Skip to main content

Overpaid Taxes Need Not be Turned Over to the Estate Under Section 542(a)

By: Christopher J. Rubino
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In Weinman v. Graves (In re Graves)[1], the Tenth Circuit held that section 542(a)[2] does not permit a chapter 7 trustee to force the IRS to turnover overpaid taxes of joint debtors where the debtors elected to apply the overpayment to the next year’s tax liability.  In Graves the joint debtors elected to apply their 2006 tax refund to their 2007 tax liability.[3]  Two months after filing their tax returns, the debtors filed for bankruptcy.[4] The Tenth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s refusal to order the IRS to turnover the debtors’ 2006 tax refund under section 542(a).[5] 

The Fifth Circuit Holds Trustee Personally Liable for Failure to Remit State Sales Tax

By:  Katelyn Trionfetti
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff

In Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Liuzza (In re Texas Pig Stands, Inc.),[1] the Fifth Circuit considered whether a bankruptcy trustee could be held personally liable for failing to remit state sales tax pursuant to Texas Tax Code section 111.016(b).[2] In Texas Pig Stands, the state taxing authority brought an adversary proceeding against a bankruptcy trustee after the trustee failed to timely remit state sales tax, which violated a court order and a court approved reorganization plan.[3] The Fifth Circuit held that the trustee was personally liable for over $100,000[4] in taxes he failed to remit.[5]

Fraudulently Conveyed Assets Are Not Property of the Estate Until Recovered

By: Preston C. Demouchet
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
 
Although section 541 includes within the property of the estate both equitable interests and property that is recovered pursuant to section 550, in cases where the estate’s equitable interest is based on the fact that the debtor fraudulently transferred the subject property, the estate includes only the equitable claim for its recovery and not the property itself.[1] The actual transferred asset does not become property of the estate until after the trustee successfully recovers it.[2]
 

Discharge Injunction Requires School to Issue Transcript

By: Sabihul Alam
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
 
In In re Moore, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Novus Law School violated a discharge injunction by refusing to issue a transcript or award a degree to Moore, a law student, until he paid his outstanding tuition balance, which had been discharged in Moore’s chapter 7 proceeding.[1] Moore successfully completed a two-year juris doctor program at Novus, a non-accredited web-based private law school, yet, at the time of completion, had an outstanding balance from unpaid tuition.[2] Moore’s obligation did not arise as a result of a government loan program, but instead was part of his tuition bill which he decided not to pay as it came due.[3] In May 2008, Moore filed for chapter 7 relief on account of his over $400,000 debt, approximately $6,000 of which was owed to Novus.[4] After receiving notification of Moore’s filing, Novus sent Moore an email stating that the law school would not grant Moore a degree nor certify his graduate status to employers if his debt was discharged through bankruptcy.[5] Subsequently, the court granted Moore a bankruptcy discharge.[6] The tuition owed to the law school was among those debts discharged.[7] In keeping with its prior warning, Novus refused to issue Moore his Juris Doctor degree or a transcript.[8] Moore then filed a motion seeking contempt sanctions against Novus for violating the discharge injunction for refusing to award Moore a degree or issue a transcript.[9]
 

Sixth Circuit Affirms Bankruptcy Courts Retroactive Conversion Order

By: Brandi Sinkovich
St. John’s Law Student
American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review Staff
 
The Sixth Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court had the equitable power under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) to retroactively convert a chapter 11 case to chapter 7.[1] In Mitan v. Duval (In re Mitan), debtor Kenneth Mitan filed a chapter 11 petition in the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California that unsecured creditors, which had been awarded judgments against debtor in connection with a fraudulent business scheme the debtor operated, successfully moved to transfer to the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where debtor resided and several creditors’ businesses were located.[2] After none of the parties appeared at either the status conference or the subsequent hearing to show cause why the case should not be dismissed or converted to chapter 7, the court dismissed the case. Later the court granted the creditors’ reconsideration motion in which the creditors argued that their absence was inadvertent while debtor's absence was calculated to result in dismissal of the case, which had been previously denied to the debtor.[3] At the hearing on the reconsideration motion, the bankruptcy court reopened the case and sua sponte converted it to chapter 7 after finding that it was necessary for a trustee to investigate debtor’s affairs in light of debtor’s alleged scheme to avoid his obligations and abscond with assets hidden overseas.[4]