Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that the federal income tax liability that resulted from a debtor's
post-petition farm sale is not "incurred by the estate" for the
purposes of 11 U.S. Code Section 503(b); therefore, it is neither collectible
nor dischargeable in a Chapter 12 bankruptcy proceeding (Hall v. United
States, No. 10-875, Chapter 12, U.S. Sup.; See 12/07/2011) [an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com subscribers].
Brenda and Lynwood Hall filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona. They proposed a
plan of reorganization under which they would pay off their outstanding
liabilities using the proceeds from the sale of their farm.
The IRS objected to the proposed plan, asserting a
federal income tax of $29,000 on the capital gain the Halls received from the
sale, which happened while the bankruptcy was pending.
The Bankruptcy Court sustained the IRS's objection, and
the Halls appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona,
which reversed. The IRS appealed to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals, where a divided court ruled that because a Chapter 12 estate is not a
taxable entity, it cannot "incur" a tax. The Halls then
appealed to the Supreme Court
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for a majority comprising
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
and Samuel A. Alito Jr. that a plain reading of the Bankruptcy Code means
there is no textual basis for giving the phrase "incurred by the estate" a
temporal meaning, such that it refers to all taxes "incurred
11 U.S. Code Section 1222
The majority ruled that any cases suggesting that
post-petition taxes were treated as administrative expenses are inapposite
because they involve corporate debtors, which Congress has singled out for responsibilities
paralleling those borne by a separate taxable entity's trustee.
The Halls contended that the purpose of 11 U.S. Code
Section 1222(a)(2)(A) was to provide debtors with robust relief from tax debts,
but the majority said Congress did not provide such tax relief in the
statute in question.
The majority added that given the plain language of 11
U.S. Code Section 1222(a), as well as the context and structure of the statute,
it is "not for us to rewrite the statute."
Specifically, the majority said, the case at hand
involved "complex terrain" of interconnected provisions and
exceptions enacted over nearly three decades. The position taken by the
Halls "threatens ripple effects beyond this case for debtors in Chapter
13 and the broader bankruptcy scheme that we need not invite," the majority
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote a dissent, which was
joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.
The dissenting justices said that in Chapter 12
bankruptcy, family farmers in economic difficulty may reorganize their debts
without losing their farms. Consistent with Chapter 12's purposes,
Congress amended 11 U.S. Code Section 1222(a) to enable debtors to treat
certain capital gains tax claims as ordinary unsecured claims. The
majority's holding prevents the amendment to 11 U.S. Code Section 1222(a) from
carrying out this basic objective, they said.
The dissenting justices concluded that if the majority is
correct, then capital gains taxes fall outside the category of priority claims,
fall outside the scope of the amendment to 11 U.S. Code Section 1222(a) and, in
fact, fall outside the bankruptcy proceeding altogether.
Under the majority's reading of the law, the IRS might well
be able to collect the debt in full outside the bankruptcy proceeding - even if
doing so would reduce the farmer's assets and future income to the point where
the farmer would not be able to proceed under Chapter 12, the dissenting
Furthermore, the phrase tax "incurred by the estate" in
11 U.S. Code Section 503(b) and the word "claim" in 11 U.S. Code Section
1222(a) are open to different interpretations, the dissenting justices
said. Each of the narrower interpretations adopted by the majority would
either exclude post-petition taxes from the phrase taxes "incurred by the
estate" or exclude all post-petition debts, including administrative expenses,
from the word "claim."
The Halls are represented by Susan Freeman of Lewis &
Roca in Phoenix.
The U.S. government is
represented by Pratik A. Shah of the U.S. Solicitor General's Office in Washington.
more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us
through our corporate site.