In re Simone

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Wanland

    No. 2:13-cv-2343-KJM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 25, 2017)

    Furthermore, several courts have found that a taxpayer who was convicted of criminal tax evasion was collaterally estopped from later denying nondischargeability of such taxes. See In re Grothues, 226 F.3d 334, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2000); In re Simone, 252 B.R. 302, 306-07 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000); In re Goff, 180 B.R. 193, 198-200 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1995). Additionally, even though it appears that the Ninth Circuit has not yet squarely addressed the issue, it has suggested likely agreement with the above-cited authorities. See Hawkins, 769 F.3d at 667-68 (discussing various acts constituting willful attempts to evade or defeat tax under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C), including transfers to false bank accounts and shielding of assets, and concluding that "[w]ith the exception of the mere failure to file a return, these same acts satisfy the conduct requirement for criminal tax evasion in this Circuit.")

  2. United States v. Wanland

    No. 2:13-cv-2343-KJM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2016)

    Furthermore, several courts have found that a taxpayer who was convicted of criminal tax evasion was collaterally estopped from later denying nondischargeability of such taxes. See In re Grothues, 226 F.3d 334, 338-39 (5th Cir. 2000); In re Simone, 252 B.R. 302, 306-07 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000); In re Goff, 180 B.R. 193, 198-200 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1995). Additionally, even though it appears that the Ninth Circuit has not yet squarely addressed the issue, it has suggested likely agreement with the above-cited authorities. See Hawkins, 769 F.3d at 667-68 (discussing various acts constituting willful attempts to evade or defeat tax under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C), including transfers to false bank accounts and shielding of assets, and concluding that "[w]ith the exception of the mere failure to file a return, these same acts satisfy the conduct requirement for criminal tax evasion in this Circuit.")

  3. In re Steele

    Bankruptcy No. 04-14597DWS, Adversary No. 04-0731 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2005)   Cited 4 times

    The courts in this and other jurisdictions have held that a guilty plea supported by appropriate factual findings by the court may satisfy the requirement of litigation. E.g., Blackman v. Gaebler (In re Gaebler), 88 B.R. 62 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (§ 523(a)(6)); United States v. Summers (In re Summers), 266 B.R. 292 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001) (§ 523(a)(1)); Simone v. United States (In re Simone), 252 B.R. 302 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2000) (same); United States v. Bryant (In re Bryant), 248 B.R. 805 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2000) (§ 523(a)(4)); Nassau Suffolk Limonsine Association v. Jardula (In re Jardula), 122 B.R. 649 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1990) (§ 523(a)(4); Gualtieri v. Goux (In re Goux), 72 B.R. 355 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1987) (§ 523(a)(4)). While the Third Circuit has not addressed the issue in the context of a guilty plea establishing the elements of § 523, I conclude that it would follow the prevailing lower court view based on Graham v. Internal Revenue Service in which it stated that "[w]hen the factual findings necessary to a judgment are incorporated into a consent decree, they satisfy the actually litigated element of issue preclusion and are given preclusive effect."

  4. In re Dorminy

    Case No. 94-3081-8G1, Adv. No. 8:02-ap-273-PMG (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2003)   Cited 5 times

    In re Detrano, 266 B.R. 282, 291-92 (E.D.N.Y. 2001). See also In re Simone, 252 B.R. 302, 307 (Bank. E.D. Perm. 2000)("[W]hen factual findings are incorporated into consent decree, they satisfy the `actually litigated' element of issue preclusion where those facts are necessary to a judgment.") (Emphasis supplied). The Court has considered the principles underlying the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as well as the stipulated Decision entered by the Tax Court in this case, and determines that the Debtor in this case is not precluded from asserting that his tax liabilities were dischargeable in his bankruptcy case, The stipulated Tax Court Decision currently under consideration does not contain any factual findings pertaining to fraud, nor does it contain any admissions of the elements required for a finding of fraud.