A TO Z WELDING & MFG. CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A bankruptcy court cannot enjoin the IRS from collecting taxes assessed against officers and shareholders personally under 26 U.S.C. § 6672, as the anti-injunction statute applies.
A bankrupt corporation's officers and shareholders sought to enjoin the IRS from collecting taxes assessed against them personally under 26 U.S.C. § 6…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bankruptcy Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue in this appeal is whether a bankruptcy court has the power to enjoin the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from collecting a tax assessed against certain officers and shareholders of A to Z Welding & Mfg. Co., Inc. (A to Z), a bankrupt corporation, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672.
BACKGROUND
A to Z filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on August 3, 1984. Thereafter, the IRS assessed a penalty against certain officers and shareholders of the debtor corporation requiring them to pay taxes withheld from its employee’s wages pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6672. A to Z filed a complaint against the IRS seeking to enjoin collection of the assessed penalties. The bankruptcy court, held that it was barred by the anti-injunction statute, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), from issuing an injunction. Thus, the bankruptcy court dissolved a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from taking any action to collect the tax liabilities and dismissed A to Z’s complaint.
The district court 58 B.R. 1138, affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, and this appeal followed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
A to Z argues that the “anti-injunction” statute is not relevant to the present case inasmuch as Congress, in enacting the bankruptcy code, has evidenced an intention to enact a complete scheme overriding the anti-injunction act. In support of its argument, A to Z relies on Bostwick v. United States, 521 F. 2d 741 (8th Cir.1975). Bostwick is inapposite to the case at hand. The injunction upheld in Bostwick was against collection of taxes assessed against the debtors in bankruptcy. 521 F. 2d at 746. Thus, if a tax were assessed against the debtor, Bostwick may permit the bankruptcy court to override the anti-injunction act. Yet, this case involves an attempt to prohibit the IRS from collecting a tax assessed against officers and shareholders in their personal capacity. The anti-injunction act prohibits such a suit. Kelly v. Lethert, 362 F. 2d 629 (8th Cir.1966).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re LaSALLE Rolling Mills, Inc. v. United States, 832 F.2d 390 (7th Cir. 1987)
-
In re Energy Res. Co., Inc. v. Energy Res. Co., Inc., 871 F.2d 223 (1st Cir. 1989)
-
In re Am. Bicycle Ass'n v. United States, 895 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1990)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kelly v. Lethert, 362 F.2d 629 (8th Cir. 1966)
- In re Bostwick v. United States, 521 F.2d 741 (8th Cir. 1975)