§1141

32 cases·2 followed·2 distinguished·1 overruled·27 cited6% support

Statute text not available for this section.

32 Citing Cases

§ 1141(d)(5) place a constraint on our prior holding in Moody with respect to the termination of an automatic stay in this Court following confirmation of a chapter 11 bankruptcy plan? Following an examination of both Moody and this new provision, we hold that it does. Title 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(5) clearly provides in relevant part that any debt provided for in the plan is not discharged until (i) the bankruptcy court grants a discharge on completion of all payments under the plan or (ii) a bankr

In the case we consider, petitioner was the debtor in his chapter 11 reorganization.5 Recognizing that chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganizations are intended to rehabilitate the debtor, we note that section 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code provides “Except as otherwise provided in the plan or the order confirming the plan, the confirmation of a plan vests all of the property of the estate in the debtor.” 11 U.S.C.

43 [*43] as to whether Continuing Life’s accounting of the Deferred Fees clearly reflected income. The voluminous law in this area directs us to the text of the Code and regulations, to the purpose of distinctions between tax and financial accounting, to the exercise of common-law reasoning by analogy to treat similar cases similarly,

1141(d)(2) (2006) prohibit a bankruptcy court from discharging a debt that is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. sec. 523. See Bankruptcy Decision at 22-28. And the fact that the IRS did not amend its proof of claim to include the 2003 liability is irrelevant: A priority tax claim, such as the IRS’ claim for the 2003 liability, is nondischargeab

Hambrick v. Commissioner 118 T.C. 348 · 2002

Excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. sec. 1141, however, are any debts outlined in 11 U.S.C. sec. 523 (2000). The court in In re DePaolo, supra at 375, held that a confirmed plan does not discharge an individual debtor from any tax debt within the purview of 11 U.S.C. sec. 507(a)(7) (now 11 U.S.C. sec. 507(a)(8)), whether or no

R. George & Penney Gregersen, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2000-325 · 2000

As guarantor, Mr. Gregersen then became primarily liable for the note’s payments. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to a deduction for interest accrued after the date of confirmation of the bankruptcy plan. II. Net Operating Loss Carryover Respondent determined petitioners were not entitled to a deduction for the portion of

That version of the venue statute making venue, absent a stipulation to the contrary, depend entirely upon where the tax return was filed became section 1141(b) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code and then substantially unchanged became section 7482 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code.

Estate of Clack v. Commissioner 106 T.C. 131 · 1996

That version of the venue statute making venue, absent a stipulation to the contrary, depend entirely upon where the tax return was filed became section 1141(b) of the 1939 Internal Revenue Code and then substantially unchanged became section 7482 of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code.

Wilshire Courtyard v. California Franchise Tax Board 729 F.3d 1279 · Cir.
Moody v. Commissioner 95 T.C. 655 · 1990
Fleet National Bank v. Gray 375 F.3d 51 · Cir.
Everett Associates, Inc., Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2012-143 · 2012
Benton v. Commissioner 122 T.C. 353 · 2004
Breman v. Commissioner 66 T.C. 61 · 1976
Sheldon v. Commissioner 62 T.C. 96 · 1974
Bosiger v. US Airways, Inc. 510 F.3d 442 · Cir.
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Liuzza (In Re Texas Pig Stands, Inc.) 610 F.3d 937 · Cir.
TX Comptroller of Public Accts v. Vincent Liuzza · Cir.
Grothues v. Internal Revenue Service 226 F.3d 334 · Cir.
United States Department of Labor v. North Carolina Growers Ass'n, Inc. 377 F.3d 345 · Cir.
Becker v. Mack Trucks, Inc. 281 F.3d 372 · Cir.
United States v. Graham 59 F. App'x 660 · Cir.
Larry Becker v. Mack Trucks, Inc. 281 F.3d 372 · Cir.
United States Department Of Labor v. North Carolina Growers Association 377 F.3d 345 · Cir.
Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Development, Inc. 716 F.3d 736 · Cir.