When the debt owed by a debtor is cancelled or forgiven, the debtor generally has cancellation of indebtedness (COD) income. COD income is generally includable in gross income, but may be excluded under section 108 of the Internal Revenue Code in some instances. A statutory exclusion exists for COD income that arises in a title 11 bankruptcy case or when the taxpayer is insolvent. Final regulations were issued recently that apply these exclusions to a grantor trust or a disregarded entity (DRE).
In re Killmer, 513 B.R. 41 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) –
After reopening a bankruptcy case, a mortgagee moved for a determination that a post-petition delinquent property tax sale was void because it was held in violation of the automatic stay. In response, the tax authority requested retroactive annulment of the stay.
Clinton County Treasurer v. Wolinsky, 511 B.R. 34 (N.D.N.Y. 2014)
A chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a property tax foreclosure as a fraudulent transfer and then to recover damages from the foreclosing county. The bankruptcy court agreed that the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance, but awarded only about half of the damages requested by the trustee. Both the county treasurer and the trustee appealed.
In re Joan Fabrics Corp., 508 B.R. 881 (Bankr. D. Del. 2014) –
The buyer of assets in a bankruptcy sale sought to enforce its asset purchase agreement against a county that was seeking to collect personal property taxes arising prior to the sale by exercising a statutory lien on the property acquired by the buyer.
Pinellas County Property Appraiser v. Read (In re Read), 692 F3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2012) –
Under Section 505(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, generally a bankruptcy court may determine the amount or legality of any tax. However, under Section 505(a)(2)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code ad valorem real or personal property taxes cannot be contested if the applicable time period under non-bankruptcy law has expired.
In re Creekside Senior Apartments, LP, 477 B.R. 40 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2012) –
In valuing a bank claim secured by a low-income housing project for purposes of a plan of reorganization, should the remaining federal low‑income housing tax credits allocated to the project be taken into consideration? In Creekside the bankruptcy court said yes, and the bankruptcy appellate panel agreed.
In an important recent decision, United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., et al.,1 in which Pepper represented the prevailing party, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that supplemental unemployment compensation benefits (SUB payments) paid by a bankrupt company to its former employees were not wages subject to taxation under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA).
Section 382 limits a loss corporation’s ability to use its Net Operating Losses (NOLs) carryforwards following an "ownership change."1 An ownership change is triggered if one or more "5-percent shareholders" of the loss corporation increase their ownership in the aggregate by more than 50 percentage points during a testing period. Following an ownership change, the "Section 382 limitation" generally reduces the ability to use NOLs to offset taxable income in any post-change year.2