Asst. U. S. Atty., Lexington, Ky., for the United States.
The debtor filed a petition for a Chapter XI Arrangement on September 30, 1965. The United States filed an amended proof of claim in the amount of $29,912.60 for income taxes for the years 1962, 1963, and 1964 together with penalties and interest to the date of filing of the petition. This claim was allowed, the proposed arrangement plan was confirmed, and the United States was paid the full $29,912.60. Prior thereto, a notice of federal tax lien was filed in the office of the Fayette County Court Clerk. By agreement of the parties an order was entered by the Referee releasing this federal tax lien with respect to any property of the debtor being administered by the liquidating agent.
By order of June 25, 1968, the Referee (1) ordered released any notice of tax lien which the government had placed of record to secure payment of taxes evidenced by its amended proof of claim and (2) permanently enjoined the government from asserting or taking any steps to collect from the liquidating agent, from the debtor in possession, or from the debtor individually any post-petition interest or penalties on taxes embodied in the amended tax claim filed in this proceeding, that is, interest or penalties alleged to have been incurred subsequent to the filing of the petition on September 30, 1965. The United States has petitioned this court to review this order of June 25, 1968.
The contention of the United States is that the debtor is indebted to it in the sum of $2,934.60, which represents the post-petition interest which accrued from the date of filing the petition to the date the United States was paid for its claim. The United States contends that this debt survives the arrangement proceedings and is a personal debt of the debtor, though admittedly not collectible from the liquidating agent.
The questions presented to this court are (1) whether the Referee had jurisdiction to issue the order of June 25, and (2) whether the debtor is released by the Chapter XI Arrangement from personal liability for the post-petition interest.
The power of a bankruptcy court to protect its decrees is clear. Evans v. Dearborn Mach. Movers Co., 6 Cir., 200 F.2d 125; National Foundry Co. of N. Y. v. Director of Internal Revenue, 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 149. National Foundry is squarely in point. There, in arrangement proceedings, the Second Circuit specifically held that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to order the Director of Internal Revenue to take no steps for the attempted assessment or collection of post-petition interest.
The law is clear that tax claims in an arrangement proceeding bear interest only to the date of filing of the petition. United States v. General Engineering & Mfg. Co., 8 Cir., 188 F.2d 80, affirmed 342 U.S. 912, 72 S.Ct. 358, 96 L.Ed. 682. If the claim is paid in full according to the arrangement plan, the debtor incurs no personal liability for interest which would accrue from the date of filing the petition to the date of payment in full. Sword Line v. Industrial Commissioner of N. Y., 2 Cir., 212 F.2d 865, cert. denied 348 U.S. 830, 75 S.Ct. 53, 99 L.Ed. 654; National Foundry Co. of N. Y. v. Director of Internal Revenue, supra; Columbia Aircraft Co. v. United States, D.C., 163 F. Supp. 932. As pointed out above, National Foundry is on all fours with the instant case.
The government contends that post-petition interest is non-dischargeable under Section 17 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 35, which reads as follows:
"A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts, whether allowable in full or in part, except such as (1) are taxes which became legally due and owing by the bankrupt to the United States or to any State or any subdivision thereof within three years preceding bankruptcy * * *."
However, as the Second Circuit pointed out in Sword Line, at 868, such post-petition interest is hardly "legally due and owing" at the time of the bankruptcy (or within three years preceding it). Thus, Section 17 of the Act does not make the debtor personally liable.
The United States, in both its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Johnson Electrical Corporation
... ... § 11(15)) See National Foundry Co. of New York v. Director of Internal Revenue, 229 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1956); Evans v. Dearborn Mach. Movers Co., 200 F.2d 125 (6th Cir. 1953); In re Vaughan, 292 F.Supp. 731 (E.D.Ky.1968). Congress' intent to grant broad injunctive powers to the Bankruptcy Court with respect to matters before it is evidenced by the specific proviso to the effect that an injunction to restrain a court may be issued only by a judge. Furthermore, the general policy ... ...
-
U.S. v. River Coal Co., Inc.
... ... In reaching this conclusion the district court followed an earlier decision by another judge of the same court. See In re Vaughan, 292 F.Supp. 731 (E.D.Ky.1968) ... The district court and the government proceeded in this case on the assumption ... that the abandoned mine reclamation fees are taxes. Under Sec. 17 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1 11 U.S.C. Sec. 35(a)(1) (1976), a discharge in bankruptcy does not ... ...
-
Jaylaw Drug, Inc., In re
... ... National Foundry Co. v. Director of Internal Revenue, 229 F.2d 149 (1956). When the issue arose after Bruning in In re Johnson Electrical Corporation, 312 F.Supp. 840 (S.D.N.Y.1970), the district judge adhered to National Foundry primarily on the basis, which had been recognized in In re Vaughan, ... 292 F.Supp. 731 (E.D.Ky.1968), that, in contrast to Bruning, the tax claim in the bankruptcy proceeding had been fully paid. This court reversed, 442 F.2d 281 (1971). We held that the attempted distinction of Bruning was unconvincing since while the principal and pre-petition interest had ... ...
-
Schafer v. United States
... ... 353 F. Supp. 679 With the exception of two cases not cited by Schafer,4 both parties support their respective positions either by relying upon or distinguishing the same cases.5 ... Schafer places heavy reliance on In re Vaughan; the United States relies upon Bruning v. United States. In Vaughan, Chief Judge Swinford stated with respect to the Government's reliance on Bruning: ... "(The Government) contends that Bruning involved the precise issue before this court and that it impliedly overrules Sword Line and National ... ...