In re Edwards

3 Citing cases

  1. Maitland v. N.J. Div. of Tax. (In re Maitland)

    531 B.R. 516 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2015)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that the One Day Late Rule creates a draconian result for debtors and renders other portions of § 523 superfluous

    While that is true, the parties have not cited the court to any binding authority on this issue, and the court's own research has not disclosed any. It is worth noting that the cases the Division of Tax relies on are also outside this jurisdiction and are both more than twenty-five years old. One of the cases the Division of Tax relies on is In re Edwards, 74 B.R. 661 (Bankr.N.D. Ohio 1987). That case was decided under § 523(a)(1)(A) and both its facts and reasoning have no bearing on this issue.The Division of Tax relies on Wood for the proposition that “11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) is the product of Congress' balancing of competing interests between a fresh start for debtors and the importance of paying taxes to State and Federal government.” That statement is not wholly accurate.

  2. Winters v. Shulman (In re Winters)

    485 B.R. 375 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    In re Hosack, 282 Fed.Appx. at 315. As stated in Edwards v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Edwards), 74 B.R. 661, 666 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1987), “a tax claim which arises from a timely filed tax return filed more than two years before the petition date, or even more than three years before the petition date, is a nondischargeable tax claim, entitled to priority treatment, if the tax is still assessable as of the petition date.” Accordingly, the Court finds that the IRS is entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

  3. Winters v. Shulman (In re Winters)

    CASE NO. 311-04072 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2013)

    In re Hosack, 282 F.App'x at 315. As stated in Edwards v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Edwards), 74 B.R. 661, 666 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1987), "a tax claim which arises from a timely filed tax return filed more than two years before the petition date, or even more than three years before the petition date, is a nondischargeable tax claim, entitled to priority treatment, if the tax is still assessable as of the petition date." Accordingly, the Court finds that the IRS is entitled to summary judgment on this issue.