U.S. v. Bush

(S.D. Ind. Nov. 18, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s holding that a tax penalty is dischargeable if the penalty is described by either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7)(A) or (B). Opinion below.

Judge: McKinney

Attorney for Appellant: Peter Sklarew

Attorneys for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, PC, Julie A. Camden

2016-11-18-us-v-bush

Author: Matt Lindblom

Bush v. United States (In re Bush)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court addresses whether certain tax penalty claims are dischargeable. The court finds certain penalties are dischargeable because they arose out of tax returns filed outside the three-year window provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, other penalties were not dischargeable because they arose out of a tax return filed within the three-year window. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, P.C., Julie A. Camden

Attorneys for Defendant: U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Sarah Thomas Mayhew, Peter Sklarew

2016-04-08 – in re bush

Author: Matt Lindblom

Indiana Department of Workforce Development v. Burge (In re Burge)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2015)

The bankruptcy court finds that the Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s claim for overpayment of benefits to the debtor while he was actually employed is dischargeable, but the statutory penalties for the overpayment are not dischargeable. The debtor’s agent defrauded the department without the debtor’s knowledge. Because the debtor was unaware of the fraud, the debt was not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). However, the statutory penalties imposed against the debtor for the fraud were nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7). Opinion below.

2015-12-16 – in dept of workforce dev v burge

Author: Matt Lindblom