In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.1 1 Winston & Strawn’s Tax Controversy and Litigation Group litigates tax disputes in the bankruptcy courts and works in conjunction with the firm’s Bankruptcy Practice Group. Portions of this article were originally published by the author in 2008.

Each year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

TAX CONTROVERSY AND LITIGATION NEWSLETTER

----------

Focus on Tax Controversy

NOVEMBER 2020\\VOLUME 4\\ISSUE 3

IN THIS ISSUE

ARTICLES AND UPDATES Bankruptcy Court's Jurisdiction To Resolve Tax Claims2 FAQs Issued Under The CARES Act Invalid Under The APA8 Tax Court Concludes IRS Failed to Satisfy 675111

Penalty For Failure To File Form 5471 Is Not Divisible 14 Sixth Circuit Rejects Taxpayer's Judicial Estoppel Claim17

ABOUT US Winston & Strawn's Tax Controversy and Litigation Practice 20

Editors 20

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).  One of the benefits of bankruptcy court protection is the automatic stay, which will

In the wake of the recent economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there will likely be a sharp rise in bankruptcy filings by businesses seeking to obtain relief from the burdens of excessive debt.^[1] The bankruptcy code is designed to provide debtors relief and protection from creditors, which includes the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

The COVID-19 pandemic has created financial distress across many sectors of the economy. As a result, there is a good chance that your business has, or soon will, be forced to deal with a customer bankruptcy. When your customer files for bankruptcy, all is not necessarily lost. The strategic actions you take, in consultation with an experienced attorney, before and during a bankruptcy can help improve your odds of recovery.

A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois (“Court”) is a stark reminder of the importance of paying attention to notices received from bankruptcy cases and the need for creditors to consider retaining counsel to protect their interests in such cases. In In re Kevin R. Gaffney, after Kevin Gaffney (“Debtor”) filed a petition for relief under chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.

The Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. These avoidance powers are subject to certain limitations, including a safe harbor in section 546(e) exempting certain transfers. Among other things, section 546(e) bars avoidance of a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . .

Real estate lenders and borrowers everywhere are trying to figure out what to do with properties that are either sitting vacant or underperforming pre-pandemic expectations. In New York, a number of mezzanine foreclosures have been pursued with varying degrees of success when challenged in court. Some lenders have been shopping their loans, mostly at discounts to par that are not large enough to create substantial deal flow in the marketplace.

Alerts and Updates

The opinion is significant for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the Bankruptcy Court held that a make-whole premium is not a claim for unmatured interest as the Court of Appeals had intimated.