Fed and State Have Not Filed Claim

[despritfreya]

Ok, I'm a lawyer so, of course, I have to get the last word in very interesting thread ----- laughed right out loud when i read this part though...... too funny des...... love it.

You took away my last word. . . darn it.

Des.

[stratos]

From my research it looks like in the 5th Circuit, it's a post-petition debt (Ripley 926 F2d 440 1991); in the 9th, probably a pre-petition debt (Joye 578 F3d 1070 2009). Either way, I appreciate the info about asking the IRS to file a 1305 claim to be on the safe side. Would that still make it a priority debt before unsecured?

[despritfreya]

in the 9th, probably a pre-petition debt (Joye 578 F3d 1070 2009).

Correction. . . In the 9th Cir. a tax due the same year the case is filed is a post petition debt and this is possibly OP's problem that either must be dealt with by a 1305 claim or an independent installment agreement with the taxing agency. The Joye case only solidifies the issue.

In re Joye, 578 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir., 2009)

We hold that the Joyes' outstanding state taxes for the year 2000 cannot give rise to a post-petition claim pursuant to section 1305(a)(1). Under California law, personal taxes are calculated based on the given taxpayer's income earned "for each taxable year." Cal. Rev. & Tax.Code § 17041(a)(1). A "taxable year" is in turn defined as a calendar year. Cal. Rev. & Tax.Code § 17010. Thus, the Joyes could have technically determined and paid their year 2000 taxes on the day after the close of the corresponding calendar year. Although the Joyes were not required to pay these taxes until April 15, 2001 (or at the latest October 15, 2001), their tax liability to the state for the year 2000 was nonetheless capable of being paid, and thus payable, as of January 1, 2001.

(The Joyes filed their bk in March, 2001. The state failed to file a timely POC for the 2000 taxes. The Joyes received a discharge. The state then attempted to collect. The debt was discharged and the state was violating the discharge injunction.)

Des.

[stratos]

Correction. . . In the 9th Cir. a tax due the same year the case is filed is a post petition debt and this is possibly OP's problem that either must be dealt with by a 1305 claim or an independent installment agreement with the taxing agency. The Joye case only solidifies the issue.

In re Joye, 578 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir., 2009)
...
Des.

Yes, that's right. Thanks for the correction. I was thinking more about an annual tax return for a previous year that hadn't yet become due. Joye holds that would be pre-petition, but I see that isn't the op's situation since he's dealing with current year taxes. Ripley, the 5th Circuit case suggests that even taxes on pre-petition year income is a post-petition claim if the tax isn't yet due (at least that's how the case has been interpreted), but in Ripley they were actually dealing with same year taxes - like the op's situation, I believe.