Prepetition tax levies on intangible property

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court's holding in US v. Whiting Pools Inc., that a tax delinquent's property that has been levied upon but not seized nor sold by the IRS becomes part of the delinquent's bankruptcy estate, should not extend to intangible property such as cash. To protect the IRS' interest in encumbered intangible property, tax delinquents who subsequently become bankrupt should only be allowed to use the property for debt satisfaction when a bankruptcy court requires the IRS to turn over its interest as a part of a reorganization plan. This will preserve the priority of the IRS' claims.

Intangible property, Intangible assets, Tax collection

---

Handling priority rules conflicts in international bankruptcy: assessing the International Bar Association's Concordat

Article Abstract:

The Draft Cross-Border Insolvency Concordat from the International Bar Assn does not provide useful guidance for courts to resolve priority conflicts in international bankruptcy cases. The Concordat, cited in the U.S. case of In re Hackett, goes too far in its neglect of sovereignty considerations in favor of universal principles, which can lead to unfair and unpredictable results. International bankruptcy provides a unique opportunity to promote international cooperation, but the priority rule provisions of the Concordat should be applied with caution.

International Affairs, Bankruptcy Law, Other Justice, Public Order, and Safety Activities, Intnl Commercial Law, Commercial law, Conflict of laws, International trade regulation, international, International Bar Association

---

In defense of recoupment: why "setoff" of prepetition utility deposits against prepetition debt is not subject to the automatic stay

Article Abstract:

Public utility creditors have the right, when a customer files for bankruptcy, to recoup the prepetition deposit against amounts owed for prepetition services without first obtaining approval of the bankruptcy court. Some jurisdictions and commentators have argued that the prepetition utility deposit is more in the nature of a setoff requiring court approval. However, both analysis on the merits and public policy support the recoupment position.

United States, Interpretation and construction, Laws, regulations and rules, Public utilities, Set-off and counterclaim, Counterclaims

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Recent Tax Court petitions of interest to practitioners. Surviving spouse benefits vested in employee's current spouse upon employee's retirement and thus could not be subject of later QDRO
• Abstracts: The National Park Service and external development: addressing park boundary-area threats through public nuisance
• Abstracts: Cross-collateralization in the wake of Shapiro v. Saybrook Manufacturing Co. Super-priority of securities intermediaries under the new section 9-115(5)(c) of the Uniform Commercial Code

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.