§523

section 523(a)(1)(C).17 See Grothues v. IRS, 226 F.3d 334, 339 (5th Cir. 2000) (taxpayer estopped from challenging 11 U.S.C. section 17Petitioners make the point that Mr. Bussell was not convicted of tax evasion or any other crime, and therefore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to the Estate of John Bussell.

The bankruptcy court's treatment in In re Doss of other years factually not similar to petitioners' 199 0 Federal income taxes as not excepted from discharge (i .e ., as discharged) is inapposite to petitioners' 1990 Federal income taxes herein .

We do not agree with petitioner's contention.

On the basis of the aforementioned caselaw and precedent, we hold that the accrued interest with respect to petitioner's underlying tax liability K - 6 - for 2000 was not discharged in petitioner's bankruptcy because the underlying tax was itself not dischargeable .

523(a)(1)(B).15 Accordingly, we hold that pursuant to 11 U.S.C.

523, a discharge under 11 U.S.C. sec. 727(a) discharges a debtor from personal liability for all debts incurred before the bankruptcy - 14 - [*14] petition was filed. See United States v. Hatton (In re Hatton), 220 F.3d 1057, 1059-1060 (9th Cir. 2000). The IRS contends that Flint's income-tax liabilities were not discharged. The IRS relies on

Title 11 section 523 provides exceptions to discharge from bankruptcy.

or 1997.5 An individual debtor is not to be discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding from certain specified categories of debt. 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a) (2000). The first such category is described in pertinent part in 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1) as follows: § 523. Exceptions to discharge (a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title [title 11] does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt-- (1) for a tax * * *-- 4See Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-1

523 (West 1987), and 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. sec. 8321 (West 1995), reenacting 59 Pa. Cons. Stat. sec. 321 (West 1987). - 22 - agreement in this case qualifies as a "writing" under section 6229(b)(1)(B).14 In sum, we hold that Mr. Farley as the general partner was "authorized by the partnership in writing" within the meaning of section 6229(b

§ 523 (codifying various exceptions to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 including tax debts). Pre-petition claims are characterized as either secured or unsecured. See 11 U.S.C. § 506. Unsecured claims are further categorized into priority claims and general unsecured claims. See 11 U.S.C. § 507. For a creditor to be entitled to a secured claim, the

Between 1996 and 2007 Levine used an attorney named Bill Brody to do her estate planning, and Brody had prepared all of Levine’s estate-planning documents. But as Levine’s health grew worse, her family and Larson pressed her to search for a new lawyer to advise them. Shane Swanson, an attorney at Parsinen Kaplan Rosberg & Gotlieb,

§ 727(b) provides that certain debts are nondischargeable.

There is no indication that the IRS agreed to waive any of its rights with respect to tax debts excepted from discharge under title 11 of the United States Code (Bankruptcy Code). While the bankruptcy case was pending, respondent issued the notice of deficiency before us; petitioner filed his petition in March 2018, soon after th

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 nondischargeable “whether or not a claim for such tax was filed or allowed.” 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(A); see Bankruptcy Decision

secs. 1141(d)(2), 523(a)(1)(A). And under 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(A) certain taxes are nondischargeable "whether or not a claim for such tax was filed or allowed". In United States v. Gurwitch (In re Gurwitch), 794 F.2d 584, 585 (11th Cir. 1986), the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the "Bankruptcy Code m

A chapter 7 discharge relieves a debtor from all personal liabilities (incurred before the filing ofthe bankruptcy petition) except those listed in section 523 ofthe Bankruptcy Code.

523(a)(1)(A) (2012); see 11 U.S.C. sec. 507(a)(8) (2012); Severo v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 160, 165 (2007), M, 586 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2009). All section references are to the Intemal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the relevant times. - 3 - liability. They assert that this would've paid their entire income tax liability for that year, and

section 523(a)(1)(A) (2012) exempts from discharge federal income taxes that have a return filing due date (including extensions) within the three years before the bankruptcy filing date. It also exempts from discharge taxes that are assessable after the start ofthe bankruptcy case. Id. sec. 507(a)(8)(A)(i), (iii). These provisions govern the three

led a "plan ofliquidation" and provides for the liquidation ofsome, but not all, ofpetitioner's assets. Petitioner also referred to its bankruptcy plan during trial and on brief as primarily 35The limitations to discharge provided in Bankruptcy Code sec. 523 apply only to individual debtors in a ch. 11 proceeding. Bankruptcy Code sec. 1141(d)(2). 360nly a debtorwho is an individual can receive a discharge under Bankruptcy Code sec. 727(a). See In re SunCruz Casinos, LLC, 342 B.R. 370, 380 (Bankr

523(a) (1) (A) (2006), 11 U.S.C. sec. 507(a) (8) (2006). ~ 10 - Kreisler pay postdischarge penalties and interest and by refusing to allow him the opportunity to dispute his liability for the postdischarge penalties and interest. How to analyze the Appeals officer's handling of its installment agreement offer depends upon whether the offer is

523(a) (1) (]B) (ii) (2006); Severo v. Commissioner, supra at 168. Petitioner has not proven that her 2003 income tax liability was discharged in bankruptcy. Third, petitioner argues that she is entitled -to an additional deduction by virtue of her age. Petitioner refers to the additional standard deduction amount available to taxpayers who re

2006) (whether purported returns filed by a debtor- taxpayer after the IRS had prepared substitutes for returns and assessed tax liabilities were returns within the meaning of 11 U.S.C.

268, 282 (1978 ), held that; liability "under Internal Revenue Code § 6672 must be held nondis'chargeable under Bankruptcy Act § 17(a) (1) (e) ." "Section 17(a) (1) (e) of the Bankruptcy Ac t was the statutory predecessor of § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code and is essentially the same nondischargeable tax claim language .

section 523(a) (2006) : (a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), . 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt-- (1) for a tax or a customs duty-- (A), of the kind and for the eriods specified in sections 707(a)(3) or 507(a)(8) of this title, whether or not a claim for such t x was filed or allow

section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) turns on whether a debtor, filed a valid tax return . (There's an obvious parallel to cases where a protester wants his documents to be a valid return to start the running of the statute of limitations .) The debate is whether late filing (presumably intended to qualify the debtor for tax-debt relief) is per se invalid under

section 523(a)( 1)(A), it is not discharged whether or not a proof of claim is filed or allowed . 11 U .S .C . 523 (a)(1)(A)(2000) ; Swanson v . Commissioner, 121 T .C. 111, 128 (2003 ) . Petitioner's discharge argument is without merit . Petitioner ' s argument that he was misled by an IRS representative into filing for bankruptcy is essentially o

523(a)(1) (JB)(ii) (2000); Ramsdell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-317. The 1993 liability was not a prepetition debt that could have been discharged because petitioner did not make an election under section 1398(d)(2) to end his taxable year as of the filing of the bankruptcy petition during 1993. See, e.g., In re Smith, 210 Bankr. 689, 692

section 523(a)(1)(C) .I, Respondent conceded that the penalties and interest on the penalties were dischargeable . On January 11, 2001, the bankruptcy court held that Mr . Summers's tax' liabilities were nondischargeable because he wilfully atte pted to evade payment of his taxes . See United States v . SummI ers, 266 Bankr . 292 (Bankr . E .D . Pa

523(a)(5) (2000), a debt "to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor, for alimony to, maintenance for, or support of such spouse or child, in connection with a separation agreement, divorce decree or other order of a court of record, determination made in accordance with State or territorial law by a governmental unit, or property sett

Section 523; (b) * * * debts alleged to be excepted from discharge under clauses (2), (4), (6) and (15) of 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)”, and other debts the bankruptcy court further determined to be discharged. The Supreme Court has stated in Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 44 (2002), that “A discharge under the Bankruptcy Code does not extinguis

The order confirming the plan proclaimed: that, except as provided in the Plan, the individual Debtors are discharged from any debt that arose before - 9 - the date of confirmation of the Plan, except any debts excepted from discharge under § 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, and except if the Debtors would be denied a discharge under § 727(a) of a chapter 7 case; * * * On May 18, 1995, the bankruptcy court issued its final decree and closed the bankruptcy case.

- 13 - An individual debtor is not to be discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding from certain specified categories of debts. 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a) (2000). The first such category is described in pertinent part in 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1) as follows: § 523. Exceptions to discharge (a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title [title 11] does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt–- (1) for a tax or a customs duty– (A) of the kind and for the periods

523(a)(1)(A) (2000). Petitioners filed their 1990, 1991, and 1992 tax returns with the filing status of married filing jointly and did not send in payments for the balances due with these returns. Mr. Lah filed his 1993 tax return with the filing status of married filing separately. Mr. Lah did not send in a payment for the balance due with hi

111, 123-125 (2003) (whether a substitute for return constituted a return within the meaning of 11 U.S.C.

523(a)(1)(A) (2000). Petitioners filed their 1990, 1991, and 1992 tax returns with the filing status of married filing jointly and did not send in payments for the balances due with these returns. Mr. Lah filed his 1993 tax return with the filing status of married filing separately. Mr. Lah did not send in a payment for the balance due with hi

523(a)(1)(B)(ii) the examination assessment was not discharged in the bankruptcy proceedings.6 Payment At trial, petitioners raised an additional issue; namely, that any amount owed with respect to 1991 that was not discharged in the bankruptcy proceeding had been paid. In support of this contention, petitioners introduced a letter issued to t

Payment of Tax Deficiencies The Doyles have not made any voluntary payments on their assessed tax liabilities. During 1994 and 1995, respondent placed a continuing levy on the wages of petitioner’s husband which resulted in the receipt of $34,672.71 and $14,132.45, respectively. On June 5, 1995, respondent applied a $6,345 overpa

unpaid income tax liabilities have been discharged in bankruptcy.4 Petitioner's 1996 Income Tax Liability Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code provides some exceptions to the discharge of debts in bankruptcy.

The dates on which those SFRs were made, according to petitioner, are the relevant reference dates in the determination of when the returns were filed for purposes of section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code.8 To avoid the application of section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code, a taxpayer must file a “return” prior to the commencement of the 2-year period preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

523(a)(1)(B) (2000)); Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 140 (2000) (accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662(a)); ICI Pension Fund v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 83, 88 (1999) (period of limitations under sec. 6501); Galuska v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 661, 668-669 (1992) (statutory limitations on time for filing claims for credit or refund or l

The only factual difference of any significance between the case we consider and In re DePaolo, supra, is that petitioners chose to file a petition in the Tax Court rather than moving to reopen the bankruptcy proceeding. That distinction does not make a difference with respect to the issue we consider here. In Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissi

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 not a claim for such tax was filed or allowed. The court in In re DePaolo, supra, opined: While principles of res ju

date of the filing of the petition; or (iii) other than a tax of a kind specified in section 523(a)(1)(B) or 523(a)(1)(C) of this title, not assessed before, but assessable, under applicable law or by agreement, after, the commencement of the case; - 7 - In his brief, petitioner contends only that his 1993 liabilities were discharged in bankruptcy.

Section 523; (b) unless heretofore or hereafter determined by order of this court to be nondischargeable, debts alleged to be excepted from discharge under clauses (2), (4) and (6) of 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a); (c) debts determined by this court to be discharged. 3. All creditors whose debts are discharged by this order and all creditors whose judgm

523; (b) unless heretofore or hereafter determined by order of this court to be nondischargeable, debts alleged to be excepted from discharge under clauses (2), (4), (6), and (15) of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a); (c) debts determined by this court to be discharged. 3. All creditors whose debts are discharged by this order and all creditors whose judg

(B) Unless heretofore or hereafter determined by order of this court to be nondischargeable, debts alleged to be excepted from discharge under clauses (2), (4), and (6) of 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(A). (C) Debts determined by this court to be discharged under 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(d). 3. All creditors whose debts are discharged by this order and al

523(a)(1)(C) (1994). The issue for our decision is whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for fraud. The fraud addition was enacted to protect the revenue and to reimburse the Government for the heavy expense of investigation and the loss resulting from the taxpayer's fraud. Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 401 (1938). Before

§523 of the Bankruptcy Code and such Judgment shall be res judicata on any further proceedings before this Court or any other. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Judgment be, and it is hereby, entered * * * that all debts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §727 are determined non-dischargeable in this case and any other proceeding currently pendin