Court Opinion

ID: 9522244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:20:42.320862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:26.348714
License: Public Domain

KRESSEL, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I concur completely in the majority’s opinion, but write separately only to emphasize the historical origins of the language “a transaction occurring before the date of the filing of the petition.”
Section 64(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, as amended, provided for a priority for “taxes which became legally due and owing by the bankrupt to the United States or to any State or any subdivision thereof which are not released by a discharge in bankruptcy ....” 11 U.S.C. § 104(a)(3) (repealed). In its 1973 Report, the Bankruptcy Commission recommended that the language be changed so that instead of relying on the language “legally due and owing,” which had been the subject of litigation, that more specific language be used as to each kind of tax, including excise taxes. The proposed language for excise taxes provided a priority for “excise taxes on transactions occurring within one year prior to the date of the petition.” Report of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States, H.R. Doc. No. 93-137, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).
*518While this language evolved and changed during the legislative process and resulted in the language in the current statute, the language “a transaction occurring before the date of the filing of the petition” survived as a substitute for the Bankruptcy Act’s language “legally due and owing.” Whether the new language is clearer than the old language is certainly open to debate, but it is clear from the Report and subsequent history that no change in substance was intended. There is no indication in the Commission’s Report or subsequent history that the word “transaction” was intended to have any particular technical meaning or substance apart from the fact that it was used to indicate that whatever triggered liability for the tax occurred before the petition was filed. This does not mean, of course, that we can ignore the word “transaction,” but it helps us determine what Congress had in mind when it used that word.