Opinion ID: 118050
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The legislative history reflects the statute's punitive character:

Text: The bill also provides new and more effective penalties where employers fail to meet the funding standards. In the past, an attempt has been made to enforce the relatively weak funding standards existing under present law by providing for immediate vesting of the employees' rights, to the extent funded, under plans which do not meet these standards. This procedure, however, has proved to be defective since it does not directly penalize those responsible for the underfunding. For this reason, the bill places the obligation for funding and the penalty for underfunding on the person on whom it belongsnamely, the employer. H. R. Rep. No. 93-807, p. 28 (1974). Accord, S. Rep. No. 93-383, p. 24 (1973). The Committee Reports also stated that, [s]ince the employer remains liable for the contributions necessary to meet the funding standards even after the payment of the excise taxes, it is anticipated that few, if any, employers will willfully violate these standards. H. R. Rep. No. 93-807, supra, at 28; S. Rep. No. 93-383, supra, at 24-25. Given the patently punitive function of § 4971, we conclude that § 4971 must be treated as imposing a penalty, not authorizing a tax. Accordingly, we hold that the tax under § 4971(a) was not entitled to seventh priority as an excise tax under § 507(a)(7)(E), but instead is, for bankruptcy purposes, a penalty to be dealt with as an ordinary, unsecured claim.