Page 1 of 1

523(a)(14a)--debts incurred to pay taxes

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:36 pm
by Yahoo Bot

Sales taxes are not trust fund taxes in California.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

523(a)(14a)--debts incurred to pay taxes

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:31 pm
by Yahoo Bot

charsetndows-1252
Interesting argument but don't ignore the effect of 507(a)(8)(C), "a tax required to be collected or withheld and for which the debtor is liable in whatever capacity" which is imported into 523(a)(1). Debtor may be liable for the tax anyway.
That isn't exactly your point, but seems relevant anyway.
Jason
Jason Wallach
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Jan 25, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
> Debtor is an officer of a corporation. Corporation owes sales taxes. Corporation has a bond in place which will likely pay the sales taxes (I don't have details on the bond, but that's what he says). Debtor signed a personal guarantee on the bond, so bond can come after him personally if they pay the sales taxes.
>
> 523(a)(14a) excepts from discharge any debt incurred to pay a tax "of the kind set forth in 523(a)(1)".
>
> My argument is that the sales taxes were the corporation's responsibility, not the individual debtors, and therefore he didn't incur the debt to pay taxes THAT HE OWED. In fact, I suppose it could be argued that the debt itself (the guaranty on the bond....unless it was specifically earmarked for tax payments) could have been used for anything, so it wasn't for a tax.
>
> Anyone deal with this or know of cases one way or the other?
>
> Too esoteric for a Wednesday?
>
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>
>
charsetndows-1252
Interesting argument but don't ignore the effect of 507(a)(8)(C), "a tax required to be collected or withheld and for which the debtor is liable in whatever capacity" which is imported into 523(a)(1). Debtor may be liable for the tax anyway.That isn't exactly your point, but seems relevant anyway.Jason
Jason Wallach
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

523(a)(14a)--debts incurred to pay taxes

Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 2:13 pm
by Yahoo Bot

Debtor is an officer of a corporation. Corporation owes sales
taxes. Corporation has a bond in place which will likely pay the
sales taxes (I don't have details on the bond, but that's what he
says). Debtor signed a personal guarantee on the bond, so bond can
come after him personally if they pay the sales taxes.
523(a)(14a) excepts from discharge any debt incurred to pay a tax
"of the kind set forth in 523(a)(1)".
My argument is that the sales taxes were the corporation's
responsibility, not the individual debtors, and therefore he didn't
incur the debt to pay taxes THAT HE OWED. In fact, I suppose it
could be argued that the debt itself (the guaranty on the
bond....unless it was specifically earmarked for tax payments) could
have been used for anything, so it wasn't for a tax.
Anyone deal with this or know of cases one way or the other?
Too esoteric for a Wednesday?
**************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.