Filed: Feb. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STUART A. GROSS, No. 12-72279 Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 26902-07 v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted February 14, 2014** San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.*** Appellant Stuart A. Gro
Summary: FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STUART A. GROSS, No. 12-72279 Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 26902-07 v. MEMORANDUM* COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from a Decision of the United States Tax Court Submitted February 14, 2014** San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.*** Appellant Stuart A. Gros..
More
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STUART A. GROSS, No. 12-72279
Petitioner - Appellant, Tax Ct. No. 26902-07
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted February 14, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: CALLAHAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior
District Judge.***
Appellant Stuart A. Gross appeals from a decision of the tax court, holding
that Appellant’s interest in an ERISA-qualified pension plan is subject to levy by
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
the IRS. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of
this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on
appeal. We affirm.
On October 16, 2005, Appellant filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code. Appellant listed his interest in an ERISA-qualified pension plan
on Schedule B of his bankruptcy petition and explained: “This is an ERISA
Qualified Pension Plan which is not property of the estate but in an abundance of
caution has been listed herein and exempted.” Appellant also listed the ERISA plan
on Schedule C, again explaining: “This is an ERISA Qualified Pension Plan which
is not property of the estate but in an abundance of caution has been listed herein
and exempted.”
At the time of Appellant’s bankruptcy petition, he owed federal income
taxes totaling $270,041.15. When a person owes tax liabilities, a lien automatically
attaches to the taxpayer’s property in favor of the IRS, under I.R.C. § 6321. The
IRS need not release a valid tax lien when the underlying tax debt is discharged in
bankruptcy. Isom v. United States (In re Isom),
901 F.2d 744, 745 (9th Cir. 1990).
Nonetheless, with regard to assets that are part of the bankruptcy estate but exempt
from the bankruptcy proceedings, the Bankruptcy Code provides that such property
“is not liable during or after the case for any debt of the debtor that arose . . . before
2
the commencement of the case, except [inter alia] . . . [a debt secured by] a tax
lien, notice of which is properly filed [under I.R.C. § 6323].” 11 U.S.C. § 522(c).
Unlike liens on exempt assets, liens on prepetition assets that are not included in
the bankruptcy estate (i.e., excluded property) are not affected by the bankruptcy
proceeding. Rains v. Flinn (In re Rains),
428 F.3d 893, 905–06 (9th Cir. 2005).
The IRS maintains a valid lien on Appellant’s interest in his ERISA-
qualified pension plan. In Patterson v. Shumate,
504 U.S. 753, 759–60 (1992), the
Supreme Court held that an ERISA plan is properly excluded from a bankruptcy
estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2). And, here, Gross’ Chapter 7 schedules
explicitly state that his ERISA plan is not part of the estate. Although the schedules
go on to suggest that the ERISA plan might be “exempted,” any ambiguity in a
bankruptcy schedule is construed against the debtor. Seror v. Kahan (In re Kahan),
28 F.3d 79, 82 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Hyman v. Plotkin (In re Hyman),
967 F.2d
1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1992)). Because Gross’ ERISA plan was not part of Gross’
Chapter 7 estate, the bankruptcy proceedings did not affect the IRS’ Section 6321
lien. Accordingly, the tax court properly determined that the Section 6321 lien
remains attached to Gross’ interest in the ERISA plan, and the IRS may levy this
asset.
AFFIRMED.
3