Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02415/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02415-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

SHELLI RENEE JOYE and TERESA M.

JOYE, aka MICHAEL JOYE, MARIA

TERESA JOYE & MARIA MENDOZA,

Debtors,

___________________________________

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX

BOARD and SELVI STANISLAUS,

Executive Officer of State of

California Franchise Tax Board,

Defendants and Appellants,

v.

SHELLI RENEE JOYE and TERESA M.

JOYE, aka MICHAEL JOYE, MARIA

TERESA JOYE & MARIA MENDOZA,

Plaintiffs and Appellees. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-2415 SC

ORDER GRANTING APPEAL

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants and Appellants State of California Franchise Tax

Board and Selvi Stanislaus ("FTB" or "Appellants") appeal an order

of the Bankruptcy Court granting summary judgment in favor of

Plaintiffs and Appellees Shelli Renee Joye and Teresa Joye

("Joyes" or "Debtors") on the Joyes' Adversary Complaint to

Determine Dischargeability, etc. against the FTB. For the

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

following reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the appeal, REVERSES

the Bankruptcy Court's ruling, and ENTERS an order of summary

judgment in favor of the FTB.

II. BACKGROUND

On March 17, 2001, the Joyes filed their Chapter 13

bankruptcy petition ("Petition"). See Excerpts of Record on

Appeal ("ER") at 84-87. The petition scheduled the FTB as a

priority debtor in the estimated amount of $10,000. See ER at 86. 

Within a week, the Bankruptcy Court sent the FTB an official

notice of the filing. See ER at 89. The notice informed the FTB

of an April 19, 2001 meeting of creditors, and listed September 3,

2001 as the bar date for filing governmental claims. Id. 

On April 15, 2001, the Joyes requested a six month extension

for filing their California State tax return for the 2000 tax

year. ER at 20. California automatically grants taxpayers a six

month extension, thus the due date for filing was moved to October

15, 2001. See id.; ER at 93.

It does not appear that the FTB attended the April 19, 2001

meeting of creditors or filed any objection to the Joyes' Chapter

13 plan.

On May 18, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Joyes'

Chapter 13 Plan. See ER at 91.

The FTB did not file a proof of claim in the Joyes' Chapter

13 case. See ER at 9. 

On October 15, 2001, approximately one and a half months

after the claims bar date for governmental claims, the Joyes filed

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

their California state tax return for the year 2000, which showed

them owing the FTB taxes and penalties totaling $28,178.00 ("Year

2000 Taxes"). See ER at 46. According to the FTB, its "records

indicate that there was no account information under the debtors'

social security numbers prior to the filing of the joint tax

return for the 2000 tax year." ER at 47. No payment accompanied

the Return. See ER at 46.

On March 3, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court issued the Joyes a

discharge of their Chapter 13 plan ("Discharge"). See ER at 95. 

At some point following the Discharge, the FTB commenced an

action to collect the Year 2000 Taxes. See ER at 9. 

On March 22, 2005, the Joyes filed an Adversary Complaint in

the Bankruptcy Court against the FTB. See ER at 7-11. The

Complaint sought: a determination that the Year 2000 Taxes were

discharged; an injunction enjoining the FTB from attempting to

collect the Year 2000 Taxes; and an award of attorney fees and

costs. See ER at 9-11. 

On September 1, 2005, the FTB filed a motion for summary

judgment in the Bankruptcy Court ("Motion for Summary Judgment"). 

See ER at 23-24. After a hearing on the motion, the Bankruptcy

Court denied the FTB's motion and entered an order of summary

judgment in favor of the Joyes. See ER at 108-109. The FTB

appeal from that order. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

The parties agree that this appeal presents only issues of

law and no disputed facts.

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

Questions of law are reviewed de novo. In re Bakersfield

Westar Ambulance, Inc., 123 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1997).

Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to

any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law." F.R.C.P. 56(c).

IV. DISCUSSION

FTB offers two theories for overturning the Bankruptcy

Court's Ruling: First, the Bankruptcy Court committed a

reversible legal error in failing to find that the FTB's Income

Tax Claim was a postpetition tax claim which, under Section

1305(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the FTB was allowed, but not

required, to claim, and thus is not barred. See Opening Brief at

5. Second, in the alternative, barring the FTB's Income Tax Claim

constituted a denial of fundamental fairness guaranteed by the

U.S. Constitution to the FTB. See id. at 6. The Court finds that

the Bankruptcy Court was technically correct as a matter of law,

but that in barring the FTB's claim the Bankruptcy Court denied

the FTB fundamental fairness. On the second ground, the Court

reverses the Bankruptcy Court's order.

A. Section 1305

The Bankruptcy Court began the Adversary Proceeding with the

following "observation for both sides" addressed to the FTB's

counsel: 

Mr. Whitten, all this discussion of 1305 seems of no

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

consequence to me because 1305 is a section that has

nothing to do with discharge. It has to do with whether

a creditor, such as the Board, may file a claim, and if

so, how that claim is treated. But that's not our case,

and the question -- and 1305 essentially is a section

that says under certain circumstances, a tax creditor

can treat its claim as though it is pre-petition, and so

the discussion about payable and when does it accrue and

all this stuff in the briefs in these cases is

interesting, but it has nothing to do with this case. 

Nothing. The question is whether Mr. Joye discharged

the debt and whether you have a claim under 1305 or not

has nothing to do with whether there's a discharge. So

I'd have to face the issue if the Board had filed a

claim in this case, but it didn't file a claim and it

got notice of the proceeding, and the discharge is a

final order. 

ER at 129. This observation is correct.

Section 1305, titled "Filing and allowance of postpetition

claims," states inter alia:

(a) A proof of claim may be filed by an entity that

holds a claim against the debtor--

(1) for taxes that become payable to a

governmental unit while the case is pending; .

. . 

11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1). Both the debtor and the FTB have spent

significant time arguing about what constitutes a postpetition

claim as defined by this section, or more specifically, when the

FTB's claim for the Year 2000 Taxes "became payable." Though

irrelevant to the issue at hand, this dispute is not surprising. 

"[T]estament to the lack of clarity in the Code and Rules,"

various courts have answered the question differently. In re

Flores, 270 B.R. 203, 207 (Bankr. S.D. 2001). On one side are

courts, led by the 5th Circuit, which hold that a tax becomes

payable when the deadline for filing the associated return comes

due. See In re Ripley, 926 F.2d 440, 444 (5th Cir. 1991). On the

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 5 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

other side are courts, led by the 10th Circuit, which hold that a

tax becomes payable when the applicable period for assessment of

the tax, e.g. the tax year, expires. See In re Dixon, 218 B.R.

150, 152 (10th Cir. BAP 1998). The 9th Circuit has recognized

this split of authority but has chosen not to resolve it. See In

re Savaria, 317 B.R. 395, 401 (9th Cir. BAP 2004).

For the record, the Court notes that the reasoning in In re

Dixon and its fellows is more persuasive. As the court in In re

Dixon noted, "the legislative history of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code

contains the statement, 'Section 1305(a) provides for the filing

of proof of claim for taxes and other obligations incurred after

the filing of the chapter 13 case.'" In re Dixon, 218 B.R. at 153

(quoting S. Rep. No. 95-989, at 140 (1978) (emphasis added in In

re Dixon). Thus, taxes which are incurred prepetition but "that

do not come due until after the [Chapter 13] petition is filed"

are properly dealt with under Section 502(i), while taxes that are

"incurred postpetition . . . can be treated in a chapter 13 plan

only as a postpetition claim under section 1305." Collier on

Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Rev'd ¶ 1300.71[10]; accord In re Flores, 270

B.R. at 208-209.

As the Bankruptcy Court stated, however, whether the Income

Tax Claim was payable under § 1305(a)(1) before or after the Joyes

filed their petition is irrelevant. Section 1305(a)(1) deals with

a government entity's right to make a postpetition claim for

certain taxes, and thus have those taxes provided for in the

debtor's Chapter 13 plan. See Collier, supra, ¶ 1300.71[10]. The

section says nothing regarding discharge. 

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 6 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The 2005 amendments are effective in cases filed after

October 17, 2005. See Pub. L. No. 109-8, § 1406 (2005). 

7

Discharge is governed by Section 1328(a). See id., ¶

1328.01. Subject to certain exceptions not applicable to the

instant case, Section 1328(a) states: 

As soon as practicable after completion by the debtor of

all payments under the plan, unless the court approves a

written waiver of discharge executed by the debtor after

the order for relief under this chapter, the court shall

grant debtor a discharge of all debts provided for by

the plan disallowed under section 502 of this title . .

.

11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(1994)(amended 2005).1 "[T]he phrase 'provided

for' in section 1328(a) simply requires that for a claim to become

dischargeable the plan must 'make a provision for' it, i.e., deal

with it or refer to it." In re Gregory, 705 F.2d 1118, 1122 (9th

Cir. 1983); accord Rake v. Wade, 508 U.S. 464, 473 (1993). If so

provided for, a debt is discharged even if the plan contained no

provision for its payment, see In re Gregory, 705 F.2d at 1122, or

the creditor wasn't paid because it failed to timely file a claim

for repayment. See In re Osborne, 76 F.3d 306, 310 (9th Cir.

1996); In re Dixon, 218 B.R. at 154; see, generally, 11 U.S.C. §

502(b)(9).

Furthermore, while the 2005 amendments to the code except

from discharge "taxes with respect to which a return, or

equivalent report or notice[,] was not filed or was filed late and

within two years before the bankruptcy petition," the code prior

to 2005 contained no such provision. Collier, supra, ¶

1328.02[3][c]. "Under the law prior to 2005, taxes for which no

returns were filed could be discharged under 1328(a)." Id. Thus,

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 7 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

under pre-2005 law, if the plan schedules a tax debt, that debt

can be discharged regardless whether the debtor ever filed a

return for those taxes or the taxing entity ever filed a timely

claim for their payment. See In re Dixon, 218 B.R. at 154. 

Here, the Joyes scheduled the FTB as a 100% priority debtor

in their Chapter 13 plan. See ER at 87. The Bankruptcy Court

confirmed the plan and set the bar date for filing governmental

claims for September 3, 2001. See ER at 89. The FTB did not file

a claim for this debt with the Bankruptcy Court. See ER at 9. On

March 5, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order stating that, 

subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, "[p]ursuant to

11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)," the Joyes were "discharged from all debts

provided for by the plan or disallowed under 11 U.S.C. § 502." ER

at 95. Thus, under the law in effect at the time, the Joyes' debt

to the FTB was technically discharged on that date. 

B. Fundamental Fairness

The Court's conclusion that the Bankruptcy Court's March 5,

2005 order technically discharged the Joyes' debt to the FTB does

not, however, end the analysis. The Court must still determine

whether barring the FTB from collecting the Year 2000 Tax

constituted an unconstitutional denial of fundamental fairness to

the FTB. The Court concludes that it did.

As a general matter, "'actual notice is a minimum

constitutional precondition to a proceeding which will adversely

affect the liberty or property interests' of a creditor in

bankruptcy." Richmond v. U.S., 172 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.

1999) (quoting Tulsa Prof'l Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 8 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

U.S. 478, 485 (1988)) (modifications by Richmond court omitted). 

Where the creditor is a government entity like the FTB, and thus

is not guaranteed due process under the U.S. Constitution, it is

generally said that the entity must receive notice sufficient to

guarantee it "fundamental fairness" in the process by which its

claim is discharged. In re Ellett, 317 B.R. 134, 139 (Bankr. E.D.

Cal. 2004); see City of New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford

R.R., 344 U.S. 293, 296-97 (1953). More specifically, such notice

must be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to

apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and

afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane

v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950); see

also City of New York, 344 U.S. at 296 (indicating applicability

of Mullane standard to cases involving notice to governmental

agencies). Furthermore, "[t]he means employed must be such as one

desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt

to accomplish it." Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315; see also Jones v.

Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S. Ct. 1708, 1715 (2006). 

The notice given to the FTB does not meet this standard. 

California's income tax system, like its federal equivalent,

relies on taxpayers to assess how much they owe and inform the FTB

of that amount by filing a tax return. See Lennane v. Franchise

Tax Bd., 9 Cal.4th 263, 271 n.8 (1994); see, generally, Young v.

U.S., 535 U.S. 43, 48-49 (2002). In this context, scheduling the

FTB as a creditor for approximately $10,000, but failing to file

their state tax return--which showed an actual debt to the FTB

almost thrice that--until after the claims bar date for government

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 9 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

entities had passed is not notice "such as one desirous of

actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to

accomplish it." Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315. 

Furthermore, this does not appear to have been a situation

where the FTB could have determined the actual amount owed by the

Joyes absent filing, but did not do so as a result of its own

inadvertence or negligence. Compare In re Dixon, 218 B.R. at 250. 

Though the reasons why are not particularly well explained, the

FTB states that it did not have any record of the Joyes' social

security numbers in their system prior to the FTB's receipt of the

Joyes' 2000 tax return. ER at 47. The Joyes vaguely charge that

the FTB should have had their social security numbers in its

system by virtue of "employment tax withheld in 2000 . . . and the

prepayment of California Income Tax on IRA distributions in 2000." 

Responding Brief at 16. However, employment tax withholdings and

related records are remitted to the Employment Development

Department, rather than the FTB. See Cal. Unemp. Ins. Code §§

13020, et seq. Thus, it appears that the FTB had only a single

notice, related to taxes and penalties which were incurred because

of the early distribution of an IRA, on which to base a record of

the Joyes' social security numbers in their system. This

information plus notice that the Joyes had listed an estimated

debt of $10,000 to the FTB in their proposed Chapter 13 plan did

not provide the FTB with sufficient information to determine the

amount the Joyes actually owed--$28,178.00--and pursue repayment. 

Thus, even assuming that in some instances it might not deny a

taxing authority fundamental fairness to discharge a tax debt for

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 10 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

As stated above, the 2005 amendments do not apply to this

case. See supra.

11

which no return was filed, this is not such a case. Compare In re

Dixon, 218 B.R. 150.

The Court finally notes that several of the 2005 amendments

to the Code specifically seek to prevent situations such as this

from occurring.2 Section 1308 (added for the first time in 2005)

requires that prior to the first Section 341(a) meeting of

creditors, "the debtor shall file with appropriate tax authorities

all tax returns for all taxable periods ending during the 4-year

period ending on the date of the filing of the petition." 11

U.S.C. § 1308. And Section 523(a)(1)(B), as amended in 2005, in

combination with Section 1328(a)(2), excludes from discharge "any

taxes with respect to which a return, or equivalent report or

notice was not filed or was filed late and within two years before

the bankruptcy petition." Colliers, supra, ¶ 1328.02[3][c]. 

These provisions not only confirm the Court's holding above that

the FTB's Tax Claim was technically discharged under the Code in

effect at the time, but also Congress's concern that operation of

the Code as unamended could result in the denial of fundamental

fairness to taxing authorities.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Appellants'

Appeal and REVERSES the Bankruptcy Court's order. As the record

permits only one resolution of the issue of the dischargeability

of the FTB's Year 2000 Tax Claim, the Court declines to remand the

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 11 of 12
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 12

case to the Bankruptcy Court, and ENTERS an order GRANTING the

FTB's motion for summary judgment. See, generally, In re Jan

Weilert RV, Inc., 315 F.3d 1192, 1199 (9th Cir. 2003).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2007

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02415-SC Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 12 of 12