Short Answer: Yes, income taxes can be discharged in bankruptcy if the taxpayer satisfies all of the bankruptcy requirements. One of the contested issues is whether tax liability relating to a late-filed return can ever be discharged. Another issue is whether the paper filed with the taxing authority is deemed a “return” for bankruptcy purposes. These issues were addressed in In re McBride, 534 B.R. 326 (Bankr. S.D.OH 2015).
Facts: The taxpayer filed multiple city tax returns for taxes imposed by the City of Kettering, Ohio (“City”). Some returns were filed on a timely basis and at least one return was filed after the due date. The tax liability due on these returns was calculated in relation to the IRS tax liability. This liability was dramatically understated as a result of the taxpayer’s scheme to minimize tax liability through a now discredited “abusive trust arrangement.” The US Tax Court found taxpayer’s self-reported returns dramatically deficient and increased the tax liability substantially, which caused the City tax liability to be increased proportionately.
Argument: In response, taxpayer filed chapter 7 bankruptcy to discharge the tax liability more than 2 years after the original City returns were filed. Taxpayer then filed an adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of the tax and filed a motion for summary judgment to obtain a judgment. City objected asserting that the taxes owed are nondischargeable under 11 U.S. C. §523(a)(1)(B)(i) because the taxpayer never filed qualifying “returns.” City argued the documents filed do not constitute “returns” because one return was untimely and all of the tax documents significantly under-reported the taxpayer’s income.
Analysis: The McBride court was forced to resolve the issue. There, the court addressed the two competing arguments regarding whether a late filed return can ever be a “return” for bankruptcy purposes. The McBride court noted that the hanging paragraph in §523(a)(*) attempts to define the term “return.” However, the court found the statute’s definition unclear and begged the question “Is §523(a)(*) pointing to the definitional provisions in state or local tax law to define the term ‘return’ for §523(a) purposes or, instead, must the document satisfy all aspects of the relevant nonbankruptcy ta law, including filing requirements, in order to be a ‘return’?” (Emphasis added).
The McBride court considered and rejected City’s bright-line test adopted by the Fifth Circuit in McCoy v. Miss. State Tax Comm’r (In re McCoy), 666 F.3d 924 (5th Cir. 2012) and followed by the Tenth Circuit in Mallo v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Mallo), 774 F.3d 1313 (10th Cir. 2014) and the First Circuit in Fahey v. Mass. Dept. of Revenue (In re Fahey), 779 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015). This test looks strictly at the tax statute’s filing deadline and would render taxes nondischargeable if the return was filed even one day late.
Instead, the McBride court applied the simplest meaning to §523(a)(*)’s definition of “return” as it relates to the nondischargeability of income taxes. The court held that §523(a)(*) required the court to look to relevant nonbankruptcy law to determine what qualifies as an acceptable return under that law. The court believed that if a document filed with the federal, state, or local taxing authority meets the applicable tax code’s DEFINITION of an acceptable return, then it is a return under §523(a)(*) even if the document does not fully comply with all aspects of the relevant tax code.
When a formal definition of return in the applicable tax statute is absent, the court must look to another source for determining whether the taxpayer’s tax documents qualify as a return. The Sixth Circuit applied a four-part test to determine whether a tax form qualifies as a tax “return” for bankruptcy purposes: (1) it must purport to be a return; (2) it must be executed under penalty of perjury; (3) it must contain sufficient data to allow calculation of the tax; and (4) it must represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of tax law. See Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766 (1984) adopted by United States v. Hindenlang (In re Hindenlang), 164 F.3d 1029 (6th Cir. 1999).
The McBride court applied its analysis to the case and bar and concluded that questions of fact existed and these facts had to be determined before the Beard test could be applied. Therefore, the court denied the taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment and allowed the parties to present evidence to determine if the tax returns filed with the City were “returns” for bankruptcy purposes.
Practice Pointer: File all tax returns and perform all other filing obligations on a timely basis. Wait the two years after filing the tax returns (and meet all other requirements) before filing bankruptcy. Then expect to battle the taxing authority if the returns were filed late or substantially understated the tax liability.
For follow-up questions, contact attorney Robert V. Schaller by clicking here.