Case law

In Re Academy Answering Services, Inc.

90 B.R. 291 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 22, 1988

In order to qualify under § 7430 a party must satisfy three criteria: it must substantially prevail; it must have exhausted its administrative remedies; and, it must establish that the position of the United States in the … In its extensive discussion of sovereign immunity in In re Inslaw, 76 B.R. 224, 228-37 (Bankr.D.Dist.Col.1987), the court summarized its reasons for rejecting the government’s claim of immunity: The “plain language” of Section

Murray v. Withrow (In Re PM-II Associates, Inc.)

100 B.R. 940 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 17, 1989

For purposes of subsection (b)(1), the State qualifies as a “creditor” as defined in § 101(9) to include an entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose before the order of relief. … That language would seem to clearly indicate that a penalty to be paid to the state is considered a debt for purposes of applying the Bankruptcy Code.

Storey v. City of Toledo (In Re Cook United, Inc.)

117 B.R. 301 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 26, 1990

Accordingly, with both the governmental unit’s (City’s) claim and the estate’s claim arising under the same occurrence, a limited waiver of the City’s sovereign immunity has been established. … Conclusion A waiver of sovereign immunity has been established under § 106 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the City’s motion to dismiss is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . See, "Occurrence”: A coming or happening.

Pitts v. Ohio Department of Taxation (In Re Pitts)

241 B.R. 862 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 1999

The first and most obvious source is the Bankruptcy Clause contained in Article I of the United States Constitution which clearly confers upon Congress the authority to establish uniform bankruptcy laws in the United States … Waiver and Consent to be Sued It is a long established principle that a state may waive its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and consent to be sued in federal court. See, e.g., Clark v.

In Re Long

142 B.R. 234 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 23, 1992

Clearly, the facts in this case demonstrate that the IRS had knowledge of the stay. … Debt- or attempted to establish that this collapse was directly attributable to the IRS’s actions.

Nichols v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Nichols)

143 B.R. 104 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 1992

As to § 106(c), however, although it also waives sovereign immunity, it does not “establish unambiguously that the waiver extends to monetary claims.” Id. … The Nordic Village court concluded that: “[njeither § 106(c) nor any other provision of law establishes an unequivocal textual waiver of the Government’s immunity from a trustee’s claims for monetary relief.”

In Re Phillips

45 B.R. 529 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 23, 1984

The Owens Illinois Employee Benefit Book clearly states that severance pay is available only “if you should lose your job through no fault of your own.” … The Ohio statute does not provide a definition of reasonably necessary, therefore, the court looks to the legislative history and the case law to establish a standard. The U.S.

Maus v. Joint Township District Mem. Hospital (In Re Maus)

282 B.R. 836 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 14, 2002

In its defense, however, the Creditor argues that its garnishment action is immune from attack because of what is known as the small preference exception as set forth in § 547(c)(8). … Such an interpretation would clearly be contrary to Congress’ intentions. Id. (internal citations omitted).

In Re LTV Steel Co., Inc.

264 B.R. 455 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 2001

Second, a state’s sovereign immunity may be circumvented if the state expressly waives its sovereign immunity. College Savs. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. … The Tribe’s lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment to establish its right to exclusive use and occupancy of the submerged lands as well as establishing the invalidity of all state laws that regulated or affected the submerged

Hunter v. Ferris (In re Ferris)

30 B.R. 746 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 17, 1983

Debtors allege that they were not entitled to a tax refund for 1980, and that they would have offered the Trustee copies of their W-2 forms to establish this fact. c.) … order to respond to a material question or to testify; (B) on the ground of privilege against self-incrimination, to respond to a material question approved by the court or to testify, after the debtor has been granted immunity

In Re Goodrich

7 B.R. 590 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 1980

To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; ... … Immunity from federal regulation is not gained through forehanded contracts. Were it otherwise the paramount powers of Congress could be nullified by ‘prophetic discernment.’

Hunter v. WSOS Community Action Commission (In Re Nolen)

175 B.R. 214 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 13, 1994

Thus, a review of the Plan clearly demonstrates that it is subject to ERISA. Third, the Plan satisfies the anti-alienation requirement of ERISA under 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(1). … The Code provisions noted above clearly indicate that the method of calculation does not effect the “pension plan” status of a plan.

Justice v. Ohio, Bureau of Workers' Compensation (In Re Justice)

224 B.R. 631 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 1998

To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States. U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, el. 4. … In an effort to override state sovereign immunity, § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit

In Re Wiggins

60 B.R. 89 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 13, 1986

Both parties have admitted that this plan qualifies for the tax benefits available under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). … In the absence of other considerations, this conclusion would appear to allow any ERISA plan to automatically qualify for immunity under Section 541(c)(2).

In Re Cronkleton

18 B.R. 792 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 23, 1982

One of the bases for objection to the confirmation of the Chapter 13 plans proposed in these cases is the failure of the debtors to qualify for Chapter 13 relief. … While the debtors, Lawrence and Coral Cronkleton, have attempted to argue that they are only liable for a pro rata share of the $570,955.74 obligation to WPCA, the notes executed by them clearly establish otherwise.

Winters National Bank & Trust Co. of Dayton v. Schear Group (In Re Schear Realty & Investment Co.)

25 B.R. 463 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 27, 1982

. § 1471 , as elaborated and qualified in this Court’s opinion in Benchic v. Century Entertainment Corp. [ 21 B.R. 160 ], Case No. 3-81-04024, Adv. No. 3-81-0242 and 3-81-0516 (December 7, 1982). … Before the decision in Northern Pipeline judicial immunity was no doubt complete protection until the jurisdiction statute was declared unconstitutional.

Gilbert v. Foy (In Re Foy)

164 B.R. 595 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 1, 1994

. § 1056 (d), but then proceeds in other sections to allow conduct which is clearly contrary to the meaning and purpose of the language used in that statute. … “IRC 401(a), 26 U.S.C. § 401 (k), outlines the requirements necessary to establish a qualified trust, i.e., a trust exempted for tax purposes.

Matter of Lumara Foods of America, Inc.

50 B.R. 809 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 12, 1985

Similarly, the taxing priority of Section 64a(4) was modified to expand the enumerated list of qualified taxes and was clarified to expressly require that these taxes were to be pre-petition taxes. Id. at 357-358. … It is noted that when Lumara filed its petition for relief it did not become immune to the reach of federal, state or local taxing authorities. Swarts v. Hammer, 194 U.S. 441 , 24 S.Ct. 695 , 48 L.Ed. 1060 (1904).

In Re Fichter

45 B.R. 534 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 28, 1984

Clearly the question is not whether all annuities (and any plan merely labeling itself annuity) are exempt under Ohio law but whether this annuity qualifies according to the requirements of O.R.C. § 3911.10. … That court answered in the following manner: Congress did allow differences between qualified pension plans and IRAs to remain and chose to establish and regulate them according to different statutory formulas.

In Re Labig

74 B.R. 507 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 8, 1987

By definition debtors do not qualify as “family farmers” if their aggregate debts exceed $1,500,000. 11 U.S.C. § 101 (17). … Clearly, a debtor may not shoehorn himself into chapter 12 or chapter 13 merely by listing debts as “disputed.” Craig Corp. v. Albano (In re Albano), 55 B.R. 363 (D.N.D.Ill.1985).