[PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 1 1-1499 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C . Doc ke t No . 8: 11-c v-0048 4-EAK Bk cy . No. 8:0 9-bk-25 809-M GW In R e: SANDRAANN READ, De bto r.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ PAM DUB OV, Pine lla s C ount

y Prope rty Appra ise r; DIANE NEL SON, Pine lla s C ount

y Tax C oll ec tor Pla int iffs - App el la nts ,

ve rsus SANDRAANN READ, De fend ant - App el le e.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

the Uni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Mi ddl e Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Augus t 30 , 201 2) Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 1 of 13Be fore DU BINA, Ch ie f Judg e, JOR DAN a nd AL ARC ÓN, Ci rcui t Ju dge s. * ALAR CÓN , C irc uit

Jud ge : Pam Dubo v, Pin el la s C ount

y Prope rty Appra ise r (“ Propert

y Appra ise r”) a

nd Dia ne Ne lso n, Pin el la s C ount y Tax C oll ec tor (“ Tax C oll ec tor” ) ap pe alfrom an orde r of the Dis tric t C ourt o f the Mi ddl e Dist ric t of Fl orida

a ffirm ingthe fina l orde r of the Tam

pa Div isi on o f the Uni te d State s B ankrupt cy Co urt. T he ba nkrupt cy c ourt h el d th at

San dra Ann R ea d’ s (“ the Debto r”) re que st fo r the ba nkrupt cy c ourt t o re de te rm ine he r ad v alo re m tax li ab ili ty for the y ea

r 2009 wa s tim el y file d un de r 11 U.S.C . §§ 108(a) an d 50 5. Th e Propert y Appra ise r an d Tax Co lle ct or a

ppe al ed to the dis tric t c ourt, whic h is sue d a n orde r affirm ingthe de ci sio n of t

he ba nkrupt cy c ourt. The Prope rty

Appra ise r an d Tax C oll ec tor c ont en d th at thespe ci fic provi sio ns o f § 505 (a)(2)(C) pre clude a ba nkrupt cy c ourt from

red et ermini ng t

he
am ount or le ga lit y of a ny ad valo re m tax li ab ili ty on re alprope rty

of a de bto r’s
es tate , if t he a llo wa ble pe riod fo r co nte sti ng s uc h a c la im und er s ta te la w e xpi red prior t o th e fili ng o f an

obj ec tio n in

the ba nkrupt cy c ourt, not

wit hst an din g th e ge ne rale xte nsi on o f tim e pe riods for fili ng s et forth i n § 1 08(a ). W e rev ers e the dis tric t c ourt’ s a ffirm an ce of th e ba nkrupt cy c ourt’ s de ci sio n in

thi s m at te r be ca use

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. 2

Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 2 of 13we c onc lud e that, wh en Co ngre ss a

m en de d § 5 05(a ) by

a ddi ng § 505 (a)(2)(C), i t int en de d to c reate a

n e xc ep tio n to the ge ne ralti m e limits for co nte sti ng a tax
as se ssm ent se t forth

in § 10 8(a). The ba nkrupt cy c ourt h ad juri sdi ct ion

pursu ant t o 28 U.S.C . § 1 58(a ).

“ Sec tio n [ ] 158 (d) grants j urisd ic tio n to c ourts of a ppe al s for a ll fina l j udgm ents
an d orde rs m ad e by

thedis tric t c ourts on a

ppe al s ta ke n from the ba nkrupt cy
co urts. ” In reBri

gle vi ch , 847 F.2d 7 59, 7 60 (11 th C ir. 19 88).

I In thi s m at

te r, thePrope rty

Appra ise r ce rtifie d th e 2009 Tax R oll s to the Tax Co lle ct or for c oll ec tio n on Oc tob er 1 2, 20 09. The De bto r file d a volunt ary

pe tit ion unde r Ch ap te r 11 of t

he Ba nkrupt cy Co de twe nty -nine da

y s la te r on No ve m

be r 10, 2009 . The Tax C oll ec tor fil ed a proof o f cl ai m

on D ec em

be r 15, 2 009 (“ Tax Cl ai m s” ), for unpa id re alprope rty ad valo re m taxe s, ba se d on the a ppra ise d va lue of a pproxi m at ely

twe nty inv es tm ent prop ert ie s own ed by the Debto r. The De bto r did not file a jud ic ia l c ha lle nge to the va lue of he r prope rty in a Florid a sta

te c ourt wit hin 60 d ay s of t

he Oc tob er 1 2, 20 09 c ert ific at ion of th e 2009 tax roll s by

the Propert y Appra ise r pursua

nt t o Fla . Stat. § 194 .171 (2) (2009). The De bto r file d 1 Section 194.171(2), F la. Stat. (2009), provide s as follows: 1 No ac tion shall be brought to contest a tax assessment after 60 day s from the da

te the assessment be ing c ontested is cer tified for c ollection under s. 193.122( 2), or afte r 60 day s from the date a de cision is render ed conc erningsuch asse ssment by 3 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 3 of 13an

obj ec tio n to the Tax C la im s in the ba nkrupt cy c ourt o n Apri l 21 , 201 0, on the ground tha t t he a sse sse d va luee xc ee de d th e ac tua l va lue of th e prope rty . Und er Florid a la w, th e fai lure to file a

c ha lle nge to a tax a sse ssm ent wi thi n th e pres cri be d tim e limit de prive s Flo rida c ourts of th e juris dic tio n to c onsi de r a c la im
. The 2 De bto r’s ini tia l ob

je ct ion to the Tax C oll ec tor’ s c la im wa s no t fil ed

in the ba nkrupt cy c ourt u nti l 13 1 da

y s a fte r the 60-da

y de ad lin e to fi le a

c ha lle nge to the tax a sse ssm ent i n a

Florid a sta

te c ourt. II W e m ust de ci de whe the r the ba

nkrupt cy c ourt e rred i n ho ldi ng t

hat t he ti m e pe riod fo r the fili ng o f the De bto r’s req ue st fo r a re de te rm ina

tio n of t he a m ount of the ad valo re m taxe s wa s ti m ely , not wit hst an din g th e fac t t

hat t he ti m e to c ont es t the tax a sse ssm ent ha d e xpi red unde r state la w. Th e Tax C oll ec tor a

nd Prope rty Appra ise r co nte nd t

hat § 505(a )(2)(C) of th e Ba nkrupt cy Co de c reate s a

n e xc ep tio n

the value a djustment board if a pe tition contesting the a ssessment had not rec eived f inal action by

the value a djustment board prior to extension of the roll under s. 197.323. The De btor did not file an appe al with the value a djustment board within the presc ribed time. Section 194.171(6), F la. Stat. (2009), states:

2 The re quirements of subse ctions (2), (3) , and (5) are jurisdictional. No court shall have jurisdiction in such cases until afte r the re quirements of both subsec tions (2) and (3) have be en met. A c ourt shall lose jurisdiction of a ca se whe n the taxpay er has fa iled to comply

with the require ments of subsection (5)
.

4 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 4 of 13to t

he ge ne ralti m e provi sio ns o f § 108 (a) to file a c la im for a tax re fund a

nd
expres sly pre clude s a

ba nkrupt cy c ourt from

red et erm ini ng a

de bto r’s ad v alo re m tax li ab ili ty

if th e ap pli ca

ble pe riod fo r doin g so ha s e xpi red unde r rele va nt nonb ankrupt cy

la w. It i s un dis put ed

tha t t he De bto r’s obj ec tio n to the ad v alo re m tax c la im did not oc cu r unti l a fte r the ti m e to d o so und er Flo rida la w ha d e xpi red. The De bto r co nte nds that he r obje ct ion wa s ti m el y

pursu ant t o § 1 08(a ) be ca use he r pe tit ion

for ba nkrupt cy rel ie f was file d be fore t

he pe riod t o c om

m en ce an
ac tio n un de r Florida

la w to c ha lle nge the am ount of th e ad v alo re m tax ha d
expire d. B ec au se thi s a

ppe alc ha lle nge s th e dis tric t c ourt’ s de ci sio n a ffirm ingthe ba nkrupt cy c ourt’ s orde r, our re vie w is denov o . Se e In reGlo beMfg. Co rp. , 567 F.3d 12 91, 1 296 (11th

Ci r. 2009 ) (“ W e revi ewthedis tric t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to affirm the ba nkrupt cy c ourt denov o , whi ch

a llo ws us to as se ss t

he ba nkrupt cy
co urt’ s ju dgm ent a

ne w, e m plo y ingthe sa

m e sta nda rd of re vie w a s th e dis tric t c ourt its el f use d.” ). The iss ue rai se d in

thi s a ppe alha s no t be en

rev ie we d by

any Uni te d State s Co urt of Appe al s. It

ha s be en a ddre sse d by

thre e oth er b ankrupt cy

c ourts . Ea ch ha s he ld t hat a ba nkrupt cy c ourt l ose s th e right

to de te rm ine tax li ab ili ty

whe re, a s he re, t he de bto r doe s no t se ek

red et erm inatio n prio r to t he e xpi rat ion

of ti m e for the bring ingof a

n a ct ion und er s tate la

w. Se e In re

Bre ak wa te r Sh ore

s Pa rtn er s,

5 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 5 of 13L.P. , 201 2 B ankr. LEXIS 14 54, a t *1 1 (B ankr. E.D. Te x. Ap r. 5, 20 12) (hol din g that § 505(a)(2)(c) “ is p rope rly c onst rued a s re qui ring t

hat a de te rm inatio n re que st
m ust be prior t o th e expira

tio n of t he de ad lin e es ta

bli she d for re vie w und er s tate la w wit hout pos sib ili ty

of e xte nsi on u

nde r Ba nkrupt cy Co de § 10 8.” ); In reVillage at O ak we ll Farm s, Ltd ., 42 8 B .R. 372 , 376 -80 (B ankr. W .D. Te x. 20 10) (hol din g that wh ere a

debto r doe s no t se ek

red et erminatio n of ad v alo re m taxe s un de r § 50 5(a) p rior to the e xpi rat ion for bring ingan a ct ion

und er s tate la

w, th e ba nkrupt cy c ourt l ose s th e right

to de te rm ine the tax li ab ili ty ); In reATA Ai rli ne s, Inc. , 201 0 B ankr. LEXIS 35 71, a t *6 -7 (Ba

nkr. S.D. In d., Oc t. 4 , 201 0) (“ § 50 5(a)(2)(C ) bars a

ba nkrupt cy c ourt from

red et ermini ng t ax

li ab ili ty for an a d
va lore m tax if t he a ppl ic ab le pe riod fo r co nte sti ng o r rede te rm ini ng t he a m ount of the tax un de r nonb an

krupt cy la w ha s e xpi red be

fore themot ion to de te rmin e tax lia bil ity is brou ght be fore theban krupt

cy c ourt . . . . ”) (e m

pha sis a dde d)). The ba nkrupt cy c ourt i n th e m at

te r sub jud

ic e sta nds al onein co nc lud ingtha t, wh ere the a ppl ic ab le pe riod fo r co nte sti ng ad valo re m tax li ab ili ty ha s no t e xpi red as of the da te of th e ba

nkrupt cy fili ng, § 108 (a) sh oul d be rea d a s e xte ndi ng t he ti m e to
se ek red et erm inatio n un de r § 505 for an a ddi tio na l t

wo y ea rs, e ve n whe re t

he § 50 5
m oti on i s fil ed

a fte r the e xpi rat ion

of th e ap pli ca

ble pe riod fo r co nte sti ng t he
am ount und er a ppl ic ab le non

ba nkrupt cy la w.

6 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 6 of 13III

This dis put e is b efore us b ec au se of th e la ck of c la rity in the rel at ion ship be twe en the ti m e limits se t forth

in § 10 8(a) a

nd § 505 (a)(2)(C) for c ha lle ngi ng a n ad v alo re m tax, i f the ti m e to d o so ha s e xpi red unde r state la w be fore t

he ad
va lorem tax is a sse rte d in a ba nkrupt cy c ourt. Sec tio n 10 8(a) p rovid es : (a) If app lic abl

e nonbankrupt

cy law , a n orde r ente red in a nonb ankrupt cy

proc ee din g, or a

n a gree m ent fixe

s a p er iod wi thin which t he d eb tor m ay c om m enc e an ac tio n, and such perio d has not ex pired be fore the dat e of the fili ng of the petit ion, t he t rustee m ay co m m enc e such a ct

ion onl y be fore the lat er of — (1) the e nd o f suc h pe riod, inc lud inga ny sus pe nsi on o f suc h pe riod oc cu rring o n or a fte r the c om

m en ce m ent of t

he c as e; or (2) tw o y ea rs a

fter the ord er for rel ie f
. 11 U. S.C. § 10 8(a) (e m

pha se s a dde d). In 200 5, C ongre ss a

m en de d th e Ba

nkrupt cy Co de by a ddi ng § 505 (a)(2)(C). Sec tio n 50 5(a), a s a

m en de d, prov ide s: (a)(1) Exc ep t a s prov ide d in pa ragra ph (2) o f thi s su

bse ct ion , th e co urt m ay de te rm ine the am ount

or le ga lit y of a ny tax, a ny fine or pe na lty rel at ingto a tax, or a

ny a ddi tio n to tax, wh et

he r or not pre vio usl y as se sse d, wh et

he r or not pa id, an d whe the r or not

c ont es te d be fore a

nd ad jud ic at ed by a jud ic ia l or a dm ini strativ e tribu na l of c om

pe te nt juris dic tio n. (2) The c ourt m ay

not s o determ ine --

7 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 7 of 13(A) the am ount or le ga lit y of a tax, fin e, pe na lty , or a ddi tio n to tax if s uc h am ount

or le ga lit y wa s c ont es te d be fore a

nd ad jud ic at ed by a jud ic ia l or a dm ini strativ e tribu na l of c om

pe te nt juris dic tio n be fore t

he c om m en ce m ent of t

he c as e unde r thi s tit le ; (B) a ny right of th e es tate to a tax re fund, b efore the e arl ie r of— (i) 120 da y s a fte r thetrus te e prope rly req ue sts suc h refund from the gov ernm enta l un it from whi ch suc h refund is cl ai m ed ; or (ii) a de te rm inatio n by

suc h go ve rnm enta l un it of suc h requ es t; or (C) the am ount or

le gal ity of any am ount ar

isi ng in c onnec tio n wi

th an ad valo rem tax

on real o r perso nal property of the e sta te , if t he appl ic abl e perio d for co nte

sti ng or re de term ining t

hat am ount under appl ic abl e nonbankrupt

cy law has e xpi red
. 11 U. S.C. § 50 5(a) (e m

pha se s a dde d). Unde r Florida

la w, a bse nt t he a ppl ic at ion of 11 U.S.C . § 1 08(a), the ti m e for De bto r to c ha lle nge the 200 9 ad v alo re m tax va lua tio ns wo uld

ha ve e xpi red on De ce m be r 13, 2 009 (i.e ., 60 da

y s a fte r the c ert ific at ion

of th e tax roll s). Ap ply ing § 10 8(a) a lon e, wit

hout reg ard to a

ny of th e provi sio ns i n § 5 05, w oul d ha ve
exte nde d to April21, 2010 , th e tim e al lowe d for th e trust ee , on be ha lf of De bto r’s
es tate , to file obj ec tio ns t o th e va luatio ns. But a pla in re adingof § 1 08(a ) an d § 50 5 do es not

pe rm it us t o a

ppl y § 10 8(a) a lon e. R at

he r, § 10 8(a) m

ust be
co nsi de red tog et

he r with § 50 5.

8 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 8 of 13Subse ct ion (a)(2)(C) o f § 505 doe s no t pe rm it a ba nkrupt cy c ourt t o de te rm inethe am ount

or le ga lit y of a n ad v alo re m tax on

rea l e sta te “ if th e ap pli ca ble pe riod fo r co nte sti ng o r rede te rm ini ng t hat a m ount und er a ppl ic ab le nonb ankrupt cy

la w ha s e xpi red. ” § 50 5 (a )(2)(C). Und er Flo rida la w, whi ch is the rel ev ant no nba

nkrupt cy la w, th e pe riod fo r co nte sti ng t he va luatio ns e xpi red on De ce m be r 13, 2 009. B ec au se we c annot rea d § 1 08(a ) al one , th e De bto r (or the trust ee on b eh al f of theDe bto r) was not e nti tle d to wa it unt il April21, 2010 , to file
a ch al le nge to the ad valo re m tax va luatio n. In o the r words, be ca use § 10 8(a) i s not a nonb ankrupt cy

la w, it s e xte nsi on o f the ti m e pe riod i s irre le va nt for p urpos es of § 50 5(a)(2)( C ). W e ca nnot loo k to § 10 8(a) b ec au se it is a ba nkrupt cy la w. This pla in re ad ingof § 5 05(a )(2)( C) is sup porte d by thepol ic y

und erl y ing § 50 5, wh ic h “ is t o prot ec t c redi tors an d e nsure the fina lit y of de te rm inatio ns o f tax lia bil ity rea ch ed prior t o ba

nkrupt cy .” In reGal

va no , 116 B. R. 367, 372 (Ba nkr. E.D.N.Y . 199 0). “ In e na ct ing§ 50 5, C ongre ss w as c onc erne d wi th p rote ct ing
cre dit ors from

thedis sip at ion

of a n e sta te ’s a sse ts whic h c oul d re sul t i f cre dit ors
we re b ound

by a tax ju dgm ent wh ic h a

de bto r, due to its a ili ng fin an ci alc ondi tio n, fai le d to c ont es t.” Id. (ci tin g In reCe ntu ry Vault C o ., 41 6 F.2d 1035 , 104 1 (3d C ir. 1969 ) (disc uss ingtherat ion al e for § 2a (2A) of th e Ba

nkrupt cy Co de , th e prec ursor to § 505 , a

nd c onc lud ingtha

t i t wa s inte nde d to prote ct c redi tors who “ shou ld n ot

9 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 9 of 13be bou

nd b y om iss ion s of t

he ba nkrupt ” whe re t

he de bto r ha s li ttl e or no i nte res t i n
co nte sti ng a

tax a sse ssm ent a

nd p erm its an a dju dic at ion to be ta ke n a ga ins t hi m

or he r prior t o ba

nkrupt cy). Sec tio n 50 5(a)(2)(C ) was a dde d in 200 5 a s pa

rt of t he Ba nkrupt cy Abus e Preve nti on a

nd C onsu m er Prot ec tio n Ac t (“ BAPC PA”). T his Co urt ha s he ld t hat

“ [t] he he art

of [BA PCPA’ s] c onsu

m er b ankrupt cy

reform s . . . is int en de d to e nsure that debto rs rep ay

c redi tors the m ax im

um the y c an a fford.” W

haley v . Ten ny son ( In re Ten ny son ), 611 F.3d 87 3, 87 9 (11t h C ir. 20 10) (se co nd a

nd t hird a lte rat ion s in o rigin al ) (quot ingH.R . R ep . 109 -31(I), p. 2, 2005 U.S.C .C. A.N. 8 8, 89 ); se e als o Eli za be th W el le r, Doe

s th e Bank

rupt cy Co urt Re all y Hav e Unlimited Auth ori ty to Re de te rmin e Taxe

s? , 29-NOVAm . B ankr. Inst . J. 1 2, 67 (2010 ) (“ Re co gni zi ng t

he pot entia l for a

buse
. . . Co ngre ss a dde d § 5 05(a )(2)(C), whi ch el im inate d th e co urt’ s a

uth ority to rede te rm ine ‘ theam ount or le ga lit y of a ny
am ount arisi ng i n c onne ct ion

wit h a n ad v alo re m tax on

rea l or p ers ona l prop ert

y of the e sta

te , if t he a ppl ic ab le pe riod fo r co nte sti ng o r rede te rm ini ng t hat a m ount unde r any la w (oth er t ha n a ba nkrupt cy la w) has ex pired .’ ”) (qu oti ng 1 1 U.S.C
. § 50 5(a)(2)(C ))). Be fore C ongre ss a

m en de d § 5 05 i n 20 05, a

de bto r was free to co nte st ad
va lorem tax c la im s th at

arose m any

y ea rs prio r to t

he fili ng o f a v olu

nta ry

10 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 10 of 13ba

nkrupt cy pe tit ion , but

whi ch ha d no t be en

c ont es te d or a dju dic at ed

pre pe tit ion
. By am en din g th e sta

tut e to i nc lud e § 50 5(a)(2)(C ), Co ngre ss e xpre ssly int en de d to prote ct c redi tors by

prohibit inga

de bto r from

c ont es tin g ad v alo re m tax c la im s aft er t he ti m e for fili ng a

n a ct ion c ha lle ngi ng t

he a sse ssm ent of s uc h taxe s ha s
expire d un de r sta

te la w. Se e e. g. , Ca

rl M . Je nks, The Bank

rupt cy Abus e Pre ve nti on and Co nsum er

Pro te ction Ac t of

200 5: Summ ary

of Tax Prov isi ons , 79 Am . B ankr. L.J. 893, 896 (2005 ) (“ Unde r the [BAPC PA], if th e lia bil ity for an ad v alo re m tax ha s be co m e fixe d a

nd t he de bto r’s ti m e to c ont es t i t outsi de of ba nkrupt cy c ourt ha s e xpi red, thede bto r m ay not c ont es t t he li ab ili ty

in ba nkrupt cy .” ). The 200 5 a

m en dm ent t o th e Ba

nkrupt cy Ac t t hat a dde d § 5 05(a )(2)(C) ha s
res ult ed in co nflic tin g de ci sio ns from the ba nkrupt cy c ourts tha

t ha ve be en requ ire d to de te rm ine whe the r it i s a ppl ic ab le if a

pe tit ion for ba nkrupt cy rel ie f is file d be fore t

he ti m e limit to c ha lle nge an ad v alo re m tax ha s e xpi red. He re, t he ba nkrupt cy c ourt c onc lud ed

tha t § 505(a)(2)(C) wa s no t a ppl ic ab le be ca

use the De bto r file d he r pe tit ion

in ba nkrupt cy c ourt p rior to the date wit hin whi ch the de bto r co uld

have c om

m en ce d a n a ct ion und er a non ba nkrupt cy proc ee din g. As not ed a bove , th e ba

nkrupt cy c ourt i n In reVillage at O ak we ll Farm s, Ltd ., he ld that wh en a de bto r fail s to se ek

a red et erm inatio n of hi s or h er t axli ab ili ty prior t o the e xpi rat ion

date for fili ng a

n a ct ion in a sta te proc ee din g, t

he de bto r los es the

11 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 11 of 13right

to se ek a red et erm inatio n in

a ba nkrupt cy c ourt u nde r § 505 (a)(2)(C). 4 28 B.R . at 38 0. W e ag ree .

“ It is a c ardi na l pri nc ipl e of st at

uto ry c onst ruction tha t a sta tut e, oug ht, upon the whol e, to be so c onst

rued tha t, i f it c an be pre ve nte d, no c la

use , se nte nc e, or word s ha ll be sup erflu ous, voi d, or i nsi gni fic ant.” TRW Inc . v . And

re ws , 534 U.S. 19, 3 1 (200 1) (quot ingDunc an v . W alk er , 533 U.S. 16 7, 17 4 (200 1) (int erna l quot at ion m arks om itt ed)). “ It is our duty , ‘ to g ive e ffec t, i f poss ibl e, to ev ery cl au se and wo rd of a

sta tut e. ’” United

Sta te s v . Me nasc he , 348 U.S. 52 8, 53 9 (1955) (qu oti ngMont

cl air v . Rams de ll , 107 U.S. 14 7, 15 2 (188 3)). “ Ge ne ral la ngua ge of a

sta tut ory provi sio n, a lth ough

broa d e noug h to inc lud e it, wil l no t be he ld t o a ppl y to a m at te r spe ci fic al ly

de al t wi th i n a

not he r part of t

he sa m e
en ac tm ent. Spe ci fic te rm s pre va il ove r the ge ne ralin the sa m e or a not he r statut e whic h ot he rwise m ight be c ont

rolli ng.” D. Gi nsbe rg &Son s, Inc . v . Pop ki n , 285 U.S. 204 , 208 (1932 ) (inte rnalc ita tio ns o m itt ed). The int ent of C ongre ss i n e na ct ing§ 50 5(a)(2)(C ) was to prev ent ba nkrupt cy ab use by debto rs a nd e nsuretha

t debto rs pa

y the am ount

the y owe a s so on a s poss ibl e. W e are pe rsua de d th at in en ac tin g § 5 05(a )(2)(C), C ongre ss i nte nde d th at the spe ci fic provi sio ns o f tha t st at ute m ust pre va il ove r the m ore ge ne ralprovi sio ns of § 1 08(a ).

12

Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 12 of 13Conc lusi on

W e co nc lud e that t

he ba nkrupt cy c ourt e rred i n ruli ng t

hat t he De bto r’s requ es t for de te rm inatio n of he r ad v alo re m tax li ab ili ty wa s ti m el y

und er t he ge ne ralti m e exte nsi on p rovis ion of § 1 08(a ). The ba

nkrupt cy c ourt’ s int erpre tatio n of t

he la ngua ge in § 50 5(a)(2)(C ) fail s to giv e full effe ct to Co ngre ss’ s inte nt i n pa ssi ng t he reform s in

theBPAC PA, to cu

rb a buse s, pro te ct
cre dit ors, a

nd “ en sure tha

t debto rs rep ay

c redi tors them ax im

um the y c an a fford.” In reTen ny

son , 611 F.3d at 87 9 (quo tatio n omitt ed). Ac co rding ly , we RE VER SE the jud gm ent of t he dis tric t c ourt a ffirm ingthe ba nkrupt cy c ourt’ s orde r hold ingtha t t he De bto r’s req

ue st fo r de te rm inatio n of he r ad v alo re m tax li ab ili ty

wa s ti m el y , a

nd we RE MAND thi s c as e to t he dis tric t c ourt wit h in struc tio ns t o VAC ATE t he ba nkrupt cy c ourt’ s orde r.

13 Case: 11-14994 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 13 of 13