Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Dev., Inc. (In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC), Nos. 12–3200

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
Writing for the CourtJORDAN
Citation716 F.3d 736
Docket NumberNos. 12–3200,12–3201.
Decision Date21 May 2013
PartiesIn re The MAJESTIC STAR CASINO, LLC, et al, Debtors. The Majestic Star Casino, LLC, et al. v. Barden Development, Inc.; United States of America on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service; State of Indiana Department of Revenue; John M. Chase, Jr., as Personal Representative of Don H. Barden United States of America on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, Appellant No. 12–3200. Barden Development, Inc and John M. Chase, Jr., as Personal Representative of Don H. Barden, Appellants No. 12–3201.

716 F.3d 736

In re The MAJESTIC STAR CASINO, LLC, et al, Debtors.
The Majestic Star Casino, LLC, et al.
v.
Barden Development, Inc.; United States of America on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service; State of Indiana Department of Revenue; John M. Chase, Jr., as Personal Representative of Don H. Barden
United States of America on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, Appellant No. 12–3200.

Barden Development, Inc and John M. Chase, Jr., as Personal Representative of Don H. Barden, Appellants No. 12–3201.

Nos. 12–3200, 12–3201.

United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.

Argued Feb. 19, 2013.
Filed: May 21, 2013.


[716 F.3d 740]


Kathryn Keneally, Thomas J. Clark, Ivan C. Dale, [Argued], Melissa L. Dickey,

[716 F.3d 741]

United States Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC, Charles M. Oberly, United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE, for Appellants The United States of America.

Steven D. Carpenter, Indianapolis, IN, for Appellant Indiana Department of Revenue.


Mary F. Caloway, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, Wilmington, DE, Gerald M. Gordon, [Argued], Erika Pike Turner, Gordon Silver, Las Vegas, NV, Anthony Ilardi, Jr., Katherine Murphy, William Lentine, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Barden Appellants.

Lauren O. Casazza, [Argued], Warren Haskel, Kirkland & Ellis, New York, NY, Kathleen P. Makowski, James E. O'Neill, III, Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, Wilmington, DE, for Appellees.

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

This case arises from a corporate reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (the “Code”), and puts at issue whether a non-debtor company's decision to abandon its classification as an “S” corporation for federal tax purposes, thus forfeiting the pass-through tax benefits that it and its debtor subsidiary had enjoyed, is void as a postpetition transfer of “property of the bankruptcy estate,” or is avoidable, under §§ 362, 549, and 550 of the Code. This appears to be a question of first impression in the federal Courts of Appeals.

Barden Development, Inc. (“BDI”), John M. Chase, as the personal representative of the estate of Don H. Barden 1 (together with BDI, the “Barden Appellants”), and the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) appeal an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment to The Majestic Star Casino, LLC and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively “Majestic” or the “Debtors”) on their motion to avoid BDI's termination of its status as an “S” corporation (or “S-corp”), an entity type that is not subject to federal taxation. In November 2009, the Debtors, which had been controlled by Barden, filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Code. After the bankruptcy filing, Barden, as sole shareholder of BDI, successfully petitioned the IRS to revoke BDI's S-corp status. Under the Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”), that revocation also caused Majestic Star Casino II, Inc. (“MSC II”), an indirect and wholly-owned BDI subsidiary and one of the Debtors, to lose its status as a qualified subchapter S subsidiary (or “QSub”), which meant that it, like BDI, became subject to federal taxation.

The Debtors were by then effectively controlled by their creditors and, naturally, did not agree with shouldering a new tax burden. They filed an adversary complaint asserting that the revocation of BDI's S-corp status caused an unlawful postpetition transfer of property of the MSC II bankruptcy estate. The Bankruptcy Court agreed and ordered the Barden Appellants and the IRS to reinstate both BDI's status as an S-corp and MSC II's status as a QSub. The case was certified to us for direct appeal. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate the Bankruptcy Court's January 24, 2012 order and

[716 F.3d 742]

remand this matter to the Court with directions to dismiss the complaint.

I. BACKGROUNDA. Facts
1. The Parties

Defendant–Appellant BDI is an Indiana corporation with its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. Defendant–Appellant Barden was, at all pertinent times, the sole shareholder, chief executive officer, and president of BDI. At the time of the complaint, BDI qualified as a “small business corporation” under I.R.C. § 1361(b), and, presumably at Barden's direction, had elected under I.R.C. § 1362(a) to be treated as an S-corp for purposes of federal income taxation. As an S-corp, BDI was not subject to federal taxation, seeI.R.C. § 1363(a), 2 or state taxation.3 Rather, its income and losses were passed through to its shareholder, Barden, who was required to report BDI's income on his individual tax returns. SeeI.R.C. §§ 1363(b), 1366(a). 4

Plaintiff–Appellee MSC II is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates the Majestic Star II Casino and the Majestic Star Hotel in Gary, Indiana. MSC II generates income from those operations. BDI acquired MSC II in 2005 and was, at all times relevant to this dispute, the ultimate owner of 100 percent of its stock.5 Prior to the Debtors' bankruptcy petition, BDI elected to treat MSC II as a QSub for federal tax purposes, pursuant to

[716 F.3d 743]

I.R.C. § 1361(b)(3)(B).6 That meant that MSC II was not treated as a separate tax entity from BDI, but rather that all of its assets, liabilities, and income were treated for federal tax purposes as the assets, liabilities, and income of BDI. See id. § 1361(b)(3)(A). As a result, MSC II paid no federal taxes and all of its income and losses flowed through to Barden (through BDI), and he was required to report them on his individual tax returns. SeeTreas. Reg. § 1.1366–1(a). BDI was able to elect to treat MSC II as a QSub because the latter met the statutory requirement that it was wholly owned by an S-corp, ultimately BDI. SeeI.R.C. § 1361(b)(3)(B); supra notes 5 and 6.

2. The Majestic Bankruptcy and the Revocation of MSC II's QSub Status

On November 23, 2009 (the “Petition Date”), MSC II and the other Debtors filed voluntary petitions for bankruptcy relief under the Code, and the Bankruptcy Court subsequently ordered that their Chapter 11 cases be jointly administered. The Debtors became debtors-in-possession of their respective bankruptcy estates, and thus had, with limited exceptions not relevant here, all of the powers and duties of a bankruptcy trustee in a Chapter 11 case. At the Petition Date, both BDI and MSC II retained their status as, respectively, an S-corp and a QSub. Barden and BDI did not file bankruptcy petitions, nor did they participate as debtors in any of the petitions at issue in this case.

In addition to certain events that automatically revoke an entity's election to be treated as an S-corp,7 that tax status may also be revoked if more than half of the corporation's shareholders consent to the revocation. I.R.C. § 1362(d)(1)(B). If S-corp status is revoked, the entity cannot elect such status again within five years of the revocation without the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury. Id. § 1362(g).8

Sometime after the Petition Date, Barden, BDI's sole shareholder, caused and consented to the revocation of BDI's status

[716 F.3d 744]

as an S-corp, and BDI filed a notice with the IRS to that effect. The revocation was retroactively effective to January 1, 2010, the first day of BDI's taxable year.9 As a result, MSC II's QSub status was automatically terminated as of the end of the prior tax year (the “Revocation”), because it no longer met the requirement that it be wholly owned by an S-corp. Thus, both BDI and MSC II became C-corporations as of January 1, 2010. As a consequence of becoming a C-corporation, MSC II became responsible for filing its own tax returns and paying income taxes on its holdings and operations.

Neither BDI nor Barden sought or obtained authorization from the Debtors or from the Bankruptcy Court for the Revocation. The Debtors did not learn of the Revocation until July 19, 2010, which is believed to be at least four months after Barden and BDI filed the S-corp revocation with the IRS. See supra note 9. The Debtors allege that, because MSC II was not informed of the Revocation, it was unaware that it had a new obligation to report and pay income taxes. They also allege that, due to the change in MSC II's tax status, MSC II had to pay approximately $2.26 million in estimated income tax to the Indiana Department of Revenue for 2010 that it otherwise would not have had to pay. However, as of April 2011 (the first date federal taxes would have been due following the Revocation), the Debtors had paid no federal income taxes as a result of the Revocation.

3. Confirmation of the Majestic Plan and Its Effect on MSC II

On December 10, 2010, prior to the Debtors' filing of the adversary complaint that initiated this action, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order permitting the Debtors to convert MSC II from a Delaware corporation to a Delaware limited liability company (“LLC”). On March 10, 2011, the Court entered an order confirming the Debtors' Second Amended Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). Pursuant to the Plan, as of December 1, 2011 (the “Effective Date”), new membership interests representing all of the equity interests in MSC II were to be issued to holders of certain senior secured debt. On November 28, 2011, just prior to the Effective Date, the Debtors went ahead and caused MSC II to convert to an LLC. That conversion meant that MSC II would no longer have qualified for QSub status, even if the Revocation had not already occurred. SeeI.R.C. § 1361(b)(3)(B) (requiring that a QSub be a “domestic corporation”).10 Also, as part of the Plan of Reorganization, MSC II ceased to be wholly owned by an S-corp, so that, even absent the LLC conversion, and independent of the Revocation, MSC II would no longer have qualified as a QSub. The Debtors' Plan of Reorganization was substantially consummated on December 1, 2011, and

[716 F.3d 745]

MSC II emerged from bankruptcy together with the other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 practice notes
  • United States v. Annamalai, No. 15-11854
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 24, 2019
    ...estate under § 541(a)(1) "is determined at the time of the initial filing of the bankruptcy petition[.]" In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC , 716 F.3d 736, 751 (3d Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). This has been our understanding for some time. See Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc. v. Holahan , 311 F.2d......
  • United States v. Gjeli, Nos. 15-1892 & 15-2521
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 11, 2017
    ...there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding" that a dangerous weapon, namely the axe, was used.10 Ciavarella , 716 F.3d at 736. Therefore, the argument that the District Court's application of the dangerous weapon enhancement violated the Sixth Amendment fails.B. RICO ......
  • Arrowsmith v. United States (In re Health Diagnostic Lab., Inc.), Case No. 15–32919 (Jointly Administered)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • December 6, 2017
    ...this issue in the context of fraudulent transfers. See Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Dev., Inc. (In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC ), 716 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 2013) ; Halverson v. Funaro (In re Frank Funaro, Inc. ), 263 B.R. 892 (8th Cir. BAP 2001) ; Parker v. Saunders (In re Bakersfield W......
  • Zohar CDO 2003-1, Ltd. v. Patriarch Partners, LLC (In re Zohar III, Corp.), Case No. 18-10512 (KBO)(Jointly Administered)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Delaware
    • June 18, 2021
    ...authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents.").249 26 CFR § 301.7701-3(c)(iv) (emphasis added).250 716 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 2013).251 716 F.3d at 759.252 See Adv. D.I. 59 ¶ 41 n.40.253 See Compl. ¶ 315 ("The CTB Election resulted in the Zohar Funds' incurrenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
70 cases
  • United States v. Annamalai, No. 15-11854
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 24, 2019
    ...estate under § 541(a)(1) "is determined at the time of the initial filing of the bankruptcy petition[.]" In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC , 716 F.3d 736, 751 (3d Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). This has been our understanding for some time. See Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc. v. Holahan , 311 F.2d......
  • United States v. Gjeli, Nos. 15-1892 & 15-2521
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 11, 2017
    ...there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the finding" that a dangerous weapon, namely the axe, was used.10 Ciavarella , 716 F.3d at 736. Therefore, the argument that the District Court's application of the dangerous weapon enhancement violated the Sixth Amendment fails.B. RICO ......
  • Arrowsmith v. United States (In re Health Diagnostic Lab., Inc.), Case No. 15–32919 (Jointly Administered)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • December 6, 2017
    ...this issue in the context of fraudulent transfers. See Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Dev., Inc. (In re Majestic Star Casino, LLC ), 716 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 2013) ; Halverson v. Funaro (In re Frank Funaro, Inc. ), 263 B.R. 892 (8th Cir. BAP 2001) ; Parker v. Saunders (In re Bakersfield W......
  • Zohar CDO 2003-1, Ltd. v. Patriarch Partners, LLC (In re Zohar III, Corp.), Case No. 18-10512 (KBO)(Jointly Administered)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Delaware
    • June 18, 2021
    ...authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents.").249 26 CFR § 301.7701-3(c)(iv) (emphasis added).250 716 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 2013).251 716 F.3d at 759.252 See Adv. D.I. 59 ¶ 41 n.40.253 See Compl. ¶ 315 ("The CTB Election resulted in the Zohar Funds' incurrenc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Avoiding inadvertent termination of an S election.
    • United States
    • The Tax Adviser Vol. 53 Nbr. 8, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...the case to the bankruptcy court with orders to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction (Majestic Star Casino v. Burden Dev., 716 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. The Tax Court has ruled that Sec. 1362(d) does not provide an exclusive list of factors that can cause the S election to terminate. For ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT