Source: http://bankruptcy4taxprofessionals.com/2015/10/
Timestamp: 2018-01-22 04:09:19
Document Index: 72967251

Matched Legal Cases: ['§523', '§ 507', '§507', '§507', '§523', '§547', '§7501', '§7501', '§547', '§7501', '§523', '§507', '§507', '§507', '§523', '§507', '§507', '§507', '§727', '§523', '§523', '§507', '§6203', '§301', '§507', '§523', '§727', '§727', '§523', '§507', '§1328', '§1325', '§727']

October 2015 - Bankruptcy Advisor to Tax Lawyers and Accountants
Can a Merchant Discharge Unpaid Sales Taxes by Filing Bankruptcy?
We all have paid sales taxes when purchasing consumer items. But where does that money go?
In most states, a merchant selling consumer products is required to collect sales tax from customers and hold that money in trust for the government. Periodically, the merchant is required to report the amount of sales taxes collected and to tender the tax money to the government.
However, some merchants fail to tender the money to the government when business is bad and use the trust fund money as a cash infusion to keep the business afloat. It’s a terrible idea from a bankruptcy attorney’s point of view, but merchants struggling to keep their doors open sometimes grab any life-line they can reach.
Such was the case in Cooper v. Miss. Dep’t of Revenue (In re Cooper), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 3261, (Bankr. S.D.MS 2015). Cooper was audited by the Mississippi Department of Revenue for a three year period and assessed almost $60,000 in unpaid sales taxes. MDOR filed a lien to secure its claim and started collection efforts against Cooper.
Two years later, Cooper responded by filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy and then initiated an adversary proceeding alleging the sales tax debt was dischargeable. However, the court noted that Cooper failed to site any Bankruptcy Code sections or case law supporting Cooper’s position. MDOR filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that there are no factual issue in dispute and MDOR is entitled to a judgment that the sales tax debts are non-dischargeable. MDOR’s claim had increased with interest to approximately $70,000.
The Court granted MDOR’s motion and held that the sales tax debts were non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§523(a)(1)(A) and 507(a)(8)(A). The court’s reasoning for nondischargeability was limited to a one paragraph declaration. Interestingly, MDOR did not allege that the taxes were nondischargeable pursuant to § 507(a)(8)(C), which would have been harder to discharge. But MDOR’s attack on a §507(a)(8)(A) basis opened a dischargeability door for Cooper to walk through, but Cooper failed to take advantage of this strategic opening and had to suffer the consequences of having $70,000 worth of tax debts rendered non-dischargeable.
Practice Pointer: The taxpayer missed an opportunity to discharge the sales tax debt. According to the Cooper court, the sales taxes were a §507(a)(8)(A) tax. This type of debt could have been discharged if the taxpayer had waiting the required time periods set forth in 11 U.S.C. §§523(a)(1)(A) and 507(a)(8)(A). Cooper should have considered before filing bankruptcy the 3-year due date rule, 2-year filing date rule, and the 240-day assessment rule. But Cooper failed to time the filing correctly, which resulted in Cooper not discharging the $70,000 claim. Cooper should have made the investment and paid a little more to acquire expert legal advice.
This entry was posted in 2-Year Filing Rule, 240-Day Assessment Rule, 3-Year Due Date Rule, Chapter 13, Sales Tax and tagged Sales Tax on October 30, 2015 by Robert_Schaller.
Can a Bankruptcy Trustee Force the IRS to Surrender Trust Fund Taxes Paid by a Bankruptcy Payroll Company?
It is not uncommon for a for-profit corporation to outsource payroll services to an independent payroll company (“Payroll Provider”) to help administer payroll tasks. A corporation typically advance funds to the Payroll Provider near the end of a payroll cycle, which are in turn used by the Payroll Provider to pay wages to the corporation’s employees and pay corresponding trust fund obligations to the various taxing authorities.
But what happens when the Payroll Provider files bankruptcy within 90 days of paying trust fund obligations to the IRS? The issue is one of “preferential transfer.” This issue was addressed in Slobodian v. United States of America, 533 B.R. 126 (Bankr. M.D.PA 2015), where the Payroll Provider paid $32,297 to the IRS within the period 90 days prior to the Payroll Provider filing bankruptcy.
In Slobodian, The Chapter 7 trustee filed an adversary complaint against the IRS alleging that the IRS payment was a preferential transfer because it was made within 90 days of the bankruptcy filing. The trustee sought disgorgement of the $32,297 so that the funds could be redistributed to all creditors according to their statutory rights.
The Slobodian court ruled that in order to disgorge a purportedly preferential transfer, a trustee must demonstrate a (1) transfer of an interest of the debtor in property (2) to or for the benefit of a creditor (3) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor, and (4) made while the debtor was insolvent. 11 U.S.C. §547(b).
So the big issue for the Slobodian court to determine was whether the $32,297 payment constituted a “transfer of an interest of the debtor in property.” The IRS argued that the Payroll Provider never possessed an interest in the property for preference action purposes, and instead held the transferred funds in trust, to be transmitted to the United States pursuant to the Payroll Provider’s payroll service agreement with the corporation that provided the funds to the Payroll Provider. The IRS asserted that the funds were held in a special statutory trust for the United States pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7501(a), which states “Whenever any person is required to collect or withhold any internal revenue tax from any other person and to pay over such tax to the United States, the amount of tax so collected or withheld shall be held to be a special fund in trust for the United States.” The special trust applies to Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes that Congress requires employers to withhold from employees’ paychecks, commonly referred to as “trust-fund taxes.” Id. at 134, citing Begier v. Internal Revenue Service, 496 U.S. 53, 54 (1990).
The Slobodian court agreed with the IRS and found that corporation’s channeling of trust fund taxes through the third-party Payroll Provider did not dilute the protections of the 26 U.S.C. §7501(a) trust. The corporation tendered the funds to the Payroll Provider which collected the funds pursuant to its payroll services agreement and withheld both trust fund and non-trust fund taxes from the collected funds before ultimately distributing employee paychecks. Therefore, the Payroll Provider did not own an equitable interest in the property it held in trust for the corporation, and thus the $32,297 payment was not “property of the estate” for purposes of preferential transfers of 11 U.S.C. §547(b).
The IRS was allowed to retain the payment and the corporation received full credit for the trust fund payments.
Practice Pointer: Be careful when dealing with payroll providers. Perform due diligence on the providers before tendering money to them. Make sure the funds tendered by the corporation to the payroll service are made from a segregated trust fund account and not from the corporation’s general operating account. The preferred method would be two separate payments being made to the payroll service: one payment for employees; and one payment for the taxing authorities. This preferred method would buttress a corporation’s argument that the trust fund payments were tendered to the payroll service in trust as part of a 26 U.S.C. §7501(a) trust fund. It may not be “convenient” but it is following best practices.
This entry was posted in Application of Tax Payments, Chapter 7, refund intercept/refund on October 28, 2015 by Robert_Schaller.
Tax Debts are Dischargeable 3 Years After a Return Due Date Unless Tolled by a Prior Bankruptcy or Other Matter.
Income taxes are dischargeable in bankruptcy three years after the tax return “due date.” 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(A) incorporating 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8)(A)(i). But that 3-year period can be extended or “tolled” if the taxing authority was prohibited from collecting against the taxpayer as a result of a pending bankruptcy case. For example, consider a tax payer who files chapter 13 bankruptcy because he owes significant tax debts and seeks protection from the IRS’ collection efforts, liens, levies, etc. The tax debts owed prior to a bankruptcy filing are scheduled to be repaid in a chapter 13 bankruptcy case; the IRS would be prohibited from collecting against the taxpayer during the life of the chapter 13 because of the automatic stay protections granted to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer does not complete the full repayment plan, then the case could be dismissed and the IRS would be afforded time to collect those prepetition tax debts, including the 3-year period, plus anytime the taxpayer was in bankruptcy, plus 90 days. See 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8)(*).
But what happens if the tax obligations related to tax years ending AFTER the chapter 13 bankruptcy case was filed? That issue was address in Kolve v. IRS (In re Kolve), 459 B.R. 376 (Bankr. W.D.WI 2011). In Kolve, a taxpayer’s prior chapter 13 bankruptcy case lasted more than two years. During those two years, the taxpayer failed to pay the tax obligations coming due after the bankruptcy filing but while the case was still pending. The prior bankruptcy case was ultimately dismissed and these postpetition tax debts were never paid.
The taxpayer waited just longer than three years after the dismissal of the chapter 13 bankruptcy case to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The taxpayer sought to discharge the taxes incurred after the filing of the prior bankruptcy case (but while the prior bankruptcy case was still pending). The taxpayer argued a discharge was appropriate because the tax obligations related to tax returns whose “due date” was more than three years prior to the subsequent bankruptcy filing date. The IRS objected to the discharge stating that the 3-year “due date” period was tolled while the prior bankruptcy case was pending since the tax returns came due while the prior bankruptcy case was active. The IRS cited the 90-day tolling provision of 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8)(*).
The Kolve court ruled in favor of the taxpayer. It found the tolling provision inapplicable because the IRS had not been prohibited by the automatic stay protections from collecting the tax obligations incurred while the prior bankruptcy case was pending. The court distinguished between tax obligations incurred prior to the original bankruptcy case (prepetition taxes) and the tax obligations incurred after the original case was filed (postpetition taxes). The IRS was estopped from collecting prepetition taxes by the bankruptcy, but was not prohibited from collecting the postpetition taxes. Therefore, the “tolling” provision that grants the IRS an additional 90 days was not applicable. The tax debts were deemed dischargeable.
Practice Pointer: The tolling period appears to be dependent upon the taxing authority being actually prohibited from collecting. The mere existence of a bankruptcy case is not sufficient. The taxing authority must be denied the right to exercise its collections rights, including garnishments, liens, and levies.
This entry was posted in 3-Year Due Date Rule, Tolling on October 17, 2015 by Robert_Schaller.
Discharge Income Taxes 3 Years After the Due Date.
Taxpayers can discharge income tax obligations by filing bankruptcy three years after the tax return “due date.” 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(A) incorporating 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8)(A)(i). The tax return “due date” is the date on or before which the tax return is required to be filed. For IRS taxes, the filing due date is April 15th following the prior tax year, assuming that date is not a weekend or holiday.
However, the “due date” for bankruptcy purposes changes when a taxpayer requests and receives an automatic extension of the filing due date. For example, a taxpayer can file IRS Form 4868 “Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.” This application extends the due date 6 months to October 15th. In such a situation the “due date” for bankruptcy purposes would be October 15th — even if the taxpayer files the return between the April 15th original deadline and the October 15th extended deadline. The date of filing is not at issue; the “due date” is the key issue for 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8)(A)(i) purposes.
Similarly, the “due date” for state and local taxes could also be extended automatically even without the taxpayer submitting a request to the state and local taxing authorities. Some states automatically extend the due date for the state tax returns if a taxpayer requests and receives an extension of the federal tax return due date. Under these circumstances, the “due date” for bankruptcy purposes for those state and local taxing authorities would be the extended due date.
Practice Pointer: Best practices requires a careful review and calculation of the tax return “due date” to determine if a tax obligation is dischargeable in bankruptcy. A matter of a single day could result in an otherwise dischargeable tax debt being rendered non-dischargeable.
This entry was posted in 3-Year Due Date Rule on October 16, 2015 by Robert_Schaller.
Can Income Taxes be Eliminated if the IRS Still Has the Right to Assess a Deficiency?
No, income taxes cannot be discharged or eliminated in bankruptcy if the taxing authority still has the right to assess a tax. Section 523(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code identifies certain types of income taxes that are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy by incorporating §507(a)(8)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 507(a)(8)(A) excepts from discharge any income taxes that are assessed within 240 days of the bankruptcy filing, or are assessable under applicable non-bankruptcy law after the bankruptcy case is filed.
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed this issue in U.S. v. Frontone, 383 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004). In Frontone, a taxpayer had filed a tax return and paid the tax owed as required by the IRS Code. However, the IRS made an error and wrongly tendered a tax refund to the taxpayer. The IRS later realized its error and issued a supplemental assessment for the deficiency caused by the tax refund. The IRS compounded the error by making another error—namely, issuing a supplemental assessment without issuing a notice of deficiency.
The taxpayer filed bankruptcy in an effort to discharge the tax debt caused by the tax refund. The Frontone court denied the taxpayer’s quest for a discharge because the tax obligation was assessable at the time the bankruptcy case was filed. First, the court found that the IRS’ supplemental assessment was in error because it had not followed a “notice of deficiency.” But that did not save the taxpayer because the court found that the IRS eventually filed the required notice of deficiency within the time period allowed as provided by the IRS Code (even if it was after the bankruptcy filing). Therefore, since the notice of deficiency was finally issued correctly, the Frontone court found the tax refund obligation non-dischargeable because the tax debt was “assessable” on the date the bankruptcy case was filed.
Practice Pointer: Best practices requires a careful analysis of the tax filing deadlines and the Bankruptcy Code’s statutory waiting periods. Taxpayers must wait to file bankruptcy at least 240 days after the IRS assesses the tax, AND wait beyond the statutory assessment period if the IRS has not yet assessed a tax so that the tax becomes non-assessable.
This entry was posted in 240-Day Assessment Rule, Chapter 7 on October 15, 2015 by Robert_Schaller.
Taxpayers can discharge income tax liability relating to late-filed returns by filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
A Chapter 7 bankruptcy general discharge eliminates a debtor’s obligation to pay debts. 11 U.S.C. §727. However, income tax debts relating to an unfiled tax return are excepted from the general discharge and survive the bankruptcy. 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(B)(i). The issue in Biggers was whether an IRS Form 1040 can be considered a “return” for bankruptcy purposes when filed after the due date and after the IRS unilaterally assessed a tax.
The Biggers court noted that courts across the country are divided regarding the issue of discharging tax obligations relating to late-filed tax returns. Some courts have concluded that a late-filed tax return can never be a “return” for bankruptcy purposes solely because the return was filed after the tax filing deadline – even one day late. See, e.g., In re Fahey, 779 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015). These courts rely on the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “return” contained in 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(*), which states the term “return” means a return that satisfies the requirements of “applicable nonbankruptcy law”-including applicable filing requirements.
However, the Biggers court reached a different conclusion and rejected Fahey’s rational and held that a late-filed return can be deemed a “return” for bankruptcy purposes if it meets the definition of “return” as set forth in Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766, 1984 WL 15573 (1984), affirmed 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986). The Beard test determining whether an IRS Form 1040 is a “return” has four prongs: (1) it must purport to be a return; (2) it must be executed under penalty of perjury; (3) it must contain sufficient data to allow calculation of tax; and (4) it must represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law.
The Biggers court agreed with those decisions that define the phrase “applicable non-bankruptcy laws” of 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(*) as the pre-BAPCPA Beard test and found a Form 1040 is a “return” if it satisfies the Beard test. The court rejected the idea that the reference to “applicable non-bankruptcy laws” relates narrowly to the filing deadline imposed by the taxing authority per statute.
The Biggers court then applied the Beard test, noting that the taxpayers had filed multiple returns after the filing deadline and after the IRS had already assessed the tax. The court found that the late-filed returns served no purpose on all but one return because the tax liability disclosed on the late-filed return was less than the amount assessed by the IRS and therefore did not “represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law,” as required by the fourth prong of the Beard test. However, the court allowed the discharge of income tax relating to the one late-filed return that disclosed liability greater than the amount assessed by the IRS. The Court allowed the discharge as to the tax liability that exceeded the IRS’ assessed liability that return. Although not addressed in the opinion, it appears the Biggers court would have discharged all of the tax liability had the returns been filed after the filing deadline but before the IRS had assessed the tax.
This entry was posted in 2-Year Filing Rule, Failure to File on October 14, 2015 by Robert_Schaller.
When are Income Taxes Assessed by the Government?
Income taxes are dischargeable by filing bankruptcy if the taxpayer waits more than the amount of time set forth in the Bankruptcy Code. One of the requirements is that the taxpayer must wait to file bankruptcy more than 240 days after the date the taxing authority “assesses” the tax. See 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1) incorporating §507(a)(8)(A)(ii).
But when are income taxes deemed “assessed” such that the 240-day clock starts ticking? This issue was addressed in Harnden v. United States of America (In re Harnden), Nos. 08-B-71909, 10-A-96039 (Bankr. N.D.IL 2011), where the IRS had audited the taxpayer and determined that the taxpayer had underreported his income by about $30,000. The IRS sent the taxpayer Form 4549 (Income Tax Examination Changes) requesting that the taxpayer agree to the proposed increase in tax and waive any appeal rights. The taxpayer signed the form in August of 2006, which stated “I give my consent to the immediate assessment and collection to any increase in tax and penalties.” The IRS, however, did not officially assess the tax until February of 2008. The taxpayer filed the bankruptcy case in June of 2008, less than 240 days after the IRS had officially assessed the tax.
The Harnden court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that the IRS had effectively assessed the tax upon the taxpayer signing and returning the Form 4549 Income Tax Examination Changes. The court found that neither the notice the IRS sent nor the taxpayer’s signature and return of the tax examination changes form constituted an “assessment” of the additional tax.
The Harnden court found that the assessment of federal income tax is “made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary [of the Treasury] in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary.” 26 U.S.C. §6203. Those regulations delegate authority to “assessment officers” and state that the “assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. … The date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer.” 26 C.F.R. §301.6203-1.
Practice Pointer: Best practices warrant obtaining proof from the taxing authority of the official assessment date. For IRS debt, tax professionals must obtain copies of the IRS’ account transcript for each year that a taxpayer desires to discharge a tax obligation. The tax transcript can assure counsel that the taxpayer has waited the appropriate time to pass the various time sensitive rules.
This entry was posted in 240-Day Assessment Rule on October 12, 2015 by Robert_Schaller.
Are Excise Taxes Dischargeable in Bankruptcy?
Excise taxes assessed against an individual are dischargeable in a Chapter 7 case if the taxpayer waits three years to file bankruptcy. The waiting period begins on the date of the transaction that incurs the excise tax if the taxpayer is not required to file a tax return reporting the excise tax. However, the waiting period begins on the date of the tax return “due date” if the taxpayer is required to file a tax return reporting the excise tax transaction.
The excise tax is deemed a “priority” tax within the first three years of the waiting period pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8)(E) and rendered nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(A). But the excise tax transforms into a “general unsecured” tax after the three year waiting and becomes dischargeable period pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§727(a) and 1328(a).
So, the individual taxpayer who waits the three years can obtain a Chapter 7 discharge of the excise tax without paying any money to the taxing authority pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §727(a). However, filing one day too early would cause the excise tax to be a non-dischargeable priority debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(A) incorporating 11 U.S.C. §507(a)(8)(E).
Similarly, the individual taxpayer who waits the three years can obtain a Chapter 13 discharge of the excise tax debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1328(a) by paying only the percentage of the general unsecured debt required by the “liquidation analysis” of 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(4).
Excise taxes assessed against a corporation are never dischargeable by filing Chapter 7 since corporations cannot receive a Chapter 7 discharge. Similarly, corporations cannot receive a Chapter 13 discharge because they are not eligible to file Chapter 13. However, a corporation could file a Chapter 11 case and pay less than the full amount of the excise tax if the corporation waits longer than the three year waiting period.
The dischargeability of an excise tax by an individual was addressed in In re Carpenter, 519 B.R. 811 (Bankr. D.MT 2014). There, a corporation failed to pay required unemployment insurance taxes. The state taxing authority then assessed the tax against the corporate president as a “responsible party” because the president failed to cause the unemployment taxes to be paid.
The Carpenter court identified the issue as whether a corporate president’s personal liability for the corporate excise tax retains the status of “excise tax” when applied to the president individually. The Court noted that all parties stipulated that the corporation’s obligation to pay the unemployment insurance tax was an “excise” tax. However, the president argued his tax obligation under the “responsible party” rule does not constitute an excise “tax” and is therefore not a priority debt. Id. at 813.
Before ruling the court quoted Collier on Bankruptcy as stating the “first step in determining whether a claim is entitled to priority is determining whether the claim asserted by a governmental entity is a tax or is another type of obligation.” 4 Collier on Bankruptcy Sec 507.11[6]. The court determined that the obligation owed by the president as a “responsible party” was a tax. Then, the court rejected the president’s argument and found that the president’s obligation to pay as a responsible party was an obligation to pay an “excise” tax and thus was a priority debt. The logic of the opinion is somewhat confusing and could have been challenged on appeal.
PRACTICE POINTERS: A tax professional should analyze whether the obligation imposed by the government is a “tax” or merely a debt. Any debt would be dischargeable in an individual Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Any excise “tax” would be nondischargeable within the three year waiting period, but would be transformed into a dischargeable debt after the three year waiting period.
This entry was posted in 3-Year Due Date Rule, Chapter 11, Chapter 13, Chapter 7 on October 2, 2015 by Robert_Schaller.
The IRS Seized the Corporation’s Assets. Can a Corporation File Bankruptcy and Discharge Tax Debts?
I’m often asked how a corporation can eliminate its tax debts. Typically, the corporation has withheld taxes from its employees’ paychecks but has not tendered these “trust fund taxes” to the IRS or state taxing authority. These withheld funds are referred to as “trust fund taxes” because the employer withheld the money “in trust” for the benefit of the IRS or other taxing authority.
An employer who is struggling financially uses the trust fund taxes as a source of hard currency, much like it would if granted a bank loan. An employer hopes the use of the trust fund taxes would defuse a business crisis or at least keep the business afloat until brighter days (entrepreneurs always see a brighter tomorrow). The problem is the IRS is not a lender and did not voluntarily give the employer the money —and certainly has not granted the employer authorization to use the trust fund taxes.
The IRS is typically aggressive in collecting the trust fund taxes. The IRS can intercept tax refunds, lien, levy, seize, and exercise other collection tactics. Seizure of the corporation’s asset could terminate the business. For example, what would a restaurant owner do if the president arrived at the restaurant one morning to find the IRS had seized all the tables, chairs, refrigerators, freezers, etc.? Panic of course!
So what is the corporation to do? Call its lawyer of course! But there is only so much a lawyer can do in such an emergency.
The corporation is generally not in a position to repay the IRS the full amount of the trust fund taxes in a quick lump-sum payment so that the assets are returned. Lawyers can contact the IRS and try to negotiate an installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise— but that takes time and the IRS would be in no hurry to relieve the taxpayer’s pressure by returning the assets. An emergency bank loan would be nice, but that is not realistic because of the pending tax obligation and the fact that the restaurant is not operating since the IRS seized the tables, chairs, refrigerators, freezers, etc.
So bankruptcy becomes the obvious solution. Chapter 13 is not available because the tax debt is owed by the corporation and Chapter 13 is available only to individuals. Chapter 11 is a great option. Filing the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case would grant the corporation with the “automatic stay” protections of the US Bankruptcy Code. The attorney would contact the IRS to negotiate a return of the assets for the company’s promise to pay adequate protections payments to the IRS going forward. If negotiations are unsuccessful, then the court should rush to the courthouse to file an adversary proceeding to force the IRS to return the assets… again, the company would have to provide the IRS adequate protection. But at least the company could return to regular business operations.
Some clients ask if the taxes could be discharged by filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy without the need to pay any adequate protection payment to the IRS. The answer is NO. That strategy was tried by a convenience store operating in Senatobia, Mississippi in the case of In re Sarfani, Inc., 527 B.R. 241 (Bankr. N.D.MS 2015). In Sarfani, the company attempted to discharge unpaid sales taxes collected from customers as “trust fund” taxes. The court rejected the company’s attempt to discharge the taxes because Sarfani, Inc. was a corporation and Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharges are only available to individuals (human) and not corporation, partnerships, LLCs, LLPs, trusts, etc. 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(1). So, Chapter 11 would be the best bet.
PRACTICE POINTERS: The best tax planning is advanced tax planning. Bankruptcy lawyers are frequently contacted in emergencies after the IRS collectors have struck and struck hard—shuttering a business. The IRS can be agreeable if the company negotiates before the issue comes to a boil. But once the IRS collectors have taken action a company would typically need court intervention and the bankruptcy protections to survive. How long can a company survive that is shuttered? NOT LONG! Customers find competitors, suppliers and vendors get frightened, and employees quit and find other jobs. Immediate Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection would be warranted.
This entry was posted in Automatic Stay, Chapter 11, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Levy, refund intercept/refund on October 1, 2015 by Robert_Schaller.