Case law

In Re Reed

127 B.R. 244 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii · Jan 3, 1991

The facts clearly show otherwise, since the IRS filed on September 19, 1985 a Notice of Federal Tax Lien at the Bureau of Conveyances, State of Hawaii, against the Debtors for their unpaid federal income taxes for the taxable … The reach of the federal tax lien as envisioned under section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code is broad and the Debtor’s interest in the aforementioned plans is not immune from its attachment.

In re Kara

573 B.R. 696 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Jul 13, 2017

In Re Pacheco The Pacheco is instructive to this Court as it clearly distinguishes Clark from applicability to state exemptions. … The effect of the Texas Legislature’s enactment is to go beyond the established minimum level of protection that Congress created when it enacted § 522(b)(3)(C).

Corzin v. Lawson (In re Lawson)

570 B.R. 563 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2017

A Plaintiff movant must establish all essential elements supporting its claim in this fashion; a defendant must establish that any one (or more) essential elements of Plaintiffs claim fails, or establish all elements of one … See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 1055 (a) (all ERISA-qualified plans must provide for qualified joint and survivor annuities whenever a vested participant does not die before the date benefits begin, and for a qualified preretirement

Matter of Nichols

42 B.R. 772 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 13, 1984

The plan was designed to establish a qualified trust within the meaning of § 401 of the Internal Revenue Code and was designed in a fashion to take advantage of the special tax treatment accorded to such trust by § 501 of … In order to create a spendthrift trust, the settler must clearly manifest his intent to restrain the beneficiary from alienating his interest. Lowell, Florida Law of Trusts, § 27-1 (1976).

In Re Zimmel

185 B.R. 786 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 1, 1995

From Loren Zimmel’s undisputed testimony, he clearly qualifies for the exemption. Both the Bank and MDA argue that Shelly Zimmel is not a farmer, by her own admission, and by independent evidence. … No property can be exempted (and thereby immunized), however, unless it first falls within the bankruptcy estate.

Fed. Ins. Co. v. Courtney (In re Courtney)

596 B.R. 645 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 18, 2019

President, alone, is not sufficient to establish that familiarity. … Pleiman never specifically identified which bank statement fell into that category nor did he establish that he is a custodian or other qualifying witness as to any bank statements provided by a prosecutor.

In Re McVay

150 B.R. 254 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jan 15, 1993

This court agrees that if the property qualifies as the debtors’ homestead under Oregon law, it may also qualify as their “principal residence” for the purpose of § 1322(b)(2). … The debtors are actually using the property as a bed and breakfast establishment for the purpose of generating income. The property clearly has inherent income producing power which the debtors are utilizing.

Nunley v. Paty Co. (In Re Nunley)

109 B.R. 784 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 9, 1990

“Exempt” suggests statutory exemptions, but Congress apparently meant common law immunity. … Code Ann. § 26-2-301 (1980), but is also “exempt [or immune] from process” under Tennessee law, thus entitling the debtors to the exemption provided under Bankruptcy Code § 522(b)(2)(B). 10 Clearly, where both husband and

In Re Cutting Edge Enterprises, Inc.

372 B.R. 255 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 19, 2007

their escrow accounts is established under the Qualifying Statute and is based upon the NPMs’ sales in the year *259 preceding the date in which the payment is due. … Nor does the enforcement proceeding involve an effort by the State to establish or protect a pecuniary interest in any property of Cutting Edge.

Connecticut, Department of Transportation v. Novak (In Re Community Associates, Inc.)

153 B.R. 109 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 12, 1993

(UMTA), the United States Department of Transportation made cash grants to Connecticut to be distributed by the DOT to qualified, nonprofit organizations for the purchase and operation of specialized motor vehicles to transport … The DOT has furnished no warranted basis for the court to disadvantage other creditors of the debtor and permit the DOT an immunity from the Code § 544 strong-arm powers Congress granted bankruptcy trustees. IV.

In Re Eisenberg

7 B.R. 683 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Dec 10, 1980

Moreover, 11 U.S.C. section 106 provides that: Waiver of sovereign immunity (a) A governmental unit is deemed to have waived sovereign immunity with respect to any claim against such governmental unit that is property of … For the purposes of our opinion, the important point is that Rule 11-44 now makes the establishment of such stays automatic.

In Re Platinum Oil Properties, LLC

465 B.R. 621 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Aug 12, 2011

immunity of Indian tribes. … must be explicit; abrogation may not be implied. 16 Abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity by Congress will only be found where Congress has clearly and unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate the *643 immunity pursuant

Figard v. PHH Mortgage Corp. (In Re Figard)

382 B.R. 695 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 26, 2008

enacted statute and is “clearly intended as a substitute.” … A separate trial order will be issued which will establish a time for trial to determine whether the letter mailed by counsel on behalf of the Figards was a Qualified Written Request as contemplated by RE SPA and whether

Johnston v. Mayer (In Re Johnston)

218 B.R. 813 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 19, 1998

Clearly, the debtor is an alternate payee. … § 5205(c)(2) permits a debtor to claim as exempt all property payable from a “retirement or other plan established by a corporation which is qualified under section 401 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986-

Chambers v. Manning (In Re Chambers)

283 B.R. 913 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 1, 2002

Therefore, the burden falls upon Manning to establish that the expenses incurred by the debtor qualify as a loan under § 523(a)(8). … Therefore, Manning has not met her burden of establishing that UIC made a loan for purposes of § 523(a)(8), and the debtor has established that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that her debt to UIC is discharged

In Re Van Winkle

2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3810 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · May 4, 2001

Stat. § 13 — 54—102(l)(g) (establishing exemption for, inter alia, tractors and trucks used by a debtor in agricultural occupations) with Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-54 — 102(l)(j) (establishing exemption for motor vehicles). … Debtor’s commercial truck qualifies for Colorado’s tools of the trade exemption.

In re Sharkey

563 B.R. 655 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Feb 16, 2017

Sharkey could have established and purchased an individual retirement account or an individual retirement annuity, which would now qualify for exemption under Bankruptcy Code § 522(b)(3)(C), but he did not do so. … Sharkey as a non-qualified annuity contract.

In Re McLeod

205 B.R. 76 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Sep 6, 1996

The two code sections are interactive, and, in fact, section 507(b) is clearly dependant on section 503(b). … In summary, Volvo has neither established a failure of adequate protection nor established an administrative expense under section 503(b). Consequently, Volvo cannot qualify for a section 507(b) superpriority. II.

Ernst v. Iowa Department of Revenue (In Re Hubs Repair Shop, Inc.)

28 B.R. 858 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 4, 1983

This Court adheres to principles of tax immunity laid down by the Supreme Court in Graves v. … N.Y. ex. rel O’Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 , 59 S.Ct. 595 , 83 L.Ed. 927 (1938) (nondiscriminatory state income tax imposed on federal employee upheld against claim of federal tax immunity): The implied immunity of one government

In Re Harvard Industries, Inc.

324 B.R. 238 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2005

Pursuant to the Plan, certain assets and causes of action were assigned to various trusts that were to established under the Plan. … That limited focus is misplaced given that the plain language of the statute clearly provides that product liability also includes damages from loss of the use of property.