And in each of those cases, the Bankruptcy Court looked beyond the debtor's schedules and determined that the debtor was actually ineligible for Chapter 13 relief.United States v. Verdunn, 89 F.3d 799, 800โ03 (11th Cir.1996); Hounsom v. United States, 325 B.R. 319, 321 (M.D.Fla.2005); In re Steffens, 343 B.R. at 697; see also In re Hansen, 316 B.R. 505, 509 n. 1 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2004) (explaining that โ[d]ecisions where courts have taken this [minority] view, moreover, have typically involved a creditor contending that the case should be dismissed because the debtor's debts โexceed[ed] the statutory amounts' despite what the schedules saidโ). The Debtors have not cited, nor is the Court aware of, any case where a debtor's scheduled debts exceeded the Section 109(e) limits and the court nevertheless looked beyond the debtor's schedules and determined (based on proofs of claim or other evidence) that the debtor was, in fact, eligible for Chapter 13 relief.
In re Globe Mfg. Corp., 567 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th Cir. 2009). The Court reviews the Bankruptcy Court's denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Hounsom v. United States, 325 B.R. 319, 323 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). DISCUSSION
See FED. R. BANKR. P. 8001 (a notice of appeal is only required to contain the names of all parties to the order appealed from; it need not designate the order being appealed from); FED. R. BANKR. P. 8006 (appellant must file a separate statement of the issues to be presented on appeal, which puts the parties on notice of the issues that will be raised on appeal). See also In re Dudley, 249 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 2001); Hounsom v. United States, 325 B.R. 319, 323 (M.D.Fla. 2005). III. DISCUSSION
Other courts agree that disputed tax debts are liquidated. See Hounsom v. United States, 325 B.R. 319, 325 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (finding that tax debts were liquidated even though IRS had not issued notices of deficiency for two of the tax years at issue and the debtor was disputing the tax liability in tax court); In re Barcal, 213 B.R. 1008, 1014 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1997) (finding that vigorously disputed tax debts were liquidated because they had been fixed and established by an assessment); In re Madison, 168 B.R. 986, 989 (D. Haw. 1994) (dismissing the debtor's argument that tax debts were unliquidated because they were subject to protracted and extensive evidentiary hearings in tax court, instead relying on the notices of deficiency to find the debt was liquidated);In re Lamar, 111 B.R. 327, 329 (D. Nev. 1990) (rejecting argument that assessed tax penalty was unliquidated because there was no opportunity for judicial review before it was assessed). The essence of these Chapter 13 tax debt cases is that because tax debts can be calculated precisely, they are liquidated, especially if a notice of deficiency
But see In re Hair, 2012 WL 5939352 (Bankr. E.D. N.C. ) (estimated IRS claim was liquidated even though debtor disputed it); and Hounsom v. United States, 325 B.R. 319, 326 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (IRS's proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the amount of the claim even if later amended). H. The "Stale" Credit Card Claims.
The debt limits in section 109(e) thus โfunction as a gatekeeper,โ In re Rios, 476 B.R. 685, 688 (Bankr.D.Mass.2012), confining chapter 13 cases to debtors with less debt for whom chapter 11 would be โtoo cumbersome a procedure,โ Hounsom v. United States, 325 B.R. 319, 327 (M.D.Fla.2005) (internal quotation omitted); In re Albano, 55 B.R. 363, 365 (N.D.Ill.1985). At the same time, the debt limits direct debtors with more debt to chapter 11, where greater creditor protectionsโa disclosure statement and a vote on plan confirmationโare available.
Additionally, the IRS's "proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the amount of the claim" even where the IRS subsequently submits amendments or adjustments to such proof of claim. See Hounsom v. United States, 325 B.R. 319, 326 (M.D. Fla. 2005). In the present case, the tax code, established IRS policies, and the proof of claim were used to determine the debtor's estimated tax liability and where "the process utilized by the IRS appears to be sound [and] was performed in good faith [it] must be respected."
The debtors did not file a petition in Tax Court to challenge the deficiency, and thus, $161,006 in income tax deficiency was assessed against the debtors on March 6, 2006.The fact that the debtors now wish to contest the amount the IRS determined they owe for 1996 does not transform their tax debt into a "contingency" excluded from the requirements of Section 109(e). See In re Mazzeo, 131 F.3d 295, 303 (2d Cir. 1997); Hounsom v. United States, 325 B.R. 319, 323-24 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2005) ("A debt which is 'readily calculable' or 'readily determinable' is a liquidated debt regardless of whether the debtor disputes the obligation"). The debtors' challenge to the tax assessment does not change the nature of a federal income tax assessment from a liquidated to a non-liquidated debt.
A debt is non-contingent as long as the events that give rise to it occurred prior to the petition. See Hounsom v. United States, 325 B.R. 319, 324 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (citations omitted). Therefore, the $948,000 should have been listed on the petition as a claim, even though it has not yet been reduced to judgment.
A claim may well be liquidated even though the debtor, in good faith, schedules a claim at $0.00 or "unknown" because there is a dispute as to liability on the claim. Hounsom v. U.S., 325 B.R. 319, 324 (M.D. Fla. 2005); In re Huelbig, 313 B.R. 540, 544 (D.R.I. 2004); In re Dow Corning Corp., 215 B.R. 346, 355 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997).