Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15, 2 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

16

RALEIGH v. ILLINOIS DEPT. OF REVENUE

Syllabus

burden has often been shifted to the taxpayer indicates how critical it is. Several compelling rationales for this shift—the government's vital interest in acquiring its revenue, the taxpayer's readier access to the relevant information, and the importance of encouraging voluntary compliance—are powerful justifications not to be disregarded lightly. The Bankruptcy Code makes no provision for altering the burden of proof on a tax claim, and its silence indicates that no change was intended. Pp. 20-22.

(b) The trustee's appeals to Code silence are rejected. The state of pre-Code law does not indicate that the Code is silent because it was predicated on an alteration of the substantive law of obligations once a taxpayer enters bankruptcy. And although Vanston Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Green, 329 U. S. 156, suggested that "allowance" of claims is a federal matter, that case concerned distribution of assets, not the validity of claims in the first instance, which, Vanston specifically states, is to be determined by reference to state law, id., at 161. Nor is the trustee helped by the reference, in City of New York v. Saper, 336 U. S. 328, 332, to "prov[ing]" government claims in the same manner as other debts, for that reference was to the procedure by which proof of claim was submitted, not to the validity of the claim. Finally, the trustee's argument that the Code-mandated priority enjoyed by taxing authorities over other creditors requires a compensating equality of treatment when it comes to demonstrating validity of claims distorts a bankruptcy court's legitimate powers and begs the question about the relevant principle of equality. Pp. 22-26.

179 F. 3d 546, affirmed.

Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Robert Radasevich argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Phil C. Neal, David A. Eide, and John W. Guarisco.

A. Benjamin Goldgar, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, and James D. Newbold, Assistant Attorney General.

Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Act-

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007