perkins v. ma department of revenue, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Perkins v. MA Department of Revenue, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/44

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1328

I N RE: BRI AN S. FAHEY,

Debt or

BRI AN S. FAHEY,

Appel l ant ,

v.

MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

Appel l ee.

No. 14- 1350

I N RE: TI MOTHY P. PERKI NS,

Debt or

TI MOTHY P. PERKI NS,

Appel l ant ,

v.


Appel l ee.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]


2/44

No. 14- 9002I N RE: ANTHONY M. GONZALEZ,

Debt or

ANTHONY M. GONZALEZ,

Appel l ee,

v.


Appel l ant .

No. 14- 9003

I N RE: J OHN T. BROWN,

Debt or

J OHN T. BROWN,

Appel l ee,

v.


Appel l ant .

APPEALS FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANELFOR THE FI RST CI RCUI T

Bef or eTor r uel l a, Thompson, and Kayat t a,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Cel i ne E. J ackson, Counsel t o t he Commi ssi oner , Massachuset t sDepar t ment of Revenue, wi t h whomJ ef f r ey S. Ogi l vi e, Counsel t o t heCommi ssi oner , Amy A. Pi t t ner , Commi ssi oner , Massachuset t sDepar t ment of Revenue, Mar t ha A. Coakl ey, Massachuset t s At t orneyGener al , Dani el J . Hammond, Assi st ant At t orney Gener al , Kevi n W.


3/44

Br own, Speci al Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , wer e on br i ef , f orMassachuset t s Depar t ment of Revenue.

Andr ew L. Bar r et t f or appel l ant Br i an S. Fahey.Car l D. Af r ame, wi t h whomAf r ame & Barnhi l l , PA, was on br i ef ,

f or appel l ant Ti mot hy P. Per ki ns.Mar ques C. Li pt on, wi t h whomLaw Of f i ce of Ni chol as F. Or t i z,

P. C. , was on br i ef , f or appel l ees Ant hony M. Gonzal ez and J ohn T.Brown.

Tar a Twomey, Nat i onal Consumer Bankr upt cy Ri ght s Center ,J oanne Mul der Nagj ee, J oel Pet er - Fr ansen, Shane Mul r ooney, andKi r kl and & El l i s LLP, on br i ef f or Nat i onal Associ at i on of ConsumerBankrupt cy At t or neys, ami cus cur i ae i n suppor t of appel l ant s Br i anS. Fahey and Ti mot hy P. Per ki ns.

Febr uar y 18, 2015


4/44

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. The f our bankr upt cy appeal s

bef or e us pose a si ngl e quest i on of st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on:

whet her a Massachuset t s st at e i ncome t ax r et ur n f i l ed af t er t he

dat e by whi ch Massachuset t s r equi r es such r et ur ns t o be f i l ed

const i t ut es a " r et ur n" under 11 U. S. C. 523( a) such t hat unpai d

t axes due under t he r et ur n can be di schar ged i n bankr upt cy. For

t he r easons set f or t h bel ow, we concl ude t hat i t does not .

I. Background

The f act s i n each of t he f our cases now on appeal ar e

undi sput ed. J ohn Br own, Br i an Fahey, Ant hony Gonzal ez, and Ti mot hy

Per ki ns ( t he "debt or s") al l f ai l ed t o t i mel y f i l e t hei r

Massachuset t s i ncome t ax r et ur ns f or mul t i pl e year s i n a r ow. Thi s

f ai l ur e woul d not be a pr obl em f or t hem i n t hese bankrupt cy

pr oceedi ngs, but f or t he f act t hat t hey al so f ai l ed t o pay ( ei t her

t i mel y or other wi se) t hei r t axes t o t he Massachuset t s Depart ment of

Revenue. Event ual l y, each debt or f i l ed hi s l at e t ax r et ur ns, but

st i l l f ai l ed t o pay al l t axes, i nt er est , and penal t i es t hat wer e

due. Mor e t han t wo year s l at er , t hey f i l ed f or Chapt er 7

bankrupt cy. The debt or s seek a r ul i ng t hat t hei r obl i gat i on t o pay

t he t axes t hey f ai l ed t o pay i s di schar geabl e. 1 The Depar t ment

ar gues f or t he opposi t e r esul t ; i t cont ends unpai d t axes f or whi ch

no r et ur n was t i mel y f i l ed by the Commonweal t h' s st atut ory deadl i ne

1 Al t hough t he debt ors di d not each make i dent i cal argument si n t hei r br i ef s or at or al ar gument , we at t r i but e t hei r cont ent i onst o "t he debt or s" col l ecti vel y.

-2-


5/44

f i t wi t hi n an except i on t o di schar ge under 11 U. S. C.

523( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) .

The procedural post ures of t hese f our cases ar e descr i bed

i n det ai l i n t he Bankrupt cy Appel l at e Panel ( "BAP") and di st r i ct

cour t opi ni ons t hat gave r i se t o t hese appeal s. Per ki ns v. Mass.

Dep' t of Revenue, 507 B. R. 45, 46- 47 ( D. Mass. 2014) ; I n r e

Gonzal ez, 506 B. R. 317, 318- 23 ( B. A. P. 1st Ci r . 2014) ; I n r e Br own,

B. A. P. No. MW 13- 027, 2014 WL 1815393, at *1- 5 ( B. A. P. 1st Ci r .

Apr . 3, 2014) . I n br i ef , t he bankrupt cy cour t s bel ow spl i t t hr ee

t o one i n f avor of t he debt or s, t he BAP si ded wi t h t he debt or s i n

t he t wo cases appeal ed t o the BAP, and t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed

summar y j udgment t o t he Depar t ment i n the t wo cases appeal ed t o t he

di s t r i ct cour t .

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

Si nce no mat er i al f act s are di sput ed and t he i ssue bef or e

us t ur ns ent i r el y upon an i nt er pr et at i on of l aw, our r evi ew i s

pl enary. Pasqui na v. Cunni ngham( I n r e Cunni ngham) , 513 F. 3d 318,

323 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; Br andt v. Repco Pr i nt er s & Li t hogr aphi cs, I nc.

( I n r e Heal t hco I nt ' l , I nc. ) , 132 F. 3d 104, 107 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) .

B. Legal Background

Sect i on 727 of t he Bankrupt cy Code i nst r uct s t he cour t t o

gr ant a debt or a di schar ge f r omhi s debt s i n a Chapt er 7 bankrupt cy

pr oceedi ng. See 11 U. S. C. 727. Thi s r ul e i s subj ect t o sever al

-3-


6/44

except i ons. I n par t i cul ar , 11 U. S. C. 523( a) ( 1) cont r ol s whet her

unpai d t axes ar e di schar geabl e i n bankrupt cy. I t pr ovi des, i n

r el evant par t :

( a) A di schar ge under sect i on 727 . . . of t hi st i t l e does not di schar ge an i ndi vi dual debt or f r om anydebt - -

( 1) f or a t ax or a cust oms dut y- -. . .( B) wi t h r espect t o whi ch a r et ur n, orequi val ent r epor t or not i ce, i f r equi r ed- -

( i ) was not f i l ed or gi ven; or( i i ) was f i l ed or gi ven af t er t he dat e onwhi ch such r et ur n, r epor t , or not i ce wasl ast due, under appl i cabl e l aw or under anyext ensi on, and af t er t wo years bef or e t hedat e of t he f i l i ng of t he pet i t i on[ . ]

11 U. S. C. 523( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) - ( i i ) . I n ot her wor ds, a t ax i s not

di schar geabl e i f t he debt or f ai l ed t o f i l e a r et ur n, or i f - - per haps

ant i ci pat i ng bankrupt cy- - he f i l ed t he r et ur n l at e and wi t hi n t wo

year s of hi s bankrupt cy pet i t i on.

Looki ng sol el y at t he f or egoi ng l anguage, and usi ng a

common not i on of what a " r et ur n" i s, one coul d easi l y concl ude t hat

any ret ur n f i l ed af t er t he due date but more t han t wo years bef ore

a bankrupt cy f i l i ng woul d pl ace t he t ax due under t hat r et ur n

out si de t he sect i on 523( a) ( 1) except i on, and t hus wi t hi n t he br oad

cat egor y of di schar geabl e debt s. Pr i or t o 2005, cour t s

never t hel ess at t empt ed t o f ashi on a def i ni t i on of "r et ur n" t hat

pr event ed debt or s f r om r el yi ng on "bad f ai t h" r et ur ns, or r et ur ns

f i l ed onl y af t er t he t axi ng aut hor i t y act ual l y i ssued an assessment

f or t axes due i n t he absence of a t ax r et ur n. See gener al l y

-4-


7/44

Moroney v. Uni t ed St ates ( I n r e Moroney) , 352 F. 3d 902, 905- 06 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2003) ( pr ovi di ng exampl es of cour t s t hat det er mi ned l at e t ax

r et ur ns " f i l ed af t er an i nvol unt ar y assessment do not ser ve t he

pur poses of t he t ax syst em, and t hus r ar el y, i f ever , qual i f y as

honest and r easonabl e at t empt s t o compl y wi t h t he t ax l aws" ) .

I n 2005, Congr ess deci ded t o def i ne " r et ur n" on i t s own

when i t passed t he Bankr upt cy Abuse Prevent i on and Consumer

Protect i on Act ( "BAPCPA") , maki ng numer ous r evi si ons t o

sect i on 523. Pub. L. No. 109- 8, 119 St at . 23 ( 2005) . Among t he

BAPCPA' s changes was t he i nser t i on of a "hangi ng paragr aph, "

denot ed as sect i on 523( a) ( *) , at t he end of sect i on 523( a) . I t

pr ovi des:

For pur poses of t hi s subsect i on, t he t er m"r et ur n" means a retur n t hat sat i sf i es t her equi r ement s of appl i cabl e nonbankrupt cy l aw( i ncl udi ng appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s) .Such ter m i ncl udes a r et ur n pr epar ed pur suantt o sect i on 6020( a) of t he I nt er nal RevenueCode of 1986, or si mi l ar St at e or l ocal l aw,or a wr i t t en st i pul at i on t o a j udgment or af i nal order ent er ed by a nonbankr upt cyt r i bunal , but does not i ncl ude a r et ur n madepur suant t o sect i on 6020( b) of t he I nt er nalRevenue Code of 1986, or a si mi l ar St at e orl ocal l aw.

11 U. S. C. 523( a) ( *) . 2

2 Sect i on 6020( a) r et ur ns ar e al l owed onl y at t he I . R. S. ' sr equest and r equi r e t he t axpayer ' s cooper at i on, whi l e r et ur ns f i l edunder sect i on 6020( b) do not i nvol ve assi st ance by t he t axpayer andmay i nvol ve wi l l f ul f r aud. Compar e 26 U. S. C. 6020( a) wi t h 26U. S. C. 6020( b) .

-5-


8/44

So the quest i on now pr esent ed i s a quest i on of st at ut or y

i nt er pr et at i on: I s a Massachuset t s t ax r et ur n f i l ed af t er t he due

dat e f or such r et ur ns a "r et ur n" as def i ned i n sect i on 523( a) ( *) so

t hat t he t ax due under t hat r et ur n r emai ns di schar geabl e?3

C. Analysis

Read t oget her , t he hangi ng par agr aph' s def i ni t i onal

l anguage and t he "appl i cabl e" Massachuset t s l aw cont r ol our

deci si on. Under t he hangi ng paragr aph, f or a document , what ever i t

may be cal l ed, t o be a "r et ur n, " i t must "sat i sf [ y] t he

r equi r ement s of appl i cabl e nonbankrupt cy l aw ( i ncl udi ng appl i cabl e

f i l i ng r equi r ement s) . " So t he quest i on i s whet her t i mel y f i l i ng i s

a " f i l i ng r equi r ement " under Massachuset t s l aw. The answer i s

pl ai nl y yes.

As t he Massachuset t s Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t has hel d f or

st at e t ax l aw pur poses, "[ t ] he gener al r ul e of const r uct i on i s t hat

wher e t he l anguage of t he st at ut e i s pl ai n, i t must be i nt er pr et ed

i n accor dance wi t h t he usual and nat ur al meani ng of t he words. "

Comm' r of Revenue v. AMI Woodbr oke, I nc. , 634 N. E. 2d 114, 115 ( Mass.

1994) ( ci t i ng O' Sul l i van v. Sec' y of Human Ser vs. , 521 N. E. 2d 997,

1000 ( Mass. 1998) ) . Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 62C, 6( c) ( "sect i on

3 At oral argument , t he at t orney f or Gonzal ez and Br own r ai sedt he poi nt t hat even i f a l at e f i l ed r et ur n i s not a r et ur n, i t mayqual i f y as an "equi val ent r epor t or not i ce" under sect i on523( a) ( 1) ( B) . Si nce t hi s ar gument was not pr eserved i n t he r ecor dby any of t he f our debt or s or br i ef ed on appeal t o t hi s Cour t , wedo not consi der i t her e. See Uni t ed St at es v. Zanni no, 895 F. 2d 1,17 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .

-6-


9/44

6( c) " ) st at es t hat " [ e] xcept as ot her wi se pr ovi ded, [ i ncome t ax

r et ur ns] shal l be made on or bef or e t he f i f t eent h day of t he f our t h

mont h f ol l owi ng t he cl ose of each t axabl e year . " None of t he

except i ons t hat "ot her wi se pr ovi de[ ] " ar e appl i cabl e her e. 4 Thi s

command that r etur ns " shal l " be made by t he due dat e cer t ai nl y

seems l i ke a " f i l i ng r equi r ement . " See Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y

( 10t h ed. 2014) ( def i ni ng "shal l " as " a dut y; mor e br oadl y, i s

r equi r ed t o[ ; ] t he mandat or y sense t hat dr af t er s t ypi cal l y i nt end

and t hat cour t s t ypi cal l y uphol d") . And anot her sect i on of t he

Massachuset t s t ax code makes pl ai n t hat i t i s so vi ewed. See Mass.

Gen. Laws 62C, 32( a) ( "sect i on 32( a) " ) ( "Taxes shal l be due and

payabl e at t he t i me when t he t ax r et ur n i s r equi r ed t o be f i l ed. " ) .

Accor di ngl y, under t hi s st r ai ght f or war d r eadi ng of Massachuset t s

l aw, a r et ur n f i l ed af t er t he due dat e i s a r et ur n not f i l ed as

r equi r ed, i . e. , a r et ur n t hat does not sat i sf y "appl i cabl e f i l i ng

r equi r ement s. "

The t wo ot her ci r cui t s t o have deci ded t hi s i ssue, al bei t

const r ui ng ot her j ur i sdi cti ons' "appl i cabl e" f i l i ng deadl i nes,

4 The Depar t ment poi nt s us t o t wo st at ut or y pr ovi si ons t hatgi ve meani ng t o t he phr ase " [ e]xcept as ot her wi se pr ovi ded. " Mass.Gen. Laws ch. 30, 24 ( as amended 2013) aut hor i zes act s t hat mustbe per f ormed on a Satur day, Sunday, or l egal hol i day t o be

per f ormed on t he next busi ness day. And Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 62C, 19 (as amended 1985) al l ows t he t ax commi ssi oner t o "gr ant ar easonabl e ext ensi on of t i me f or f i l i ng any ret ur n, pr ovi ded t hatt he t axpayer . . . f i l es a t ent at i ve r et ur n . . . and payst herewi t h t he amount of t ax r easonabl y est i mat ed t o be due. " Thedebt or s do not ar gue t hat t hese pr ovi si ons, or any ot her l aw orr egul at i on, "other wi se pr ovi ded" a due dat e f or t hei r f i l i ngs.

-7-


10/44

r eached t he same concl usi on. The Tent h Ci r cui t r ecent l y f ound

r et ur ns f i l ed l at e under t he I nt er nal Revenue Code ( "I . R. C. ") not

t o be r et ur ns wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he hangi ng paragr aph. Mal l o

v. I nt er nal Revenue Ser vi ce ( I n r e Mal l o) , Nos. 13- 1464, 13- 1488,

2014 WL 7360130, at *6 ( 10t h Ci r . Dec. 29, 2014) ( expl ai ni ng, i n

r ef er ence t o t he I . R. C. ' s deadl i ne f or i ncome t ax r et ur ns, t hat

"t he phr ase ' shal l be f i l ed on or bef or e' a par t i cul ar dat e i s a

cl assi c exampl e of somethi ng t hat must be done wi t h r espect t o

f i l i ng a t ax r et ur n and t her ef or e, i s an ' appl i cabl e f i l i ng

r equi r ement ' ") . Si mi l ar l y, t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t det er mi ned t hat a

debt or ' s f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h a Mi ssi ssi ppi l aw st at i ng t hat

r et ur ns " shal l be f i l ed on or bef or e Apr i l 15t h" meant t hat t he

r et ur ns di d not sat i sf y appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s under t he

hangi ng paragr aph' s def i ni t i on. McCoy v. Mi ss. St at e Tax Comm' n

( I n r e McCoy) , 666 F. 3d 924, 928, 932 ( 5t h Ci r . 2012) . And at

l east one ot her ci r cui t cour t j udge, i n di ct um, pr edi ct ed such a

r esul t . I n r e Payne, 431 F. 3d 1055, 1060 ( 7t h Ci r . 2005)

( East er br ook, J . , di ssent i ng) ( "Af t er t he 2005 l egi sl at i on, an

unt i mel y r et ur n can not l ead t o a di schar ge- - r ecal l t hat t he new

l anguage r ef er s t o ' appl i cabl e nonbankrupt cy l aw ( i ncl udi ng

appl i cabl e f i l i ng requi r ement s) . ' ") .

The debt or s never t hel ess ar gue t hat t he hangi ng

par agr aph' s l anguage i s not qui t e so cl ear as t o di ct at e our

hol di ng. Per haps t he t er m "appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement " may

-8-


11/44

acqui r e vagueness at t he out er boundar i es of i t s possi bl e

appl i cat i on. See Ant oni n Scal i a & Br yan A. Garner , Readi ng Law:

The I nt er pret at i on of Legal Text s 31- 32 ( 2012) ( expl ai ni ng t hat

vagueness i s present when a phr ase' s " unquest i onabl e meani ng has

uncer t ai n appl i cat i on t o var i ous f actual si t uat i ons") . For

exampl e, i s an i nst r ucti on on an of f i ci al f or m t hat t he f i l er not

st apl e t he r et ur n t oget her , or st apl e t he check t o the r et ur n, an

"appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement "? However one mi ght answer t hat

quest i on, we do not see how t her e i s any room f or r easonabl e

argument t hat , as a mat t er of pl ai n l anguage, a Massachuset t s l aw

set t i ng t he dat e when a t ax r et ur n "i s r equi r ed t o be f i l ed" i s

somehow not a " f i l i ng r equi r ement . "

I n never t hel ess descr i bi ng t he st at ut e as mat er i al l y

ambi guous and our r eadi ng of i t cont r i ved, t he di ssent r el i es on

t he pr emi se t hat when a st at ut e st at es t hat t he uni ver se of X

" i ncl udes" Y, one normal l y pr esumes t hat Y i s merel y an exampl e of

what i s i n X, and t hat X i ncl udes mor e t han Y. Sl i p Op. at 30.

The di ssent er r s, t hough, i n cl ai mi ng t hat our i nt er pret at i on f ai l s

t o sat i sf y t hi s pr emi se. The di ssent makes thi s er r or by pr esumi ng

t hat t he uni ver se def i ned by t he st at ut e i s "l at e- f i l ed r et ur ns

t hat count as r et ur ns, " Sl i p Op. at 30, and t hat sect i on 6020( a)

r et ur ns ( and "si mi l ar " st at e or l ocal l aw r et ur ns) ar e t her ef or e

si mpl y exampl es of a wi der ar r ay of per mi t t ed l at e f i l ed r et ur ns.

The st at ut e nei t her says nor i mpl i es any such t hi ng. Rat her , t he

-9-


12/44

st at ut e pr ovi des t hat a " r et ur n" i ncl udes a " r et ur n pr epar ed

pur suant t o sect i on 6020( a) . . . or si mi l ar St at e or l ocal l aw. "

So one pr esumes onl y that a " r etur n" i ncl udes more t han t hese f ew

t ypes of r et ur ns. And i t pl ai nl y does: i t i ncl udes al l sor t s of

r et ur ns ( such as For m 1040s) t hat sat i sf y t hei r r espect i vel y

appl i cabl e f i l i ng requi r ement s.

Si mi l ar l y, t he di ssent er r s i n cl ai mi ng t hat our r eadi ng

of t he st at ut e "means t hat conver sel y, a sect i on 6020( b) r et ur n

woul d be t he onl y t ype of r et ur n t hat i s not a r et ur n. " Sl i p Op.

at 31. Thi s i s pl ai nl y not so- - any t ype of r et ur n not f i l ed i n

accor d wi t h appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s i s not a " r et ur n" under

our r eadi ng of t he st at ut e. The r et ur ns at i ssue i n t hi s case ar e

a not abl e demonst r at i on t hat sect i on 6020( b) r et ur ns are not t he

onl y ones t hat ar e not r et ur ns under t he st at ut e.

Wi deni ng t he scope sl i ght l y, debt or s poi nt t o t he

l anguage of sect i on 523( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i i ) ( "t he t wo- year pr ovi si on") ,

whi ch cl ear l y i mpl i es t hat t her e can be a "r et ur n" t hat i s f i l ed

wi t hi n t wo year s "af t er t he dat e on whi ch such r et ur n . . . was

l ast due. " 5 So t he hangi ng paragr aph cannot be r ead as ent i r el y

excl udi ng t he possi bi l i t y t hat a l at e r et ur n can al so be a

" r et ur n. " Gr aspi ng ont o t hi s poi nt , t he debt or s cont end ( and t he

5 The pur pose of t he two- year pr ovi si on i s appar ent l y t opr event debt or s f r om ut i l i zi ng bankr upt cy f i l i ngs as a way ofavoi di ng t hei r over due t ax obl i gat i ons. I n r e Payne, 431 F. 3d at1059.

-10-


13/44

BAP agr eed) t hat our i nt er pr et at i on woul d "vi t i at [ e] i n i t s

ent i r et y" the t wo- year pr ovi si on, r ender i ng i t " super f l uous. " See

TRW I nc. v. Andr ews, 534 U. S. 19, 31 ( 2001) ( " I t i s a car di nal

pr i nci pl e of st at ut or y const r uct i on t hat a st at ut e ought , upon t he

whol e, t o be so const r ued t hat , i f i t can be pr event ed, no cl ause,

sent ence, or wor d shal l be super f l uous, voi d, or i nsi gni f i cant . "

( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Nat ' l Or g. f or

Marr i age v. McKee, 649 F. 3d 34, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng TRW

I nc. f or t he same pr oposi t i on) .

The def ect i n t hi s ar gument i s t hat t he hangi ng paragraph

i t sel f car ves out an except i on f r om i t s gener al r ul e, deemi ng one

t ype of l at e r et ur n t o be a r et ur n. I t speci f i es t hat " a r et ur n

pr epar ed pur suant t o sect i on 6020( a) . . . or si mi l ar St at e or

l ocal l aw" qual i f i es as a "r et ur n, " whi l e t hose pr epar ed pur suant

t o sect i on 6020( b) do not . 11 U. S. C. 523( a) ( *) . Sect i on 6020( a)

and (b) can bot h be i nvoked when a t axpayer " f ai l s t o make" a

pr oper r et ur n, i ncl udi ng si t uat i ons wher e t he t axpayer i s l at e i n

f i l i ng a r et ur n t o t he I . R. S. See McCoy, 666 F. 3d at 928- 29.

Ther ef or e, a l at e t ax r et urn, i f pr epar ed i n compl i ance wi t h

sect i on 6020( a) and f i l ed wi t hi n t wo years of t he bankrupt cy

pet i t i on, i s st i l l a r et ur n ( and t he t ax due t hus di schar geabl e) ,

not wi t hst andi ng i t s f ai l ur e t o meet t he ot her wi se "appl i cabl e

f i l i ng r equi r ement " of a mandat ory deadl i ne. Whi l e sect i on 6020( a)

may onl y appl y i n a smal l mi nor i t y of cases, t he f act t hat a l at e

-11-


14/44

f i l ed secti on 6020( a) r et ur n can st i l l qual i f y as a "r et ur n" f or

sect i on 523( a) pur poses means t hat t he two- year pr ovi si on st i l l has

a r ol e t o pl ay i f t he hangi ng par agr aph' s pl ai n meani ng cont r ol s.

The I . R. S. ' s Chi ef Counsel has r ef er r ed t o t he number of

sect i on 6020( a) r et ur ns as "mi nut e" and i n 2010 t ook t he posi t i on

t hat t he saf e har bor cr eat ed by i t was " i l l usor y" because t axpayer s

have no r i ght t o demand a r et ur n under t he pr ovi si on. I . R. S. Chi ef

Couns. Not i ce CC- 2010- 016 at 2- 3 ( Sept . 2, 2010) . We accept t he

cl ai m t hat such r et ur ns ar e r ar e, and ar e al l owed onl y at t he

I . R. S. ' s behest . I t har dl y f ol l ows, t hough, t hat t he saf e har bor

expr essl y creat ed f or such r et ur ns i s i l l usor y. I n f act, t hi s

"nar r ow saf e har bor , " hypot het i cal l y descr i bed by the di st r i ct

cour t bel ow i n t he Per ki ns case, was ut i l i zed by a debt or i n a

r ecent bankrupt cy case wher e the bankrupt cy cour t was bound by t he

r eadi ng of sect i on 523( a) ( *) t hat t he Depar t ment ur ges her e. See

I n r e Kemendo, 516 B. R. 434, 438 ( Bankr . S. D. Tex. 2014) . I n t hat

case, t he I . R. S. had pr epar ed a t ax r et ur n wi t h i nf or mat i on

pr ovi ded by t he t axpayer , i n accor dance wi t h sect i on 6020( a) . I d.

at 438. Mor e t han t wo year s l at er , t he t axpayer f i l ed f or

bankrupt cy. I d. at 438- 39. The bankrupt cy cour t f ound t hat t he

t axpayer ' s del i nquent t ax debt had been pr oper l y di schar ged. I d.

I n shor t , r eadi ng t he hangi ng par agr aph as gener al l y excl udi ng

r et ur ns f i l ed af t er t he dat e when appl i cabl e l aw r equi r es t hem t o

be f i l ed does not conf l i ct wi t h t he i mpl i cat i on of sect i on

-12-


15/44

523( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i i ) t hat t her e can be a l at e r et ur n, ei t her not i onal l y

or i n pr acti ce.

The di ssent t akes a di f f er ent t ack, deemi ng i t "absur d"

t o t hi nk t hat Congr ess woul d al l ow a di schar ge of t axes due under

a sect i on 6020( a) r et ur n pr epar ed year s af t er t he due dat e, but not

under a Massachuset t s r et ur n t hat i s one day l ate. We see no

absur di t y. Sect i on 6020( a) i s a t ool f or t he I . R. S. , i nvoked

sol el y at i t s di scret i on, when i t deci des obt ai ni ng hel p f r om t he

l at e f i l i ng t axpayer i s t o t he I . R. S. ' s advant age. That Congr ess

l ef t t he I . R. S. a car r ot t o of f er a t axpayer i n such i nf r equent

cases does not mean t hat i t was absur d f or Congr ess not t o ext end

t hi s car r ot cat egor i cal l y t o l ar ge number s of ot her l at e f i l er s.

But , say t he debt or s, our r eadi ng of t he hangi ng

par agr aph st i l l r ender s unnecessar y i t s l ast cl ause, st at i ng t hat

t he t er m "r et ur n" does not i ncl ude "a r et ur n made pur suant t o

[ sect i on 6020( b) ] or a si mi l ar St at e or l ocal l aw. " The debt or s

ar e cor r ect on t hi s poi nt . Never t hel ess, we do not see t hi s as t he

t ype of r edundancy t hat i nvokes any ef f ect i ve appl i cat i on of t he

doct r i ne t hat we t r y t o r ead st at ut es so t hat no sect i on i s

super f l uous. Her e, i n cont ext , i t si mpl y appear s t hat i n creat i ng

an except i on f or sect i on 6020( a) , t he dr af t er s made cl ear ( desi r i ng

a bel t and suspender s) t hat t hey wer e not i ncl udi ng i t s compani on

-13-


16/44

sect i on 6020( b) . 6 What ever one t hi nks of t hi s r edundancy, i t

of f er s t oo l i t t l e t o par r y t he f or ce of t he obser vat i on t hat a

r equi r ement t o f i l e on t i me i s a f i l i ng r equi r ement . See I n r e

McCoy, 666 F. 3d at 931.

Mor eover , wer e we t o adopt t he debt or s' posi t i on that a

l aw r equi r i ng compl i ance wi t h a f i l i ng deadl i ne i s not a f i l i ng

r equi r ement , we woul d be l ef t wi t hout any t extual basi s f or

di st i ngui shi ng t hose f i l i ng r equi r ement s t hat count f r omt hose t hat

do not . I nst ead- - and debt or s and t he di ssent ar e f r ank about t hi s-

- we woul d be back to t i nker i ng wi t h subj ect i ve and conf l i ct i ng

j udge- made r ul es. I n t hat r espect , we woul d r ender t he pr i nci pal

t hr ust of t he hangi ng par agr aph t o be l ar gel y of no ef f ect . Of

cour se, t he debt or s say that t hi s i s what Congr ess want ed, si mpl y

seeki ng t o "conf i r m" pr e- exi st i ng case l aw. But , as we di scuss i n

gr eat er det ai l l at er i n t hi s opi ni on, t her e was no such uni f or m

r ul e i n t he case l aw t o whi ch the l anguage i n t he hangi ng paragr aph

coul d be r ead as r ef er r i ng. Cf . I n r e Mal l o, 2014 WL 7360130, at

*10 ( " I f Congr ess i nt ended t o def i ne a r et ur n t hr ough appl i cat i on

of t he Bear d t est or some ot her subst ant i al compl i ance doct r i ne,

r at her t han by a t axpayer ' s compl i ance wi t h t he appl i cabl e f i l i ng

6 The di st i nct i on makes sense when we consi der t he basi cdi f f er ence bet ween sect i ons 6020( a) and ( b) because t he l at t er i spr epared wi t hout t he t axpayer ' s assi st ance and somet i mes as ar esul t of t he t axpayer ' s wi l l f ul f r aud.

-14-


17/44

r equi r ement s contai ned i n t he Tax Code, Congr ess [ woul d not have

added] t he phr ase ' i ncl udi ng appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s. ' ") .

The debt or s al so seek suppor t i n t he Massachuset t s l aws

and r egul at i ons bear i ng on t he meani ng of " r et ur n. " They poi nt out

t hat i n Massachuset t s, a pr e- assessment del i nquent r et ur n i s

t r eat ed t he same as any ot her r etur n. 7 Thi s i s not exact l y so,

however , as Massachuset t s i mposes a penal t y on any t axpayer who

does not f i l e hi s r et ur n by t he dat e r equi r ed. See Mass. Gen. Laws

ch. 62C, 33 ( "Lat e ret ur ns; penal t y; abat ement " ) . 8

Rel at edl y, t he debt ors contend t hat t he Commonweal t h' s

own def i ni t i on of "r et ur n" l acks a t i mel i ness el ement . Thi s, t oo,

i s not exact l y so. The Massachuset t s Code of Regul at i ons def i nes

a r et ur n as "a t axpayer ' s si gned decl ar at i on of t he t ax due, i f

any, pr oper l y compl et ed by the t axpayer or t he t axpayer ' s

r epr esent at i ve on a f orm pr escr i bed by t he Commi ssi oner and dul y

f i l ed wi t h t he Commi ssi oner . " 830 C. M. R. 62C. 26. 1( 2) ( emphasi s

suppl i ed) . Webst er ' s Thi r d New I nt er nat i onal Di ct i onar y gi ves as

i t s f i r st def i ni t i on "i n a due manner , t i me, or degr ee. " Webst er ' s

Thi r d New I nt er nat i onal Di ct i onary 700 ( 3d ed. 2002) . Cour t s

7 The Depar t ment di d not i ssue assessment s agai nst any of t hedebt or s.

8 Nor need we addr ess i n thi s case whet her a ret ur n i sr equi r ed to be f i l ed by t he due dat e i f Massachuset t s shoul d deemt he f ai l ur e t o be excused, and t hus of no ef f ect under Mass. Gen.Laws ch. 62C, 33( f ) ( wai vi ng any penal t y on a showi ng of goodcause) .

-15-


18/44

consi st ent l y i ncl ude a t i mel i ness el ement when i nt er pr et i ng "dul y"

i n ot her cont exts. See, e. g. , McAdams v. Uni t ed St at es, No. 07-

164T, 2008 WL 654271, at *3 ( Fed. Cl . Feb. 1, 2008) ( i n order f or

a cl ai m t o be dul y f i l ed under 26 U. S. C. 7422, i t must compl y

wi t h t he st at ut or i l y pr escr i bed t i mel i ness r equi r ement i n 26 U. S. C.

6511( a) ) ; O' Connel l v. Uni t ed St ates, No. 02- 10399- RBC, 2004 WL

1006485, at *3 ( D. Mass. Mar . 22, 2004) ( same) ; Mobi l Corp. v.

Uni t ed St at es, 52 Fed. Cl . 327, 331, 337 ( Fed. Cl . 2002) ( I . R. C.

r egul at i on pr ohi bi t i ng sui t t o recover wr ongf ul l y assessed t axes

"unt i l a cl ai m f or r ef und . . . has been dul y f i l ed" i ncl udes

t i mel i ness r equi r ement ) . I n sum, t he debt or s' i nvocat i on of

Massachuset t s l aws and r egul at i ons does not change t he r esul t . 9

Sensi bl y ant i ci pat i ng weak suppor t i n t he st at ut or y and

r egul atory l anguage, t he debt ors r el y wi t h much emphasi s on thr ee

ot her r ul es of st at ut or y const r uct i on.

Fi r st , t hey (and t he ami cus cur i ae) i mpl or e us t o f i nd

i nst r uct i ve t he not i on t hat except i ons t o di schar ge shoul d be

nar r owl y const r ued i n t he debt or ' s f avor , Gl eason v. Thaw, 236 U. S.

558, 562 ( 1915) ; Rut anen v. Bayl i s ( I n r e Bayl i s) , 313 F. 3d 9, 17

( 1st Ci r . 2002) , and t hat t he Bankrupt cy Code shoul d be read i n

l i ght of i t s pur pose t o pr ovi de a f r esh st ar t t o t he "honest but

unf or t unat e debt or . " Local Loan Co. v. Hunt , 292 U. S. 234, 244

9 We expr ess no opi ni on on whet her ot her j ur i sdi ct i ons' l awsand r egul at i ons bear i ng on a tax ret ur n' s t i mel i ness qual i f y as"appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s" under sect i on 523( a) ( *) .

-16-


19/44

( 1934) ( "One of t he pr i mar y pur poses of t he Bankr upt cy Act i s t o

r el i eve t he honest debt or f r om t he wei ght of oppr essi ve

i ndebt edness, and per mi t hi m t o st ar t af r esh f r ee f r om t he

obl i gat i ons and r esponsi bi l i t i es consequent upon busi ness

mi sf or t unes. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .

Second, t he debt or s at t empt t o f r ame our i nt er pr et at i on- -

par t i cul ar l y wi t h r espect t o t he l i mi t at i ons i t i mposes on t he t wo-

year pr ovi si on' s appl i cabi l i t y- - as repr esent i ng a si gni f i cant

change t o t he pre- 2005 Bankr upt cy Code. The debtor s and t he

bankr upt cy cour t bel ow f or t he Br own and Gonzal ez cases quot e t he

Supr eme Cour t i n ur gi ng us t o be " r el uct ant t o accept argument s

t hat woul d i nt er pr et t he Code, however vague t he part i cul ar

l anguage under consi der at i on mi ght be, t o ef f ect a maj or change i n

pr e- Code pr act i ce t hat i s not t he subj ect of at l east some

di scussi on i n t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y. " Dewsnup v. Ti mm, 502 U. S.

410, 419 ( 1992) .

Thi r d, t he debt or s and ami cus cur i ae cal l t he r esul t we

r each her e- - t hat al l l at e f i l ed r et ur ns i n Massachuset t s ar e not

subj ect t o di schar ge i n bankrupt cy- - "unf at homabl e" and i t s

consequences "dr aconi an" and "absur d. "

Our r esponse t o t he debt or s' r el i ance on t hese r ul es of

st at ut or y const r ucti on i s f our f ol d.

Fi r st , and most i mpor t ant l y, wher e t he quest i on i s

whether a Massachuset t s l aw set t i ng a date by whi ch a t ax r et ur n

-17-


20/44

"i s r equi r ed t o be f i l ed" i s a "f i l i ng r equi r ement " under

Massachuset t s l aw, we f i nd l i t t l e need- - or j ust i f i cat i on- - f or

t ur ni ng t o secondar y pr i nci pl es of st at ut or y const r uct i on. Cf .

Uni t ed St at es v. Ron Pai r Ent er s. , I nc. , 489 U. S. 235, 241 ( 1989)

( "The l anguage bef or e us expr esses Congr ess' i nt ent . . . wi t h

suf f i ci ent pr eci si on so t hat r ef er ence t o l egi sl at i ve hi st or y and

t o pr e- Code pr act i ce i s har dl y necessar y. ") .

Second, whi l e the resul t we reach may be unf avorabl e

t owar ds del i nquent t axpayer s who ar e al so bankrupt , t her e i s har dl y

anyt hi ng "unf at homabl e, " "dr aconi an, " or "absur d" i n t he not i on

t hat Congr ess mi ght di sf avor debt or s who bot h f ai l t o pay thei r

t axes and al so f ai l t o t i mel y f i l e t he r et ur ns t hat woul d al er t t he

t axi ng aut hor i t y t o t he f ai l ur e t o pay. Cf . i d. at 242 ( "The pl ai n

meani ng of l egi sl at i on shoul d be concl usi ve, except i n t he ' r ar e

cases [ i n whi ch] t he l i t er al appl i cat i on of a st at ut e wi l l pr oduce

a resul t demonst r abl y at odds wi t h t he i nt ent i on of i t s dr af t er s. ' "

( quot i ng Gr i f f i n v. Oceani c Cont r act or s, I nc. , 485 U. S. 564, 571

( 1982) ) ) .

Thi r d, appl i cat i on of secondar y pr i nci pl es of st at ut or y

const r uct i on har dl y cut s j ust one way, or as f or cef ul l y as t he

debt or s cl ai m. We not e i n part i cul ar t hat t he hangi ng par agr aph,

addi ng t o the st at ut e t he key l anguage at i ssue, was par t of an

enactment whose mot i vat i ng f actors wer e: t he " r ecent escal at i on of

consumer bankrupt cy f i l i ngs"; t he "si gni f i cant l osses asser t ed t o

-18-


21/44

be associ at ed wi t h bankrupt cy f i l i ngs"; t o cl ose t he l oophol es t hat

"al l ow and- - somet i mes- - even encour age opport uni st i c per sonal

f i l i ngs and abuse"; and " t he f act t hat some bankrupt cy debt or s are

abl e t o r epay a si gni f i cant por t i on of t hei r debt s. " H. Comm. on

t he J udi ci ary, Bankr upt cy Abuse Pr event i on and Consumer Protect i on

Act of 2005, H. R. Rep. No. 109- 31( I ) , at 3- 5 ( 2005) , r epr i nt ed i n

2005 U. S. C. C. A. N. 88, 90- 92. 10 None of t hese enumer at ed pur poses

al i gn wi t h t he debt or s' f al l - back stance of hel pi ng t he "honest but

unf or t unat e debt or " achi eve a "f r esh st ar t . " 11 And as t he Supr eme

Cour t has al r eady st at ed, "[ t ] he st at ut or y pr ovi si ons r egar di ng

nondi schar geabi l i t y r ef l ect a congr essi onal deci si on t o excl ude

f r omt he gener al pol i cy of di schar ge cer t ai n cat egor i es of debt s- -

such as . . . t axes[ . ] Congr ess evi dent l y concl uded t hat t he

credi t or s' i nt er est i n r ecover i ng f ul l payment of debt s . . .

out wei ghed t he debt or s' i nt er est i n a compl et e f r esh st ar t . "

Gr ogan v. Garner , 498 U. S. 279, 287 ( 1991) .

10 Ther e wer e no publ i shed commi t t ee report s expl ai ni ng t hehangi ng par agr aph' s pur pose, and i t r emai ns t r ue t hat even when ast at ut e ef f ect uat es a change t o pr i or l aw, "wher e t he l anguage i sunambi guous, si l ence i n t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y cannot becont r ol l i ng. " Dewsnup, 502 U. S. at 419- 20.

11The debt or unf r i endl y t hr ust of t he BAPCPA was al so mani f esti n i t s r ewr i t i ng of sect i on 523( a) ( 1) ( B) t o make i t appl i cabl e "notonl y t o t he f ai l ur e t o f i l e a r equi r ed r et ur n, but al so t o t hef ai l ur e t o f i l e or gi ve an ' equi val ent ' r equi r ed ' r epor t ornot i ce' " cor r espondi ng t o t he debt . See Mar yl and v. Ci ot t i ( I n r eCi ot t i ) , 638 F. 3d 276, 279- 80 ( 4t h Ci r . 2011) .

-19-


22/44

Fi nal l y, we acknowl edge t hat st r ai ght f or war d appl i cat i on

of Congress' s l anguage changes presumed pract i ce i n some bankrupt cy

cour t s ( i ncl udi ng t hose t hat r ul ed f or t hr ee of t he debt or s bel ow) .

That bei ng sai d, t he j udge- made l aw sur r oundi ng t he meani ng of a

"r et ur n" i n secti on 523( a) was f ar f r om set t l ed. Pr i or t o t he

BAPCPA, and i n t he absence of any l i mi t i ng def i ni t i on of t he t er m

"r et ur n, " cour t s used a f our - par t t est f i r st ar t i cul at ed by t he

Uni t ed St ates Tax Cour t i n Beard v. Comm' r , 82 T. C. 766, 777- 78

( 1984) , af f ' d, 793 F. 2d 139 ( 6t h Ci r . 1986) , i n or der t o det er mi ne

whet her a document pur por t i ng to be a r etur n was a retur n f or

pur poses of sect i on 523( a) . Cour t s consi der ed a r et ur n' s

t i mel i ness under t he Bear d t est ' s f our t h pr ong: whet her t he

submi t t ed document " r epr esent [ ed] an honest and r easonabl e at t empt

t o sat i sf y t he r equi r ement s of t ax l aw. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Hi ndenl ang ( I n r e Hi ndenl ang) , 164 F. 3d 1029, 1033- 34 ( 6t h Ci r .

1999) ( emphasi s suppl i ed) ; see al so Col sen v. Uni t ed St at es ( I n r e

Col sen) , 446 F. 3d 836, 839 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) ; I n r e Payne, 431 F. 3d

at 1057; I n r e Moroney, 352 F. 3d at 905; Uni t ed St ates v. Hat t on

( I n r e Hat t on) , 220 F. 3d 1057, 1060- 61 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) . These

cases deal t onl y wi t h f eder al t ax ret ur ns, and even wi t hi n t hat

l i mi t ed cont ext , f ai l ed t o r each a consensus on t he i ssue. The

Four t h, Si xth, Sevent h, and Ni nt h Ci r cui t s al l det er mi ned t hat

debt or s who submi t t ed t hei r t ax r et ur ns l at e f or mul t i pl e

consecut i ve year s and t hen f i l ed f or bankrupt cy had not sat i sf i ed

-20-


23/44

t he t est ' s f our t h pr ong, but t he bases f or t hat concl usi on var i ed.

See I n re Payne, 431 F. 3d at 1057- 59 ( expr essi ng concer n that a

chr oni cal l y del i nquent t axpayer was maki ng bel at ed f i l i ngs t o "set

t he st age" f or a di schar ge i n bankrupt cy) ; I n r e Mor oney, 352 F. 3d

at 905- 06 ( same) ; I n r e Hat t on, 220 F. 3d at 1061 ( debt or "made

ever y at t empt t o avoi d payi ng hi s t axes unt i l t he I RS l ef t hi mwi t h

no ot her choi ce" ) ; I n r e Hi ndenl ang, 164 F. 3d at 1034 ( post -

assessment r et ur ns l ack ut i l i t y f or t he I . R. S. ) . But see I n r e

Col sen, 446 F. 3d at 839- 41 ( document ' s cont ent s, not t i mel i ness,

det er mi ned what const i t ut es a " r et ur n" f or di scharge pur poses) .

Agai nst t hi s backgr ound, i t i s mor e pl ausi bl e that

Congr ess i nt ended t o set t l e t he di sput e over l at e f i l ed t ax ret ur ns

agai nst t he debt or ( who bot h f ai l s t o pay t axes and f ai l s t o f i l e

a ret ur n as r equi r ed by l aw) t han i t i s t hat Congr ess sought t o

pr eserve some ver si on of t he unset t l ed f our - pr onged Beard t est by

usi ng l anguage that has no ref er ence t o t hat case l aw and t hat

cer t ai nl y suggest s no f our - pr onged def i ni t i on. Par t i cul ar l y

not ewor t hy i s t he f act t hat Congr ess' s chosen t est cal l ed f or

sat i sf yi ng t he f i l i ng r equi r ement s of appl i cabl e l aw, not mer el y

maki ng an "honest at t empt" t o do so. 12

12 Thi s i s not t o r ej ect t he possi bi l i t y t hat pr e- amendmentcase l aw, such as Beard, mi ght r emai n vi abl e i n deci di ng whet her adocument not pur por t i ng t o be a r et ur n i s an "equi val ent r epor t ornot i ce" under sect i on 523( a) ( 1) ( B) . See I n r e Ci ot t i , 638 F. 3d at280- 81.

-21-


24/44

III. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s

j udgment i n f avor of t he Depar t ment i n t he cases of Fahey and

Per ki ns, and we r everse t he BAP' s grant of j udgment f or Br own and

Gonzal ez. Summary j udgment shal l be ent ered i n f avor of t he

Depart ment f or t he t ax years at i ssue because the debt ors' t ax

l i abi l i t i es wer e not di schar ged i n bankrupt cy as a mat t er of l aw.

So order ed.

- Dissenting Opinion Follows -

-22-


25/44

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Our nat i on' s

bankrupt cy syst emwas bui l t on the pr i nci pl e t hat somet i mes, honest

peopl e f al l on har d t i mes. Whi l e t he bankrupt cy code has nat ur al l y

gone t hr ough r evi si ons and updat es si nce i t s i ncept i on, t hat

f oundat i onal phi l osophy has al ways l ai d at i t s r oot .

I n my vi ew, t he maj or i t y i s unf ai r l y di smi ssi ve of t he

debt or s' l ogi cal i nt er pr et at i on of t he st at ut or y pr ovi si ons at

i ssue. I t si mul t aneousl y t akes t oo academi c and l i t er al of an

appr oach t o i t s r eadi ng of one of t he code' s def i ni t i onal

pr ovi si ons, l eadi ng t o a r esul t t hat def i es common sense, whi l e al so

conveni ent l y i gnor i ng t he pl ai n meani ng of ot her words i n t he ver y

same par agr aph, i n or der t o r each a cer t ai n out come. I t i gnores t he

mandat es of st at ut or y const r uct i on we ar e obl i gat ed to f ol l ow, year s

of l i nes of casel aw upon whi ch debt ors had been r el yi ng, and t he

cl ear l y st at ed pol i cy r easons f or Congr ess' s i mposi ng t hese

st at ut or y pr ovi si ons i n t he f i r st pl ace.

Needl ess t o say, I di ssent .

The Canons of Construction

I n our de novo revi ew, t he r ul es we f ol l ow t o i nt er pr et

a st at ut e - - i ncl udi ng bankr upt cy st at ut es - - ar e wel l est abl i shed.

Fi r st , we "l ook [ ] t o t he speci f i c l anguage at i ssue. " I n r e

Rudl er , 576 F. 3d 37, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . "I f t he st at ut e' s l anguage

i s pl ai n, t he sol e f unct i on of t he cour t s . . . i s t o enf or ce i t

accor di

ng t o i t s t er ms. " I d. at 44- 45 ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons

-23-


26/44

omi t t ed) . I n so doi ng, however , we onl y appl y pl ai n meani ng i f t he

st atut ory l anguage i s not ambi guous and woul d not " l ead t o absurd

r esul t s. " I d. ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons omi t t ed) . Thus, i n t hi s

case we must i ni t i al l y deci de whet her we can enf orce 11 U. S. C.

523( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i i ) 13 - - t he speci f i c st at ut or y pr ovi si on at i ssue - -

"accor di ng t o i t s t er ms, " based on an assessment t hat t he

"di sposi t i on r equi r ed by t he t ext i s not absur d, " i d. at 44

( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons omi t t ed) , and t hat t he st at ut e cannot be

"r ead i n more t han one way, " I n r e Thi nki ng Machi nes Corp. , 67 F. 3d

1021, 1025 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gi bbens, 25

F. 3d 28, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) ) ( "A st at ut e i s ambi guous i f i t can be

r ead i n more t han one way. " ) .

The maj or i t y concl udes t hat t he hangi ng paragraph, whi ch

Congr ess added t o the bankr upt cy st atut e i n order t o def i ne what a

"t ax r et ur n" i s f or pur poses of Subsect i on ( i i ) , 14 unambi guousl y

di ct at es t hat "a ret ur n f i l ed af t er t he due dat e i s a r et ur n not

f i l ed as r equi r ed, " and t hus, t hat debt or s who f i l e t hei r

Massachuset t s t axes l at e can never benef i t f r om Subsect i on ( i i ) .

As I wi l l expl ai n, I di sagr ee t hat t he hangi ng par agr aph - - when

r ead i n concer t wi t h Subsect i on ( i i ) - - unequi vocal l y demands t hat

concl usi on. To t he cont r ar y, t he maj or i t y' s i nt er pr et at i on of t he

13 Fr om now on, I ' l l r ef er t o 11 U. S. C. 523( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i i ) as"Subsect i on ( i i ) . "

14 The hangi ng par agr aph' s def i ni t i on of "r et ur n" appl i es t ot he ent i r e 11 U. S. C. 523( a) . See 11 U. S. C. 523( a) ( *) .

-24-


27/44

hangi ng paragr aph l eads t o an absurd r esul t t hat cannot be

r econci l ed si mpl y wi t h a st r i ctl y l i t er al r eadi ng of t he st at ut e.

Plain Meaning

The st at ut e at i ssue provi des t hat a debt or may not

di schar ge a t ax debt i f "a ret ur n . . . i f r equi r ed - - ( i ) was not

f i l ed or gi ven; or ( i i ) was f i l ed or gi ven af t er t he dat e on whi ch

such r et ur n . . . was l ast due, under appl i cabl e l aw or under any

ext ensi on, and af t er t wo year s bef or e t he dat e of t he f i l i ng of t he

[ bankr upt cy] pet i t i on[ . ] " 15 11 U. S. C. 523( a) ( 1) ( B) ( i ) - ( i i ) .

I n 2005, Congr ess enact ed t he Bankr upt cy Abuse Prevent i on

and Consumer Prot ect i on Act , maki ng numerous and si gni f i cant changes

t o t he bankrupt cy code. As par t of t hose 2005 amendment s, Congress

added t he "hangi ng paragr aph" t o t he end of 11 U. S. C. 523( a) ,

cl ar i f yi ng t hat f or pur poses of t hat subsect i on, a "' r et ur n' means

a r et ur n t hat sat i sf i es t he r equi r ement s of appl i cabl e nonbankrupt cy

l aw ( i ncl udi ng appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s) . " Si gni f i cant t o

t hi s appeal , Congr ess di d not change Subsect i on ( i i ) dur i ng t he 2005

amendment s.

The maj or i t y hones i n on t he hangi ng paragraph' s added

cl ar i f i cat i on t hat r et ur ns must compl y wi t h a st at e' s " appl i cabl e

15 The maj or i t y makes much ado about t he f act t hat t he debtor si n t hi s case never pai d t hei r back t axes. I t seems obvi ous t o met hat when Congr ess draf t ed t he bankrupt cy st at ut e, i t ant i ci pat edt hat someone seeki ng t o di scharge a debt i n bankr upt cy neveractual l y pai d t he money. Ot her wi se, he woul dn' t have any debt t odi schar ge.

-25-


28/44

f i l i ng r equi r ement s" t o be di schar geabl e. The maj or i t y concl udes

t hat t he t ext of t he hangi ng par agr aph unambi guousl y st at es t hat i f

a r et ur n does not compl y wi t h al l t he st at e l aw t ax r et ur n f i l i ng

r equi r ement s ( i ncl udi ng t he f i l i ng deadl i ne) , 16 t hen the t axes

cannot be di schar ged.

The maj or i t y' s l ogi c suf f er s f r omseveral f l aws, whi ch I

addr ess i n t ur n.

Fi r st , i t i s not obvi ous t o me t hat under Massachuset t s

t ax l aw, f i l i ng a r et ur n l at e necessar i l y means t hat a debt or di d

not compl y wi t h "appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s, " such t hat hi s

r et ur n woul d not "sat i sf [ y] t he r equi r ement s of appl i cabl e

nonbankrupt cy l aw. " As t he maj or i t y concedes, a t ar dy r et ur n wi l l

st i l l be accept ed by t he st at e, and t he debt or ' s t ax l i abi l i t y wi l l

st i l l be assessed. See Mass. Gen. L. c. 62C, 26( a) ( "Taxes shal l

be deemed t o be assessed at t he amount shown as t he t ax due upon any

r et ur n f i l ed under t he pr ovi si ons of t hi s chapt er and on any

amendment , cor r ect i on or suppl ement t hereof , or at t he amount

pr oper l y due, whi chever i s l ess, and at t he t i me when t he r et ur n i s

16 Conf usi ngl y, t he maj or i t y admi t s t hat even under i t si nt erpret at i on of t he stat ut e, " t he t erm ' appl i cabl e f i l i ngr equi r ement ' may acqui r e vagueness at t he out er boundar i es of i t s

possi bl e appl i cat i on. " As an exampl e, t he maj or i t y suggest s t hati t i s uncl ear whet her a f ai l ur e t o pr oper l y st apl e document s, event hough t echni cal l y an "appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement , " woul d r endert he t axes der i vi ng t her ef r omnon- di schar geabl e. The maj or i t y goeson, however , t o answer i t s own hypot het i cal by l at er concl udi ngt hat "any t ype of r et ur n not f i l ed i n accor d wi t h appl i cabl e f i l i ngr equi r ement s i n not a ' r et ur n' under our r eadi ng of t he st at ut e. "

-26-


29/44

f i l ed or r equi r ed t o be f i l ed, whi chever occur s l at er . ") . Whi l e

l at e- f i l ed r et ur ns ar e subj ect t o a one- per cent penal t y, Mass. Gen.

L. c. 62C, 33( a) , 17 even t he f i ne i s wai vabl e on a showi ng of good

f ai th:

I f i t i s shown t hat any f ai l ur e t o f i l e ar et ur n or t o pay a t ax i n a t i mel y manner i sdue t o reasonabl e cause and not due t o wi l l f ulnegl ect , any penal t y or addi t i on t o t ax undert hi s sect i on may be wai ved by t hecommi ssi oner , or i f such penal t y or addi t i ont o tax has been assessed, i t may be abat ed byt he commi ssi oner , i n whol e or i n par t .

Mass. Gen. L. c. 62C, 33( f ) . I do not see how we can concl ude

t hat a l at e- f i l ed r et ur n never sat i sf i es t he r equi r ement s of

Massachuset t s t ax l aw i f t he Commonweal t h not onl y accept s t he

r et ur n, but i s even wi l l i ng t o wai ve t he al r eady r el at i vel y

conser vat i ve penal t y f or f i l i ng i t l at e.

More i mpor t ant l y t hough, even i f we assume, as t he

maj or i t y does, t hat t i mel y f i l i ng i s gener al l y a necessary component

of a " r et ur n" under Massachuset t s t ax l aw, we st i l l cannot dr aw t he

maj or i t y' s ul t i mat e concl usi on t hat l at e f i l er s can never di schar ge

17 Mass. Gen. L. c. 62C, 33( a) pr ovi des:

I f any r et ur n i s not f i l ed wi t h t hecommi ss i oner on or bef ore i t s due dat e orwi t hi n any ext ensi on of t i me gr ant ed by hi m,

t her e shal l be added to and become a par t oft he t ax, as an addi t i onal t ax, a penal t y ofone per cent of t he amount r equi r ed t o beshown as t he t ax on such r et urn f or each mont hor f r act i on t her eof dur i ng whi ch such f ai l ur econt i nues, not exceedi ng, i n t he aggr egat e,t went y- f i ve per cent of sai d amount .

-27-


30/44

t hei r Massachuset t s t ax debt s under 11 U. S. C. 523( a) . Subsect i on

( i i ) - - whi ch Congr ess chose not t o al t er dur i ng i t s 2005 amendment s

- - cont i nues t o pr ovi de a di schar ge except i on f or peopl e who f i l ed

t hei r t axes l at e, so l ong as t hose debt or s di d not f i l e wi t hi n t he

t wo year s j ust pr i or t o f i l i ng f or bankrupt cy. See I n r e Wei nst ei n,

272 F. 3d 39, 43 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( not i ng t hat when t wo st at ut or y

pr ovi si ons ar e "meant t o wor k i n concer t , " t o di scer n t he pl ai n

meani ng of t he pr ovi si on at i ssue, we must anal yze both, as one

st at ut or y pr ovi si on cannot be r ead i n i sol at i on) . As t he debt or s

appr opr i at el y ur ge, t her e woul d be no poi nt i n l eavi ng i n Subsect i on

( i i ) - - t he speci f i c except i on t hat deal s wi t h l at e f i l ers - - i f

Congress meant f or t he hangi ng par agr aph t o penal i ze everyone who

mi sses f i l i ng deadl i nes. As t he maj or i t y concedes, we shoul d not ,

when we can avoi d i t , const r ue st at ut es i n a way t hat al l ows a

"cl ause, sent ence, or wor d" t o be "super f l uous, voi d, or

i nsi gni f i cant . " TRW I nc. v. Andr ews, 534 U. S. 19, 31 ( 2001) ; see

al so Kawaauhau v. Gei ger , 523 U. S. 57, 62 ( 1998) ( " [ W] e ar e hesi t ant

t o adopt an i nt er pr et at i on of a congr essi onal enact ment whi ch

r ender s super f l uous anot her por t i on of t hat same l aw. ") ( ci t at i on

and quot at i ons omi t t ed) .

So how do we r econci l e t hi s di scr epancy ( i . e. , ambi gui t y)

t hat ar i ses wi t hi n t he st at ut e? The cor r ect answer i s t o assess

what t he l egi sl at ur e l i kel y meant when i t wr ot e t he st at ut e - - a

st ep t he maj or i t y i ncor r ect l y assumes i t can ski p, based on i t s

-28-


31/44

hal f - r eadi ng of t he st at ut or y pr ovi si ons i t was r equi r ed t o

consi der . See I n r e Wei nst ei n, 272 F. 3d at 44 ( not i ng t hat a

"conf l i ct bet ween t wo pr ovi si ons of [ a] st at ut e - - a conf l i ct wi t h

whi ch nei t her pr ovi si on deal s expr essl y . . . pr ovi des a reason t o

move beyond t he t ext and t o exami ne a st at ut e' s l egi sl at i ve hi st or y

and appar ent pur pose" ) . I nst ead of t aki ng on i t s requi r ed t ask, t he

maj or i t y, i n an at t empt t o r esol ve t hi s mat t er sol el y on t he pl ai n

t ext , gl osses over t he ambi gui t y by concl udi ng t hat Subsect i on ( i i )

i s not a super f l uous cl ause because one t ype of per son woul d st i l l

benef i t f r om i t - - t he peopl e who f i l ed a r et ur n pur suant t o 26

U. S. C. 6020( a) ( or a compar abl e st at e or l ocal l aw) . 18

As t he maj or i t y not es, t he hangi ng paragr aph pr ovi des:

[ "Ret ur n" ] i ncl udes a ret ur n pr epar ed pur suantt o sect i on 6020( a) of t he I nt er nal RevenueCode of 1986, or si mi l ar St at e or l ocal l aw,. . . but does not i ncl ude a r et ur n madepur suant t o sect i on 6020( b) of t he I nt er nalRevenue Code of 1986, or a si mi l ar Stat e orl ocal l aw.

18 Sect i on 6020( a) al l ows t he I RS t o pr epar e a f eder al r et ur nf or someone who f ai l s t o do so on hi s own, but st i l l consent s t opr ovi di ng t he I RS wi t h t he i nf or mat i on i t needs t o pr epar e t heret urn i t sel f . I t provi des:

I f any per son shal l f ai l t o make a r et ur nr equi r ed by t hi s t i t l e or by r egul at i onspr escr i bed t her eunder , but shal l consent t o

di scl ose al l i nf or mat i on necessar y f or t hepr epar at i on t her eof , t hen, and i n t hat case,t he Secretary may pr epare such r etur n, whi ch,bei ng si gned by such person, may be r ecei vedby the Secr et ary as t he r et ur n of such per son.

26 U. S. C. 6020( a) .

-29-


32/44

11 U. S. C. 523( a) ( *) . So, t he maj or i t y concl udes, Subsect i on ( i i )

r et ai ns some usef ul ness because 6020( a) r et ur ns ( even i f t hey ar e

f i l ed l at e) , can st i l l be di schar ged under Subsecti on ( i i ) .

The maj or i t y' s l ogi c on t hi s poi nt i s of f f or a number of

r easons, t wo of whi ch r el at e t o pl ai n l anguage i nt er pr et at i on.

For one, t he t ext of t he hangi ng paragr aph does not , as

t he maj or i t y concl udes, di ct at e t hat 6020( a) r et ur ns ar e t he onl y

t ype of l at e- f i l ed r et ur ns t hat count as "r et ur ns. " The hangi ng

par agr aph pr ovi des t hat a r et ur n " i ncl udes a ret ur n pr epar ed

pur suant t o sect i on 6020( a) . " ( Emphasi s added) . The maj or i t y asks

us t o assume t hat Congr ess, i n i t s use of t he wor d " i ncl udes, "

i nt ended f or t he except i on t o appl y onl y t o 6020( a) - t ype ret ur ns.

I am per pl exed as t o how t he maj or i t y reaches t hi s

cont r i ved ext r apol at i on. Congr ess' s use of t he wor d " i ncl udes"

connot es t hat 6020( a) r et ur ns and t hei r st at e or l ocal l aw

equi val ent s ar e mer e exampl es of r et ur ns t hat woul d st i l l compl y

wi t h "appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s, " despi t e t he f act t hat t he

t axpayer di d not meet t he f i l i ng deadl i ne. 19 I f Congr ess i nt ended

t he out come espoused by t he maj or i t y, i t woul d have used di f f er ent

l anguage ( e. g. , "i s l i mi t ed t o") - - not t he wor d "i ncl udes. " 20

19 Whi l e 6020( a) does not speci f i cal l y di scuss f i l i ngdeadl i nes, I t hi nk i t f ai r t o pr esume t hat i f a per son f ai l ed t of i l e a r et ur n on hi s own, he mi ssed t he f i l i ng deadl i ne.

20 I n i t s at t empt t o r ef ut e my i nt er pr et at i on of t he wor d"i ncl udes, " t he maj or i t y concl udes t hat i n addi t i on t o 6020( a)r et ur ns, "al l sor t s of r et ur ns ( such as For m 1040s) t hat sat i sf y

-30-


33/44

I n a si mi l ar vei n, t he hangi ng par agr aph al so denot es

t hat a " r et ur n" "does not i ncl ude a r et ur n made pur suant t o sect i on

6020( b) of t he I nt er nal Revenue Code . . . or a si mi l ar St at e or

l ocal l aw. " 21 Appl yi ng t he maj or i t y' s ( i ncor r ect) def i ni t i on of t he

wor d " i ncl udes, " t hen, means t hat conver sel y, a 6020( b) r et ur n,

( or i t s st at e or l ocal l aw equi val ent ) woul d be t he onl y type of

r et ur n t hat i s not a r et ur n. But as t he bankrupt cy cour t bel ow put

i t , "[ i ] f al l l at e- f i l ed r et ur ns except 6020( a) r et ur ns ar e not

r et ur ns[ , ] t her e i s no need t o st at e t hat 6020( b) r et ur ns ar e not

r et ur ns. " The maj or i t y cur sor i l y wr i t es of f t hi s cur i osi t y as a

mer e " r edundancy" i n t he st at ut e, f ai l i ng t o subst ant i vel y addr ess

t hei r r espect i vel y appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s" count as"r et ur ns. " Thi s l ogi c i s ci r cul ar . Of cour se a r et ur n t hatsat i sf i es "appl i cabl e f i l i ng r equi r ement s" sat i sf i es "appl i cabl ef i l i ng r equi r ement s. " The maj or i t y' s r esponse st i l l f ai l s t oaddr ess why we shoul d r ead i nt o t he st atut ory l anguage t hat l ate-

f i l ed r et ur ns, gener al l y, ar e not consi der ed "r et ur ns, " even t houghCongr ess wr ot e i nt o t he st at ut e an exampl e of a speci f i c t ype ofl at e- f i l ed ret urn t hat qual i f i es.

21 Sect i on 6020( b) per mi t s t he I RS t o execut e a ret ur n f orsomeone who ei t her f ai l ed t o f i l e, or f i l ed a "f al se or f r audul entr et ur n, " even i f t hat per son di d not cooper at e and/ or di d not si gnt he r et ur n t he I RS pr epar ed. I t pr ovi des:

I f any per son f ai l s t o make any ret ur nr equi r ed by any i nt er nal r evenue l aw orr egul at i on made t her eunder at t he t i me

pr escri bed t her ef or , or makes, wi l l f ul l y orot her wi se, a f al se or f r audul ent r et ur n, t heSecr et ar y shal l make such r et ur n f r om hi s ownknowl edge and f r om such i nf ormat i on as he canobt ai n t hr ough t est i mony or ot her wi se.

26 U. S. C. 6020( b) ( 1) .

-31-


34/44

why the absurd concl usi on we must dr aw f r om i t s r eadi ng of t he

st at ut e does not r equi r e consi der at i on of what Congr ess act ual l y

meant when i t added the 6020 l anguage t o t he st at ut e.

Second, al l owi ng 6020( a) r et ur ns, but not ot her l at e-

f i l ed r et ur ns, t o be di schar geabl e l eads t o anot her pr epost er ous

r esul t . Secti on 6020( a) r et ur ns r esul t f r om a t axpayer ' s f ai l ur e

t o f i l e a f eder al t ax r et ur n. Under t he maj or i t y' s f or mul at i on,

t hen, t he scof f l aw who si t s on hi s hands at t ax t i me, doesn' t bot her

t o f i l e a r et ur n, and t hen, af t er get t i ng caught , cooper at es wi t h

t he aut hor i t i es and l et s t he gover nment f i l e t he subst i t ut e r et ur n

f or hi m, woul d be t he onl y l at e f i l er who woul d be al l owed t o

di schar ge hi s t ax debt . The per son who f i l es hi s ret ur n one day

l at e - - whi ch t he st at e then accept s - - woul d not be per mi t t ed t o

di schar ge, r egar dl ess of t he r eason f or t he t ar di ness.

The maj or i t y r esponds t hat 6020( a) " i s a t ool f or t he

I RS, i nvoked sol el y at i t s di scret i on, when i t deci des obt ai ni ng

hel p f r omt he l at e f i l i ng t axpayer i s t o t he I RS' s advant age. " And

so, t he maj or i t y cont ends, "[ t ] hat Congr ess l ef t t he I RS a car r ot

t o of f er a t axpayer i n such i nf r equent cases does not mean t hat i t

was absur d f or Congr ess not t o ext end t hi s car r ot cat egor i cal l y to

l ar ge number s of l at e f i l er s. " But t he Massachuset t s t axi ng

aut hor i t y, l i ke t he I RS, al so has t he di scret i on t o accept l at e-

f i l ed mat er i al s f r om a t axpayer ( wi t hout i mposi ng a penal t y) ,

pr esumabl y because i t , t oo, woul d pr ef er not t o star t f r omscr at ch.

-32-


35/44

Fur t her , t he maj or i t y of f er s no aut hor i t y to suppor t i t s assumpt i on

t hat Congr ess was concerned about a rash of peopl e r unni ng t o the

cour t house t o di schar ge t hei r t ax debt s. A t heme I harp on

t hr oughout t hi s di ssent , we cannot put words i n Congr ess' s mout h.

Fi nal l y, i f Congr ess di d pr ovi de some i ndi cat i on t hat i t was seeki ng

t o pr event "l ar ge number s" of l at e f i l er s f r om at t empt i ng t o

di schar ge, t he r el evant st at i st i c t o l ook at woul d be how many l at e

f i l er s - - of t he 6020( a) var i et y or ot her wi se - - woul d act ual l y

seek r el i ef f r om Subsecti on ( i i ) , wer e i t avai l abl e t o t hem, as

opposed t o how many peopl e, t heor et i cal l y, f i l e t hei r t axes l at e.

Gi ven t he absur di t y of t he maj or i t y' s out come, and t he

ot her t ext ual ambi gui t i es I descr i bed above, I di sagr ee wi t h my

col l eagues t hat we can avoi d del vi ng i nt o l egi sl at i ve i nt ent . I

t ackl e t hat anal ysi s next .

Legislative Intent

I n di ct a, t he maj or i t y rej ect s t he debt or s' ar gument s

r egar di ng t he l egi sl at i ve i nt ent behi nd Subsect i on ( i i ) and t he

hangi ng par agr aph. I di sagr ee wi t h t hi s por t i on of t he maj or i t y' s

anal ysi s, as wel l as i t s ul t i mat e di sposi t i on.

The Casel aw

I n t r yi ng t o di scer n l egi sl at i ve i nt ent , we l ook to the

hi stor i cal cont ext of t he stat ut e ( i . e. , pr i or casel aw) , t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y of t he st at ut or y pr ovi si on, and t he pol i cy

under l yi ng t he st at ut e. I n r e Wei nst ei n, 272 F. 3d at 44- 46. So

-33-


36/44

f i r st , we must "consi der . . . t he cont ext of t he st at ut e i n

bankrupt cy casel aw. " I d. Thi s t ask r equi r es a br i ef r ecap of t he

hi st or y of Subsect i on ( i i ) and t he addi t i on of t he hangi ng

par agr aph.

Pr i or t o 2005, t he bankrupt cy code di d not def i ne

"r et ur n" f or pur poses of Subsect i on ( i i ) . Many cour t s, l ef t t o

t hei r own devi ces t o f i gur e out what const i t ut ed a "r et ur n, " ended

up adopt i ng what ' s been coi ned as t he "Bear d t est , " a f our - par t

st andard f ormul ated by t he Tax Cour t f or det er mi ni ng whet her a

document f i l ed wi t h t he I RS qual i f i ed as a f eder al t ax ret ur n.

Under t he Bear d i nqui r y, a document qual i f i ed as a t ax r et ur n i f :

( 1) i t pur por t ed t o be a r et ur n; ( 2) was si gned under penal t y of

per j ur y; ( 3) cont ai ned i nf or mat i on suf f i ci ent t o det er mi ne t ax

l i abi l i t y; and ( 4) was an honest and r easonabl e at t empt t o sat i sf y

t he t ax l aw r equi r ement s. Beard v. Commi ssi oner , 82 T. C. 766

( 1984) , af f ' d per cur i am, 793 F. 2d 139 ( 6t h Ci r . 1986) . See al so

I n r e Col sen, 446 F. 3d 836, 839 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) ; I n r e Payne, 431

F. 3d 1055, 1057 ( 7t h Ci r . 2005) ; I n r e Moroney, 352 F. 3d 902, 905

( 4t h Ci r . 2003) ; I n r e Hat t on, 220 F. 3d 1057, 1060- 61 ( 9t h Ci r .

2000) ; I n r e Hi ndenl ang, 164 F. 3d 1029, 1033- 34 ( 6t h Ci r . 1999) ( al l

adopt i ng Beard t est ) . 22

22 We do not appear t o have ever f or mal l y adopt ed Bear d, butpr i or t o 2005, cour t s i n our pr ovi nce appl i ed or consi der ed i t t ot r y t o f i gur e out what const i t ut ed a "r et ur n" f or pur poses of 11U. S. C. 523( a) . See, e. g. , I n r e Mul cahy, 260 B. R. 612, 615- 16( Bankr . D. Mass. 2001) ; I n r e Pender gast , 510 B. R. 1, 9 ( B. A. P. 1st

-34-


37/44

Many cour t s ended up gr appl i ng wi t h the f our t h pr ong.

Some t r i ed t o f i gur e out whet her f i l i ng a ret ur n l at e count ed as an

"honest and r easonabl e at t empt " t o sat i sf y t ax r equi r ement s. See,

e. g. , I n r e Payne, 431 F. 3d at 1059; I n r e Hi ndenl ang, 164 F. 3d at

1034. Those deci si ons of t en t ur ned on whether a r etur n made af t er

t he gover nment had al r eady assessed t ax l i abi l i t y def eated t he mai n

pur pose of t he f i l i ng deadl i ne, whi ch one cour t descr i bed as

"spar [ i ng] t he t ax aut hor i t i es t he bur den of t r yi ng t o r econst r uct

a taxpayer ' s i ncome and i ncome- t ax l i abi l i t y wi t hout any hel p f r om

hi m. " I n r e Payne, 431 F. 3d at 1057. See al so I n r e Moroney, 352

F. 3d at 906 ( hol di ng t hat t he bel at ed accept ance of r esponsi bi l i t y

f or t ax l i abi l i t y does not const i t ut e an honest and r easonabl e

at t empt t o compl y wi t h t ax l aws, and t hat whether t he event ual

ef f or t had an ef f ect on t ax l i abi l i t y was i r r el evant ) ; I n r e Hat t on,

220 F. 3d at 1061 ( f i ndi ng t hat bel at ed cooper at i on wi t h I RS t o

set t l e t ax l i abi l i t i es was not an honest and r easonabl e at t empt t o

compl y wi t h t ax l aw, and t ax l i abi l i t y was t her ef or e not except ed

f r om di scharge under 523) ; I n r e Hi ndenl ang, 164 F. 3d at 1034

( appl yi ng t he f our t h pr ong of Bear d, hol di ng t hat a "For m 1040 i s

not a r et ur n i f i t no l onger serves any tax pur pose or has any

ef f ect under t he I nt er nal Revenue Code") . Ot her cour t s i nst ead

st r uggl ed wi t h whet her t he "honest and r easonabl e" i nqui r y was

Ci r . 2014) ( r ei t er at i ng i t s pr evi ous hol di ng t hat " 523( a) ( *)r epl aces t he Bear d t est " ) .

-35-


38/44

l i mi t ed t o an exami nat i on of whet her , as a f act ual mat t er , t he t ax

f or ms t hemsel ves - - r egar dl ess of when t hey wer e event ual l y f i l ed - -

wer e f i l l ed out i n good f ai t h and wi t h accur at e i nf or mat i on. See,

e. g. , I n r e Col sen, 446 F. 3d at 840- 41.

Presumabl y aware of t hi s conf usi on t hat was ensui ng i n

t he cour t s, i n 2005, Congr ess added t he hangi ng paragr aph,

cl ar i f yi ng speci f i cal l y t hat subst i t ut e r et ur ns - - even t hough t hey

wer e not pr epared at t he hand of t he t axpayer and wer e f i l ed l ate - -

coul d qual i f y as di schar geabl e under 11 U. S. C. 523( a) , so l ong as

t he t axpayer cooper ated wi t h the gover nment i n pr epar i ng the ret ur n,

and di d not f i l e a f al se or f r audul ent one. Whi l e Congr ess al so

i nj ect ed t he l anguage r equi r i ng r et ur ns t o meet "appl i cabl e f i l i ng

r equi r ement s, " despi t e t he di scord among t he cour t s, i t di d not

speci f i cal l y addr ess whet her l at e- f i l ed r et ur ns i n par t i cul ar shoul d

be consi der ed " r et ur ns" under t he r evi sed st atut ory scheme.

Si nce 2005, di sagreement has cont i nued t o persi st among

t he cour t s about how t o appl y t he l aw, at l east as i t per t ai ns t o

l at e- f i l ed r et ur ns. Onl y t wo of our si st er cour t s have answer ed t he

speci f i c quest i on bef ore us, and both have reached the same

concl usi on as t he maj or i t y her e. See McCoy v. Mi ss. St at e Tax

Comm' n ( I n re McCoy) , 666 F. 3d 924, 932 ( 5t h Ci r . 2012) ; I n re

Mal l o, No. 13- 1464, 2014 WL 7360130, at *12 ( 10t h Ci r . Dec. 29,

2014) . But as we have sai d bef ore, " [ t ] he number s f avor i ng a r ul e

do not necessar i l y mean t hat t he r ul e i s t he best one. " I n r e At l as

-36-


39/44

I T Exp. Corp. , 761 F. 3d 177, 182 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Numer ous l ower

cour t s - - i ncl udi ng t wo of t he cour t s i nvol ved i n t he i nst ant appeal

- - have appl i ed ei t her a di f f er ent r easoni ng or have reached a

di f f er ent out come f r omt he one espoused by t he maj or i t y. See, e. g. ,

I n r e Gonzal ez, 506 B. R. 317, 318 ( B. A. P. 1st Ci r . 2014) ( af f i r mi ng

bankrupt cy cour t ' s hol di ng t hat Massachuset t s t axes wer e

di schar geabl e, even t hough "cor r espondi ng t ax r et ur ns wer e f i l ed

l at e" ) ; I n r e Mar t i n, 508 B. R. 717, 736 ( Bankr . E. D. Cal . 2014)

( hol di ng t hat " r equi r ement s of appl i cabl e nonbankrupt cy l aw

( i ncl udi ng appl i cabl e f i l i ng

r equi r ement s) do not i ncl ude a tempor al

r est r i ct i on") ( quot at i ons omi t t ed) . Some cour t s, i ncl udi ng t he

l ower cour t i n Mal l o, have cont i nued t o appl y var i ous ver si ons of

t he Bear d t est . See, e. g. , I n r e Mal l o, 498 B. R. 268, 281 ( D. Col o.

2013) ; I n re Rhodes, 498 B. R. 357, 360 ( Bankr . N. D. Ga. 2013) .

As t he Supr eme Cour t has ar t i cul at ed, " [ w] hen Congr ess

amends t he bankrupt cy l aws, i t does not wr i t e on a cl ean sl at e. "

Dewsnup v. Ti mm, 502 U. S. 410, 419 ( 1992) ( quot at i ons omi t t ed) .

Ther ef or e, we shoul d be " r el uct ant t o accept ar guments t hat woul d

i nt er pr et t he Code, however vague t he part i cul ar l anguage under

consi der at i on mi ght be, t o ef f ect a maj or change i n pr e- Code

pr act i ce t hat i s not t he subj ect of at l east some di scussi on i n t he

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y. " I d. Gi ven t he wi despr ead di sagr eement among

t he cour t s pr i or t o and af t er 2005, as wel l as ubi qui t ous

appl i cat i on of var i ous ver si ons of t he Bear d t est ' s " honest and

-37-


40/44

r easonabl e at t empt " r equi r ement , I do not see how - - absent a cl ear

congr essi onal mandate - - we can ( or shoul d) spr i ng upon debt ors t he

maj or i t y' s dr aconi an r ul e- of - l aw. Thi s ver y appeal , whi ch i nvol ves

f our di f f er ent debt or s and t he deci si ons of f our di f f er ent l ower

cour t s r eachi ng t wo opposi ng out comes, i l l ust r at es t hat t he casel aw

i s f ar f r omset t l ed, and t hat t he cour t s wer e not gener al l y appl yi ng

a per se r est r i ct i on l i ke t he one t he maj or i t y has cr eat ed t oday.

Pol i cy

Gi ven t he l ack of l egi sl at i ve hi st or y on t he hangi ng

par agr aph, i t i s al so appr opr i at e t o l ook t o t he publ i c pol i cy

behi nd t he bankrupt cy code to t r y t o det er mi ne Congr ess' s i nt ent .

See I n r e Wei nst ei n, 272 F. 3d at 46 ( not i ng t hat whi l e we "must not ,

of cour se, i mpose [ our ] own vi ews of pr oper bankrupt cy pol i cy i n

pl ace of t hose of t he l egi sl at ur e[ , ] . . . an under st andi ng of t he

congr essi onal pol i ci es under l yi ng a st at ut e, i ncl udi ng t he

Bankrupt cy Code, can hel p to r econci l e ot her wi se i ndet er mi nat e par t s

of t he st at ut or y t ext ") .

The pr i mar y pur pose of t he bankr upt cy code has al ways

been t o " r el i eve t he honest debt or f r om t he wei ght of oppr essi ve

i ndebt edness, and per mi t hi m t o st ar t af r esh f r ee f r om t he

obl i gat i ons and r esponsi bi l i t i es consequent upon busi ness

mi sf or t unes. " Local Loan Co. v. Hunt , 292 U. S. 234, 244 ( 1934)

( ci t at i on and quotat i ons omi t t ed) ; Mar r ama v. Ci t i zens Bank of

Mass. , 549 U. S. 365, 367 ( 2007) ( "The pr i nci pal pur pose of t he

-38-


41/44

Bankrupt cy Code i s t o gr ant a f r esh st ar t t o the honest but

unf or t unat e debt or . ") ( ci t at i ons and quot at i on omi t t ed) . As t he

Supr eme Cour t r ei t er at ed f ai r l y r ecent l y ( and sever al year s af t er

t he 2005 amendment s were passed) , a "f r esh st ar t " i s a "f undament al

bankr upt cy concept . " Schwab v. Rei l l y, 560 U. S. 770, 791 ( 2010)

( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons omi t t ed) . Despi t e t he maj or i t y' s

cont ent i ons, Congress made no i ndi cat i on t hat t he 2005 amendment s

wer e i nt ended t o change t hose goal s. Rather , as Presi dent George

W. Bush rei t er at ed upon si gni ng t he bi l l , t he pur pose of our

bankrupt cy syst em i s t o "gi ve t hose who cannot pay t hei r debt s a

f r esh st ar t . " Pr esi dent i al St at ement on Si gni ng t he Bankrupt cy

Abuse Pr event i on and Consumer Prot ect i on Act , 2005 U. S. C. C. A. N. S7,

2005 WL 3693183 ( Apr . 20, 2005) ( "2005 Presi dent i al St at ement " ) .

As I ment i oned above, t he Massachuset t s t axi ng aut hor i t y

acknowl edges t hat someone may mi ss t he f i l i ng deadl i ne f or a

" r easonabl e cause. " Yet under t he maj or i t y' s f or mul at i on, even

peopl e who have a good- f ai t h r eason f or f i l i ng l at e - - and ar e t hen

excused by the st at e t axi ng aut hor i t y f or doi ng so - - are mer e

"del i nquent t axpayer s, " shunned f r om r ecei vi ng a bankrupt cy

di schar ge. Whi l e t he 2005 r ef or ms cer t ai nl y sought t o aver t abuses

t hat had been occur r i ng i n t he bankr upt cy syst em, I f i nd i t

pr esumpt uous t o concl ude t hat wel l i nt ent i oned peopl e who f i l e t hei r

t axes one day l at e - - wi t h no way to ant i ci pate t hat bankr upt cy

woul d be comi ng down the pi pel i ne a whol e t wo years l ater - - are t he

-39-


42/44

peopl e t r yi ng t o "commi t f r aud" or "game t he syst em. " See 2005

Pr esi dent i al St at ement . I am f ur t her convi nced t hat Congr ess' s

f ocus was l i kel y on bad f ai t h, as opposed t o mer e t i mi ng, because

t he hangi ng paragr aph expr essl y al l ows di schar ge f or 6020( a)

r et ur ns, but not 6020( b) r et ur ns, despi t e t he f act t hat bot h ar e,

by t hei r nat ur e, f i l ed l at e - - as t he maj or i t y concedes, "t he basi c

di f f er ence bet ween sect i ons 6020( a) and ( b) [ i s t hat ] t he l at t er i s

pr epared wi t hout t he taxpayer ' s assi st ance and somet i mes as a r esul t

of t he t axpayer ' s wi l l f ul f r aud. " I t seems t o me t hat i n l i ght of

t he publ i c pol i cy behi nd t he bankrupt cy code and Congr ess' s deci si on

not t o speci f i cal l y creat e a per se r ul e bar r i ng l at e- f i l ed r et ur ns

f r om bei ng di schar geabl e, we cannot j ust wr i t e one i n.

Gi ven t he st at e of t he casel aw i n 2005, t he most sensi bl e

expl anat i on f or Congr ess' s addi t i on of t he pr ovi si on was t o

el uci dat e t hat r egar dl ess of who pr epar ed a r et ur n - - or when - - i f

t he document a debt or f i l ed woul d no l onger be consi der ed a "r et ur n"

because t he st at e won' t accept i t as one, t he debt or can' t j ust t ur n

ar ound and f i l e a t ax f or m sol el y f or t he pur pose of di schar gi ng

t hose t axes dur i ng bankrupt cy. Thi s i nt er pr et at i on of t he l aw i s

f ur t her suppor t ed by Congr ess' s choi ce, i n 2005, t o mai nt ai n t he

ver y saf eguar d t hat was al r eady bui l t i nt o t he st at ut e t o hel p

pr event t hat ki nd of pr obl em f r om ar i si ng: "t he r equi r ement of a

t wo- year wai t i ng per i od af t er f i l i ng a l at e r et ur n but bef or e

seeki ng di schar ge pr event s a debt or who has i gnor ed t he f i l i ng

-40-


43/44


44/44

f or mer Pr esi dent put i t i n 2005, " f ai r ness and compassi on" t o "t hose

who need i t most . "

Ul t i mat el y, t hi s cont i nued conf usi on may be Congr ess' s

pr obl em t o f i x. I n t he meant i me, debt or s who l egi t i mat el y r esor t

t o bankr upt cy when t hey r each wi t ' s end shoul d not be puni shed f or

t he l ack of cl ar i t y t hat per si st s i n t he ver y l aws enact ed t o hel p

t hem- - or f or t he maj or i t y' s i mpl i ci t l y ar t i cul at ed vi ewpoi nt t hat

a f i nanci al l y st r apped per son who mi sses a deadl i ne i s t r yi ng t o

wor k a r unar ound.

I r espect f ul l y di ssent .

perkins v. ma department of revenue, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents