Court Opinion

ID: 9703173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:43:46.899691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:46.159285
License: Public Domain

ELLIOTT, Bankruptcy Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I believe we are bound by the decision in Nicholas v. U.S., 384 U.S. 678, 86 S.Ct. 1674, 16 L.Ed.2d 853 (1966). The majority reasons that because Congress did not expressly adopt the rule of that case as suggested in the Senate version of § 503 of the Code that the rule was abrogated.
I suggest that to the contrary, that if Congress amends the laws without expressly abrogating relevant case law that the case law has continuing vitality. Laird v. Nelms, 406 U.S. 797, 802, 92 S.Ct. 1899, 1902, 32 L.Ed.2d 499, reh. den. 409 U.S. 902, 93 S.Ct. 95, 34 L.Ed.2d 165 (1972).
I would reverse and remand for allowance of interest on post-petition taxes as a priority claim under 11 U.S.C. § 503.