Opinion
Bankruptcy Case No. 92-14324
October 11, 2002
Mark T. Young, Mark T. Young Associates, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Debtors
Kent Anderson, Chattanooga, Tennessee (on the brief); for the Internal Revenue Service
Stephen P. Kranz, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (on the brief); for the Internal Revenue Service
MEMORANDUM
In this Chapter 13 case, the debtors have objected to claim 17 and the amendment (claim 17a) filed by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") on the basis that the original claim was filed after the last day for filing proofs of claims. The objection is sustained, and the IRS claim is disallowed for the reasons hereinafter stated.
The rules of bankruptcy procedure establish deadlines for filing a proof of claim in a chapter 13 case. FED. R. BANKR. P. 3002(c), 3004 3005. The law requires notice to creditors of the bankruptcy case and of the last day to file a proof of claim. 11 U.S.C. § 342; FED. R. BANKR. P. 2002(f)(3). Lack of notice is a ground for treating a late-filed claim as timely filed under principles of due process. United States v. Cardinal Mine Supply, Inc., 916 F.2d 1087, 20 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1864, 23 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 26 (6th Cir. 1990); IRS v. Century Boat Co. (In re Century Boat Co.), 986 F.2d 154, 23 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1700 (6th Cir. 1993); In re Cole, 146 B.R. 837 (D. Colo. 1992); In re Anderson, 159 B.R. 830, 29 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1462 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993). The IRS admits receiving notice of this case in October 1992, including notice that the last day to file claims was February 2, 1993. At the hearing, the IRS presented no proof of lack of due process. The IRS did not file the original proof of claim until February 1994.
In a chapter 11 case the court may allow a late-filed claim if the late filing resulted from the creditor's excusable neglect, but that rule does not apply in chapter 13 cases. FED. R. BANKR. P. 9006(b)(1) (b)(3); Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 113 S.Ct. 1489, note 4 at 1495, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993).
The IRS argues that late filing simply is not a ground for disallowing the claim. For this proposition, the IRS relies on In re Hausladen, 146 B.R. 557, 27 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1321 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1992) and its progeny.
The court is of the opinion that Hausladen was wrongly decided. Instead, the court would follow the analysis expressed by Judge Clark in In re Friesenhahn, 169 B.R. 615 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1994). Furthermore, the court would observe that the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 expressly overruled the Hausladen line of cases by adding late filing as a ground for disallowing a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b). Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub. Law No. 103-394, § 213(a), 108 Stat. 4106 (1994). Even though the amendment does not apply to this case, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub. Law No. 103-394, § 702, 108 Stat. 4106 (1994), it is relevant as an indication of what Congress intended the law to be before the amendment. "[W]hile the views of subsequent Congresses cannot override the unmistakable intent of the enacting one, . . . such views are entitled to significant weight . . . and particularly so when the precise intent of the enacting Congress is obscure." Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 444 U.S. 572, 100 S.Ct. 800, 814, 63 L.Ed.2d 36 (1980).
The court will enter an order disallowing the claim. This memorandum is the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. FED. R. BANKR. P. 7052.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in a Memorandum Opinion filed contemporaneously herewith,
It is ORDERED that claim 17 as amended by claim #17a filed by the Internal Revenue Service is disallowed.