Laughlin v. United States Internal Revenue Service

98 B.R. 494 (D. Neb. 1989) · United States District Court for the District of Nebraska · March 29, 1989 · No. Bankruptcy No. 87-1067; Nos. CV88-L-419 to CV88-L-421

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of a Chapter 13 trustee's motion for contempt and sanctions against the IRS. The court held that, upon confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, property of the estate generally revests in the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 1327(b), unless the plan or confirmation order provides otherwise, and therefore the IRS levy did not violate the automatic stay. The court also declined to order the IRS to take steps to reduce the trustee's administrative burdens under the Anti-Injunction Act.

Holdings

  1. Unless the Chapter 13 plan or confirmation order provides otherwise by vesting title to specified property in another entity, confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1327(b) revests all property of the estate in the debtor. Thus, post-confirmation funds held or later received by the trustee for payments under the plan were not property of the estate in this case.
  2. The IRS did not violate the automatic stay by levying on post-confirmation funds that had revested in the debtor rather than remaining property of the estate.
  3. The bankruptcy court properly declined to order the IRS to take actions intended to simplify the trustee's administrative burdens because that relief would constitute injunctive relief barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a).

Questions Presented

  1. After confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, do presently undistributed funds and future funds received for distribution under the plan remain property of the bankruptcy estate or revest in the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 1327(b)?
  2. Did the IRS violate the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 by serving a notice of levy on post-confirmation property that had revested in the debtor?
  3. Could the bankruptcy court order the IRS to take actions designed to reduce the trustee's administrative burdens resulting from future notices of levy, or would such relief be an injunction barred by 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)?

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (9)

  • In re Stark, 8 B.R. 233 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1981)(followed in part)
  • In re Mason, 45 B.R. 498 (Bankr. D. Ore. 1984)(rejected)
  • In re Dickey, 64 B.R. 3 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1985)(cited)
  • In re Walker, 67 B.R. 811 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1986)(cited)
  • In re Walker, 84 B.R. 888 (Bankr. D.C. 1988)(cited)
  • In re Root, 61 B.R. 984 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1986)(rejected)
  • In re Adams, 12 B.R. 540 (Bankr. Utah 1981)(rejected)
  • In re Clark, 71 B.R. 747 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987)(rejected)
  • In re Aneiro, 72 B.R. 424 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1987)(rejected)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…