This morning the US Supreme Court issued a ruling providing that severance payments are taxable FICA wages. In United States vs. Quality Stores, Quality Stores made severance payments to employees who were involuntarily terminated as part of Quality Stores’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Quality Stores paid and withheld income and FICA taxes from the severance payments. Later, Quality Stores sought a refund on behalf of itself and former employees for FICA taxes withheld and paid.

On March 24, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Quality Stores, Inc.,No. 12-1408, holding that severance payments made to employees terminated in connection with a company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan are taxable wages under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).

A new decision in Ash v. North American Title Co. holds that (1) contract damages based upon a bankruptcy were not foreseeable, and (2) an escrow holder was  entitled to a jury instruction  as to intervening or superceding causes (i.e., the bankruptcy).  The decision also highlights a potential for some judges to try to impose greater responsibilities on escrow holders.

Sometime this summer, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in U.S. v. Quality Stores.  In this case, the Supreme Court reviewed the Sixth Circuit’s holding that supplemental unemployment compensation benefits (“SUB payments”) relating to severance payments are not subject to FICA taxes. U.S. v. Quality Stores, 693 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2012).  The Sixth Circuit decision resurrects a long-disputed issue regarding the applicability of FICA to severance pay.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a plan under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code can modify the rights of a purchaser of delinquent real estate taxes on a debtor’s home by providing for payment of those taxes over time rather than in a lump sum. See In re LaMont (No. 13-1187, 7th Cir. January 7, 2014).

In connection with the bankruptcy of a bank holding company (the “Bank Holdco”) and its operating bank subsidiary (the “Bank”), there are often different classes of creditors competing for one tax refund.

The Bottom Line: 

The Bottom Line:

On August 15, 2013, in Zucker v.