In Re Mattis, 93 B.R. 68 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988). · Go Syfert
In Re Mattis, 93 B.R. 68 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Piper v. United States (In Re Piper) (mab, 2003-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Piper v. United States (In Re Piper)
Bankr. D. Mass. · 2003 · confidence medium
See DeMarah v. United States (In re DeMarah), 62 F.3d 1248, 1251-1252 (9th Cir.1995) (“Congress has denied debtors the right to remove tax liens from their otherwise exempt property.”); Straight v. First Interstate Bank of Commerce (In re Straight), 207 B.R. 217, 228 (10th Cir.BAP1997) (§ 522(c)(2)(B) overrides the general exemption and avoidance powers granted in § 522(g) and (h)); In re Mulligan, 234 B.R. 229, 235 (Bankr.D.N.H.1999) (§ 522(h) avoidance power does not apply to a tax lien because, by virtue of § 522(c)(2)(B), the property encumbered by the lien is cannot be exempted fr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stangel v. United States (In Re Stangel) (2×)
Bankr. N.D. Tex. · 1998 · confidence medium
See e.g., Henderson, 133 B.R. 813, 817 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1991); In re Mattis, 93 B.R. 68, 69-70 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1988). 17 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Walkup v. First Interstate (In Re Walkup)
Bankr. E.D. Cal. · 1995 · confidence medium
A debtor’s “limited standing to avoid statutory liens” under sections 522 and 545 of the Bankruptcy Code “must be reconciled with the protection afforded perfected tax liens under 11 U.S.C. § 522 (c)(2)(B).” In re Mattis, 93 B.R. 68, 69-70, n. 2 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Robinson
Bankr. D. Vt. · 1994 · confidence medium
In Henderson, supra, 133 B.R. at 817 , the Court explained that “§ 522(c)(2)(B) bestows added protection on perfected tax hens and provides that exempt property remains hable for a tax hen, notice of which has been properly filed.” Thus, even for exempt property, allowing a Chapter 7 debtor to invoke the trustee’s avoidance power under § 545(2) would “circumvent the effects of § 522(c)(2)(B).” In re Mattis, 93 B.R. 68, 69 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Penn.1988) (referring to avoidance power of Chapter 13 debtor).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Quillard v. United States (In Re Quillard)
Bankr. D.R.I. · 1993 · confidence medium
Perry v. United States (In re Perry), 90 B.R. 565, 566 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1988); In re Mattis, 93 B.R. 68, 70 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Henderson
Bankr. W.D. Tex. · 1991 · confidence medium
However, some limited powers to avoid transfers are granted in Chapter 5 [specifically § 522(h)] to the debtor if the property could have been claimed as exempt but for the transfer. 2 Matter of Driscoll, 57 B.R. at 325 ; see also, In re Williams, 109 B.R. at 180 ; In re Mattis, 93 B.R. 68, 69 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1988); In re Perry, 90 B.R. at 567 ; In re Ridgley, 81 B.R. at 67 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Reed
Bankr. D. Haw. · 1991 · confidence medium
In re Isom, 95 B.R. 148 (9th Cir. BAP 1988); In re Mattis, 93 B.R. 68, 69-70 (Bankr.E.D.Penn.1988); Verma v. First United Federal, 91 B.R. 17, 18 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1987).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Dillard v. United States, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Dillard)
Bankr. N.D. Ill. · 1990 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., In re Mattis, 93 B.R. 68 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1988); In re Perry, 90 B.R. 565 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Jay W. MATTIS, Debtor
16-10730.
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
Nov 28, 1988.
93 B.R. 68
Henry S. Friedman, Trial Atty., Tax Div., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for U.S., John R. Crayton, McCarthy & Crayton, Bensalem, Pa., for debtor.
Thomas M. Twardowski.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor, Jay W. Mattis (“debtor”), has filed a motion to avoid the statutory lien of the IRS under 11 U.S.C. § 545(2), to which the United States has filed a motion to dismiss. The parties stipulate that the IRS properly filed a notice of tax lien pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a) and (f) prior to the filing of debtor’s chapter 13 petition and that debtor owns no real property or automobiles, but only personal property valued at $2010.00. The parties further stipulate that the only issue to be decided is whether debtor can avoid the IRS lien under 11 U.S.C. § 545(2). For the reasons outlined below, we find that debtor lacks standing to invoke the § 545(2) avoiding powers of the trustee to avoid an IRS lien. Accordingly, we grant the United States’ motion to dismiss.

11 U.S.C. § 545(2) provides that:

The trustee may avoid the fixing of a statutory lien on property of the debtor to the extent that such lien—
(2) is not perfected or enforceable at the time of the commencement of the case against a bona fide purchaser that purchases such property at the time of the commencement of the case, whether or not such a purchaser exists; [1]

(emphasis added). 11 U.S.C. § 522(h) confers standing upon a debtor to invoke the trustee’s § 545 avoiding powers, but only to the extent that the debtor could exempt the property involved. [2] Perry v. U.S.A. (In re Perry), 90 B.R. 565 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1988); In re Ridgley, 81 B.R. 65 (Bankr.D. Or.1987); Matter of Driscoll, 57 B.R. 322, 14 C.B.C.2d 146, Bankr.L.Rep. ¶ 70,994 (Bankr.W.D.Wisc.1986).

However, 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B) bestows added protection upon perfected tax liens and provides that exempt property remains liable for a tax lien, notice of which has been properly filed. We agree with those courts which have concluded that a debtor’s limited standing to avoid statutory liens under 11 U.S.C. § 545 must[*70] be reconciled with the protection afforded perfected tax liens under 11 U.S.C. § 522(c)(2)(B). Like those courts, we hold that Congress did not intend to allow chapter 13 debtors to circumvent the effects of § 522(c)(2)(B) by invoking the trustee’s avoiding power under § 545(2). See In re Perry, supra; In re Ridgley, supra; Matter of Driscoll, supra. Accordingly, we find that debtor lacks standing to file the instant motion to avoid the IRS lien under § 545(2) and we grant the United States’ motion to dismiss.

An appropriate order will follow.

1

. Instantly, debtor admits that the tax lien was properly perfected before the commencement of his case. Debtor argues, however, that when dealing with an IRS lien, the § 545(2) avoiding power is buttressed with the "superpriority” position afforded a purchaser of certain types of personal property under limited conditions pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, see, 26 U.S.C. § 6323(b)(4), and that he may therefore invoke § 545(2) to avoid the IRS lien, notwithstanding its perfected status. See Coan v. U.S.A. (Matter of Coan), 72 B.R. 483 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1987); but see, In re Bates, 81 B.R. 63 (Bankr.D. Or.1987). We need not decide this issue as we find that debtor lacks standing to invoke the trustee’s § 545(2) avoiding power in this case. However, we note our concurrence with footnote 2 of Bankruptcy Judge Thomas C. Britton’s decision in Perry v. U.S.A. (In re Perry), 90 B.R. 565 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1988) which suggests that while the "superpriority” position of a purchaser under 26 U.S.C. § 6323(b) might be consistent with the trustee’s power in bankruptcy to avoid IRS liens for the benefit of creditors, it does not follow that Congress intended to confer this "superpriority” status upon a bankruptcy debtor to enable him to avoid IRS liens on exempt property for the sole benefit of himself.

2

. The United States argues that since § 545 authorizes only the trustee to avoid statutory liens, debtor lacks standing to invoke the trustee’s § 545(2) avoiding power. We find this position overly simplistic since it overlooks the impact of 11 U.S.C. § 522(h) upon 11 U.S.C. § 545(2).