Court Opinion

ID: 9686494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:51:11.955514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:19.383008
License: Public Domain

MEYERS, Judge,
concurring:
While I fully support the decision of the Panel, I write separately to enlarge on my *769approach to the issue presented. As with any question of statutory construction, we start with the plain language of the statute. See U.S. v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 1030, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989).
Reference to the statutes involved reveals that Section 507(b) accords “priority over every other claim available under such subsection” referring to Section 507(a)(1) which gives first priority to administrative claims allowed under Section 503(b). On the other hand, Section 726(b) grants “priority over a claim allowed under Section 503(b) ... incurred under any other chapter of this title.” These provisions give no guidance over which is to prevail between these two subsections and the legislative history is likewise devoid of any direction.
Given this dilemna, we must still decide which provision is to be accorded priority. Our goal is to ascertain Congressional intent by giving effect to the language of the statute while preserving its sense and purpose. See Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707, 713, 95 S.Ct. 1893, 1898, 44 L.Ed.2d 525 (1975); In re Cleveland, 89 B.R. 69, 71 (9th Cir. BAP 1988).
Here in a most practical sense the purposes of the Code are better served by recognizing that Chapter 7 costs of administration are to be preferred over those incurred in proceedings conducted in other chapters. All interests gain if court officers are assured of being compensated for their efforts in liquidating the estate, with those holding Section 507(b) claims being among the very first to benefit. This is also in accord with the special status provided for Chapter 7 liquidation expenses found in Section 724(b), which surprisingly grants a priority for such expenses over security interests held by taxing authorities. See In re Sluggo’s Chicago Style, Inc., 94 B.R. 625, 630 (9th Cir. BAP 1988). See also Nicholas v. United States, 384 U.S. 678, 690-92, 86 S.Ct. 1674, 1683-84, 16 L.Ed.2d 853 (1966).