Opinion ID: 38557
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: referenced in the bankruptcy court’s final

Text: Johnson argues that the Tax Court erred, order. because he claims the plain language of § 108 requires the Tax Court to accept the findings The final order issued by the district court of the bankruptcy court with respect to the only referenced the $4,916 in discharged debt, amount of COD income that is exempted from because CMI did not file a proof of claim on gross income under § 108(a) and offsets his the mortgage debts. CMI had liens on the claimed NOL under § 108(b). In support, Dallas and Argyle properties and was not reJohnson cites two subsections of § 108. First, quired to file a proof of claim to protect its he points to subsection (d)(2), which defines a liens.2 Although a creditor that fails to file a “title 11 case” for purposes of § 108 as “a case proof of claim is not entitled to receive distriunder title 11 of the United States Code (relat- bution from the estate, it may still enforce its ing to bankruptcy), but only if the taxpayer is security interests in estate property on which it under the jurisdiction of the court in such case has liens, as CMI did by foreclosing on the and the discharge of indebtedness is granted mortgages.3 CMI forfeited the right to seek by the court or is pursuant to a plan approved recourse against Johnson personally for the by the court” (emphasis added). 2 Johnson then quotes subsection (b)(3)(A), See Bankr. Code § 506(a), (d); see Simmons which provides that the §108(b) reduction of v. Savell (In re Simmons), 765 F.2d 547, 551 (5th tax attributes “shall be one dollar for each dol- Cir. 1985) (stating that “no creditor is required to lar excluded by subsection (a).” Based on file a proof of claim”). these subsections, Johnson believes that be- 3 See Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. cause the bankruptcy court’s final order refer- 78, 82 (1991) (stating that bankruptcy discharge enced a discharge of only $4,916 of debt, this affects only personal liability of debtor, not in rem was the only amount that could be excluded action against property). 3 outstanding debt after the foreclosure sales by AFFIRMED. not filing a proof of claim in the required period, so that debt was discharged as a result of the grant of relief, regardless of whether that fact was mentioned in the bankruptcy court’s final report.4