Opinion ID: 48466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: unsecured priority claim of $29,724.20.

Text: In May 2003, the IRS informed debtors that Debtors filed an objection to the claim, allegtheir 2001 tax return had been selected for au- ing that it had not been filed timely, and filed dit. In September 2003, the IRS issued debt- an unopposed motion to sever the issue of the ors a notice of deficiency for $27,109 in addi- timeliness of the IRS’s claims. tional taxes and a $5,421.80 penalty; debtors did not challenge this notice in Tax Court. On April 13, 2005, the bankruptcy court granted the motion and ruled that the IRS’s On October 1, 2003, debtors filed a chapter proof of claim was a valid amendment to 13 petition listing the IRS as a creditor. On debtors’ proof of claim filed on the IRS’s beOctober 20, 2003, debtors filed a sworn bank- half. The court noted that debtors’ proof of ruptcy schedule listing a priority unsecured claim had intentionally made the tax claim amclaim on behalf of the IRS for $20,000; the biguous, despite debtors’ knowledge of the schedule did not indicate that the claim was source of the claim. The April order specified disputed, liquidated, or contingent. On De- that it was a “final order on the severed matter cember 16, 2003, debtors filed an amended 1 The IRS did not object at the confirmation  hearing or in response to notices of the debtors’ Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be pub- filings. In a case without an admission of affirmalished and is not precedent except under the limited tive misrepresentation and fraud on the court, we circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. might not be sympathetic to a creditor that sat on its rights. 3 that is adjudicated by this order.” claim that the September order was entered into only to have a final order from which to On September 13, 2005, the bankruptcy appeal, that assertion is belied by the face of court signed the parties’ “Agreed Order Deny- the order: There is no language suggesting ing Debtors’ Objection to IRS Claim.” The that any rights were preserved for appeal or order stated that “The IRS Proof of Claim that there is any remaining controversy. The dated August 24, 2005, in the amount of debtors cite no cases in which courts have $34,822.67 is correct and ALLOWED as filed heard appeals on the underlying merits of is- . . . . Debtors’ objection to IRS Claim is DE- sues stipulated in agreed judgments, nor have NIED.” This order is signed by Barry as debt- debtors explained how they are aggrieved by a ors’ attorney and is marked “with permission” judgment to which they agreed as to suband “[a]greed as to form and substance.” stance. Debtors are estopped from appealing the September order. Debtors appealed to the district court, which dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Any claims the debtors may have had reMeanwhile, the bankruptcy court held hearings garding the April order have been rendered to determine whether Barry and debtors had moot by the September order, which ratified intentionally filed vague, misleading, and false the bankruptcy court’s April rulings. Because documents. The court concluded that the the debtors have no right to appeal from an orbankruptcy schedules and proof of claim pre- der to which they agreed, the district court sented intentionally false statements and were correctlydismissed their appeal with prejudice. designed to mislead the court. The court va- cated the plan confirmation and levied sanc- III. tions on Barry. The district court affirmed Debtors appeal the bankruptcy court’s orboth these decisions. der vacating the confirmed chapter 13 plan. They argue that the court had no authority to