Case law

Pullman Construction Industries, Inc. v. United States (In Re Pullman Construction Industries, Inc.)

190 B.R. 618 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 2, 1996

The statute clearly makes reference to the date that a tax is payable without penalty rather than date of the filing of the return. … Therefore, it did not establish that $50,000.00 payment was on account of an antecedent debt.

In Re Linc Capital, Inc.

280 B.R. 640 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 18, 2002

The filing of such Complaint would clearly be an act of waiver of sovereign immunity, (Lapides v. … The wording of Conclusion “M” *646 qualifies the sale for possible application of 11 U.S.C. § 1146 (c).

Hollis v. State Employees' Retirement System of Illinois (In Re Brenda Groves)

120 B.R. 956 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 23, 1990

In determining whether sovereign immunity constitutes a bar to these proceedings, the first question that must be addressed is whether SERS is covered by the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. … This trustee does not have to establish the existence of a debt owed by the state to the debtor to recover as the trustee did in his § 542(b) action in Hoffman .

In Re DiPiazza

29 B.R. 916 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · May 13, 1983

The defendants cite In re Turpin, 644 F.2d 472 (5th Cir.1981) and In re Parker, 473 F.Supp. 746 (W.D.N.Y.1979) for the proposition that qualified ERISA pension plans are immune from the reach of a Chapter 7 trustee. … This court finds that the pension plan herein does not satisfy the definition of a spendthrift trust, as established in Illinois.

Firestone v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (In re Di Piazza)

29 B.R. 916 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · May 13, 1983

The defendants cite In re Turpin, 644 F.2d 472 (5th Cir.1981) and In re Parker, 473 F.Supp. 746 (W.D.N.Y.1979) for the proposition that qualified ERISA pension plans are immune from the reach of a Chapter 7 trustee. … This court finds that the pension plan herein does not satisfy the definition of a spendthrift trust, as established in Illinois.

Datair Systems Corp. v. Starkey (In Re Datair Systems Corp.)

37 B.R. 690 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 10, 1983

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY It is a well established principle of law that the United States is immune from suit except in those instances where it has specifically waived its sovereign immunity. … On the issue of sovereign immunity, a well established principle of law exempts the United States from suit unless it specifically waives sovereign immunity.

Schechter v. Balay (In Re Balay)

113 B.R. 429 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 9, 1990

A minority of courts have embraced the view that ERISA benefits are not part of a debtor’s estate and are immune from creditor claims. … As the circuit courts’ holdings clearly demonstrate, any direct or indirect funding of an ERISA-qualified plan by the employee-debtor may be sufficient to convince a court that the trust is self-settled.

In Re Envirodyne Industries, Inc.

174 B.R. 955 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 1994

immunity. … What the proper standard of qualified immunity should be is therefore left for another day. D. Propriety of a Post-Confirmation Order Imposing a Release.

Pullman Construction Industries, Inc. v. United States (In Re Pullman Construction Industries, Inc.)

142 B.R. 280 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 17, 1992

The Court added, “the fact that a preference is a consequence of the assessed penalties fails to establish the relationship necessary to waive immunity.” … Oxford Marketing is clearly distinguishable since the government's claim in Oxford arose out of a security interest, and the trustee’s claim arose out of the government’s action to collect on the debt.

Abernathy v. United States (In Re Abernathy)

150 B.R. 688 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 16, 1993

Clearly, the Debtors have more than substantially prevailed in their dispute with the IRS. B.Was the United States’ position substantially unjustified? … However, it is well established in this circuit that, in ruling on substantial justification, the court can consider not only the United States’ in-court litigating position, but also the United States’ out-of-court position

Schechter v. Illinois, Department of Revenue (In Re Markos Gurnee Partnership)

182 B.R. 211 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 27, 1995

Id. 2 The Court then engaged in the following discussion, clearly identifying the receivership as separate from the receiver personally. … In re Rollins, 175 B.R. 69 , 77 n. 7 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.1994) (“If a trustee incurs a contract or tort liability to someone other than the debtor or a creditor of the estate, he is entitled to a qualified judicial immunity.

In Re Jokiel

453 B.R. 743 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 22, 2011

The Debtor was therefore clearly on notice that the Supplemental Plan would not qualify for special tax treatment. … For the same reason, it was not subject to ERISA’s establishment of a trust over plan assets. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1101 (a)(1), 1103.

Chapman v. Burton Berger & Associates (In Re Chapman)

154 B.R. 258 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 4, 1993

Judge Smith’s Absolute Immunity from Suit The Supreme Court has long held that judges are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their judicial actions. Stump v. … Thus, he clearly should have known before he filed this case that his complaint had no legal basis.

In Re Weisser Eyecare, Inc.

245 B.R. 844 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 6, 2000

Because trustees serve an important function as officers of the court, they enjoy limited personal immunity when operating pursuant to their authority and enjoy absolute immunity if operating pursuant to a court order. … As mentioned above, the causes of action held by Weisser and asserted by Weisman as trustee against NBD qualified as property of the estate under § 541 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Stoecker

103 B.R. 182 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 26, 1989

Stoecker bears the burden of establishing that the privilege properly applies to either the documents or the act of production. … A mere blanket conclusory assertion does not establish a proper basis to apply a privilege against the documents or the production.

Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc. v. United States (In Re Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc.)

451 B.R. 454 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 22, 2011

A plaintiff faced with a properly supported Rule 12(b)(1) motion bears the burden of establishing that the jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied. Dental Profile, 2010 WL 431590 , at *1 (citing Kontos v. U.S. … These plain-language definitions, combined with the statutory definition of “governmental unit,” clearly and unambiguously communicate congressional intent to abolish the government’s immunity from being sued in bankruptcy

In Re Stoecker

202 B.R. 429 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 17, 1996

Thus, the Court finds that the sale from Prewitt Leasing to Chandler qualifies as an “occasional sale” exempt from proper assessment of the Illinois use tax. … erroneous. 29 The District Court clearly held *453 that the NPL shall be considered prima facie evidence of the Debtor’s willfulness.

Claxton v. United States (In Re Claxton)

273 B.R. 174 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 5, 2002

The Hood BAP Panel reasoned that it should equate the cession of state sovereignty over naturalization with the cession of state power to establish a uniform bankruptcy system. Hood, 262 B.R. at 418-19 . … But Plaintiffs reliance on Ellett is misguided because that ease is clearly distinguishable from the present case as pleaded in Count II. In Ellett , the suit was filed against the Director of the state tax agency.

In Re Material Corp., Inc.

206 B.R. 933 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · May 20, 1996

Its sovereign immunity argument, as is relevant here, was that the limited waiver of sovereign immunity provided by 11 U.S.C. § 106 does not apply because the Debtor does not have a viable counterclaim against the United … Clearly, Mr. Kendall had apparent authority to consent to the IRS’ seizure. 5. Alternatively, Mr. Kew implicitly consented to the IRS’ entry to the premises and seizure of the corporate assets.

In Re Berry Publishing Services, Inc.

231 B.R. 676 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 11, 1999

The Trustee’s authority to sell was limited to the terms of the Sale Order and those terms clearly indicated that the sale was without warranty. … Nor is it necessary for this Court to decide whether a trustee may be liable in his official capacity for acts of negligence, because it is well established that a trustee is absolutely immune from such claims when acting