- 8 -
The enactment of 11 U.S.C. secs. 362 and 505 was part of the
major reform of the bankruptcy laws accomplished by the
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2549.
The legislative history clearly shows that Congress understood
that the bankruptcy courts and this Court would have concurrent
jurisdiction in cases regarding common issues of Federal tax
liability of bankrupts who are properly before both courts.3
United States v. Wilson, 974 F.2d 514, 517 (4th Cir. 1992). If
the bankruptcy court first decides the common tax issue, its
decision is to be binding under principles of res judicata upon
this Court:
the bankruptcy judge will have authority to determine
which court will determine the merits of the tax claim
both as to claims against the estate and claims against
the debtor concerning his personal liability for
nondischargeable taxes. Thus, * * * the bankruptcy
judge can either rule on the merits of the claim and
continue the stay on any pending Tax Court proceeding
or lift the stay * * *. If he rules on the merits of
the complaint before the decision of the Tax Court is
3 Prior to the enactment of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of
1978, Pub. L. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2549, the House and the Senate
formulated different proposals as to how the bankruptcy laws
should be revised, and a compromise bill was eventually entered
into law. See 3 Collier, Collier on Bankruptcy, pars. 505.02 and
505.03 (15th ed. 1996). No formal conference was held to
formulate the compromise bill, but the sponsors of the bill
issued extensive comments which served in the place of a
conference committee report. 124 Cong. Rec. 32391-32420 (1978)
(Representative Edwards); 124 Cong. Rec. 33992-34019 (1978)
(Senator DeConcini); see, generally, Kennedy, Foreword: "A Brief
History of The Bankruptcy Reform Act", 58 N.C.L. Rev. 667, 676-77
(1980). Those comments provide persuasive evidence of Congress'
intent when it enacted 11 U.S.C. secs. 362 and 505. See Begier
v. I.R.S., 496 U.S. 53, 64-65 n.5 (1990); United States v.
Wilson, 974 F.2d 514, 518 (4th Cir. 1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011