Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02952/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02952-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2952

___________

In re: Trism, Inc., *

*

Debtor *

___________________ *

*

Trustees of the Trism Liquidating *

Trust, * Appeal from the United States

* Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Appellant, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

v. *

*

Internal Revenue Service, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 13, 2005

Filed: April 21, 2005

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Trism, Inc., an interstate trucking company, filed for bankruptcy under Chapter

11. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) filed a claim for unpaid assessments on

Trism’s operation of heavy motor vehicles on the highways. See 26 U.S.C. § 4481.

Trism objected to the claim’s priority classification, then confirmed a liquidating plan

Appellate Case: 04-2952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2005 Entry ID: 1893845
-2-

assigning authority to liquidate claim objections to the Trustees. After a hearing, the

bankruptcy court decided the monetary obligation imposed by § 4481 was an excise

tax on a transaction entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(E) (granting

priority to unsecured governmental claims for an “excise tax” on a “transaction”).

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. In re Trism, 311 B.R. 509 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.

2004). The Trustees appeal arguing the bankruptcy court and BAP erroneously

concluded the charges were a tax, rather than a user fee, and erroneously found a

transaction had occurred. Having carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, and the

applicable law, we conclude the bankruptcy court and BAP correctly decided the

case. The obligation imposed by § 4481 is a tax, not a fee. Id. at 513-16. Further,

the obligation is an excise tax on a transaction. Id. at 516-17. Because we have

nothing to add to the BAP’s explanation, we summarily affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2005 Entry ID: 1893845