Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19830608_0042314.SCT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-04-06 15:54:24
Document Index: 473395959

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1101', '§ 362', '§ 542', '§ 543', '§ 542', '§ 542', '§ 543', '§ 542']

FindACase™ | UNITED STATES v. WHITING POOLS
UNITED STATES v. WHITING POOLS
[ 462 U.S. Page 199]
Respondent Whiting Pools, Inc., a corporation, sells, installs, and services swimming pools and related equipment and supplies. As of January 1981, Whiting owed approximately $92,000 in Federal Insurance Contribution Act taxes and federal taxes withheld from its employees, but had failed
[ 462 U.S. Page 200]
to respond to assessments and demands for payment by the IRS. As a consequence, a tax lien in that amount attached to all of Whiting's property.*fn1
On January 14, 1981, the Service seized Whiting's tangible personal property -- equipment, vehicles, inventory, and office supplies -- pursuant to the levy and distraint provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.*fn2 According to uncontroverted findings, the estimated liquidation value of the property seized was, at most, $35,000, but its estimated going-concern value in Whiting's hands was $162,876. The very next day, January 15, Whiting filed a petition for reorganization, under the Bankruptcy Code's Chapter 11, 11 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. V), in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York. Whiting was continued as debtor-in-possession.*fn3
[ 462 U.S. Page 201]
the property,*fn4 moved in the Bankruptcy Court for a declaration that the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code, § 362(a), is inapplicable to the IRS or, in the alternative, for relief from the stay. Whiting counterclaimed for an order requiring the Service to turn the seized property over to the bankruptcy estate pursuant to § 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.*fn5 Whiting intended to use the property in its reorganized business.
The Bankruptcy Court determined that the IRS was bound by the automatic stay provision. In re Whiting Pools, Inc., 10 B. R. 755 (1981). Because it found that the seized property was essential to Whiting's reorganization effort, it refused to lift the stay. Acting under § 543(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code,*fn6 rather than under § 542(a), the court directed the IRS to turn the property over to Whiting on the condition that Whiting provide the Service with specified protection for its interests. 10 B. R., at 760-761.*fn7
[ 462 U.S. Page 202]
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The United States District Court reversed, holding that a turnover order against the Service was not authorized by either § 542(a) or § 543(b)(1). 15 B. R. 270 (1981). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in turn, reversed the District Court. 674 F.2d 144 (1982). It held that a turnover order could issue against the Service under § 542(a), and it remanded the case for reconsideration of the adequacy of the Bankruptcy Court's protection conditions. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that its ruling was contrary to that reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Cross Electric Co. v. United States, 664 F.2d 1218 (1981), and noted confusion on the issue among ...