高等法院裁定,根据《破产法》第12章,不得免除出售农场资产的申请后所得税

M. Aquilio
{"title":"高等法院裁定,根据《破产法》第12章,不得免除出售农场资产的申请后所得税","authors":"M. Aquilio","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2520646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Hall v. U.S., 132 S. Ct. 1882 (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that federal income tax liabilities due to individual debtors’ sales of farm assets during the pendency of a Chapter 12 bankruptcy reorganization are not subject to collection or discharge in the debtors’ plan. The Court opined that the post-petition income taxes are not unsecured claims under Bankruptcy Code §1222(a)(2)(A) as they were not “incurred by the estate” under Bankruptcy Code §503(b). Under Code §1222(a)(2)(A), a Chapter 12 plan must provide for full payment of all claims entitled to priority under Code §507 unless the claim is owed to a governmental unit arising from the sale of any farm asset used in the debtor’s farming operation, in which case it will be treated as an unsecured claim. Code §507(a)(8) gives priority to certain pre-petition taxes while Code §507(a)(2) gives priority to administrative expenses allowed under Code §503(b). Code §503(b)(1)(B)(i) allows for any tax “incurred by the estate” to be treated as an administrative expense. The Court gave the phrase “incurred by the estate” its plain meaning and applied I.R.C. §§1398 and 1399, reasoning that under I.R.C. the Chapter 12 estate was not a separate taxable entity and that the debtor was individually responsible for the tax. In reaching its decision, the Court viewed the statute’s plain language, context, and structure.","PeriodicalId":142986,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The High Court Rules that Post-Petition Income Taxes on the Sale of Farm Assets Are Not Discharged Pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code\",\"authors\":\"M. Aquilio\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2520646\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Hall v. U.S., 132 S. Ct. 1882 (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that federal income tax liabilities due to individual debtors’ sales of farm assets during the pendency of a Chapter 12 bankruptcy reorganization are not subject to collection or discharge in the debtors’ plan. The Court opined that the post-petition income taxes are not unsecured claims under Bankruptcy Code §1222(a)(2)(A) as they were not “incurred by the estate” under Bankruptcy Code §503(b). Under Code §1222(a)(2)(A), a Chapter 12 plan must provide for full payment of all claims entitled to priority under Code §507 unless the claim is owed to a governmental unit arising from the sale of any farm asset used in the debtor’s farming operation, in which case it will be treated as an unsecured claim. Code §507(a)(8) gives priority to certain pre-petition taxes while Code §507(a)(2) gives priority to administrative expenses allowed under Code §503(b). Code §503(b)(1)(B)(i) allows for any tax “incurred by the estate” to be treated as an administrative expense. The Court gave the phrase “incurred by the estate” its plain meaning and applied I.R.C. §§1398 and 1399, reasoning that under I.R.C. the Chapter 12 estate was not a separate taxable entity and that the debtor was individually responsible for the tax. In reaching its decision, the Court viewed the statute’s plain language, context, and structure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2520646\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2520646","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在Hall v. u.s., 132 S. Ct. 1882(2012)一案中,最高法院裁定,由于个人债务人在第12章破产重组待定期间出售农场资产而产生的联邦所得税负债不受债务人计划的征收或免除。法院认为,申请后所得税不属于破产法第1222(a)(2)(a)条项下的无担保债权,因为它们不是破产法第503(b)条项下“由遗产产生的”。根据法典第1222(a)(2)(a)条,第12章计划必须全额支付所有根据法典第507条享有优先权的债权,除非该债权是由于债务人出售其农业经营中使用的任何农场资产而欠政府单位的,在这种情况下,该债权将被视为无担保债权。法典第507(a)(8)条优先考虑某些预申请税,而法典第507(a)(2)条优先考虑法典第503(b)条允许的行政费用。法典§503(b)(1)(b)(i)允许“由遗产产生的”任何税收被视为行政费用。法院对“由遗产引起的”一词给出了明确的含义,并适用了《美国税法》第1398条和1399条,理由是根据《美国税法》第12章,遗产不是一个单独的应税实体,债务人对税款负有个人责任。在作出裁决时,法院考虑了规约的通俗语言、背景和结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The High Court Rules that Post-Petition Income Taxes on the Sale of Farm Assets Are Not Discharged Pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code
In Hall v. U.S., 132 S. Ct. 1882 (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that federal income tax liabilities due to individual debtors’ sales of farm assets during the pendency of a Chapter 12 bankruptcy reorganization are not subject to collection or discharge in the debtors’ plan. The Court opined that the post-petition income taxes are not unsecured claims under Bankruptcy Code §1222(a)(2)(A) as they were not “incurred by the estate” under Bankruptcy Code §503(b). Under Code §1222(a)(2)(A), a Chapter 12 plan must provide for full payment of all claims entitled to priority under Code §507 unless the claim is owed to a governmental unit arising from the sale of any farm asset used in the debtor’s farming operation, in which case it will be treated as an unsecured claim. Code §507(a)(8) gives priority to certain pre-petition taxes while Code §507(a)(2) gives priority to administrative expenses allowed under Code §503(b). Code §503(b)(1)(B)(i) allows for any tax “incurred by the estate” to be treated as an administrative expense. The Court gave the phrase “incurred by the estate” its plain meaning and applied I.R.C. §§1398 and 1399, reasoning that under I.R.C. the Chapter 12 estate was not a separate taxable entity and that the debtor was individually responsible for the tax. In reaching its decision, the Court viewed the statute’s plain language, context, and structure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disability, Reasonable Accommodation and the Employer's Obligations: Nano Nagle School V Daly ‘Reasonable Offers’ as a Defence to Unfair Prejudice Petitions: Prescott v Potamianos The Problematic Development of the Stalking Protection Order Equal Civil Partnerships, Discrimination and the Indulgence of Time: R (on the Application of Steinfeld and Keidan) V Secretary of State for International Development Reason‐Giving in Administrative Law: Where are We and Why Have the Courts Not Embraced the ‘General Common Law Duty to Give Reasons’?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1