U.S. Code » Title 11 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— GENERAL PROVISIONS

11 U.S.C. § 108

Extension of time

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 11 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) If applicable nonbankruptcy law, an order entered in a nonbankruptcy proceeding, or an agreement fixes a period within which the debtor may commence an action, and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, the trustee may commence such action only before the later of—(1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of the case; or(2) two years after the order for relief.(b) Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, if applicable nonbankruptcy law, an order entered in a nonbankruptcy proceeding, or an agreement fixes a period within which the debtor or an individual protected under section 1201 or 1301 of this title may file any pleading, demand, notice, or proof of claim or loss, cure a default, or perform any other similar act, and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, the trustee may only file, cure, or perform, as the case may be, before the later of—(1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of the case; or(2) 60 days after the order for relief.(c) Except as provided in section 524 of this title, if applicable nonbankruptcy law, an order entered in a nonbankruptcy proceeding, or an agreement fixes a period for commencing or continuing a civil action in a court other than a bankruptcy court on a claim against the debtor, or against an individual with respect to which such individual is protected under section 1201 or 1301 of this title, and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, then such period does not expire until the later of—(1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of the case; or(2) 30 days after notice of the termination or expiration of the stay under section 362, 922, 1201, or 1301 of this title, as the case may be, with respect to such claim.(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2556; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, § 424, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 369; Pub. L. 99–554, title II, § 257(b), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3114; Pub. L. 109–8, title XII, § 1203, Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 193.)Historical and Revision Noteslegislative statements

Extension of time: The House amendment adopts section 108(c)(1) of the Senate amendment which expressly includes any special suspensions of statutes of limitation periods on collection outside bankruptcy when assets are under the authority of a court. For example, section 6503(b) of the Internal Revenue Code [title 26] suspends collection of tax liabilities while the debtor’s assets are in the control or custody of a court, and for 6 months thereafter. By adopting the language of the Senate amendment, the House amendment insures not only that the period for collection of the taxes outside bankruptcy will not expire during the title 11 proceedings, but also that such period will not expire until at least 6 months thereafter, which is the minimum suspension period provided by the Internal Revenue Code [title 26].

senate report no. 95–989

Subsections (a) and (b), derived from Bankruptcy Act section 11 [section 29 of former title 11], permit the trustee, when he steps into the shoes of the debtor, an extension of time for filing an action or doing some other act that is required to preserve the debtor’s rights. Subsection (a) extends any statute of limitation for commencing or continuing an action by the debtor for two years after the date of the order for relief, unless it would expire later. Subsection (b) gives the trustee 60 days to take other actions not covered under subsection (a), such as filing a pleading, demand, notice, or proof of claim or loss (such as an insurance claim), unless the period for doing the relevant act expires later than 60 days after the date of the order for relief.

Subsection (c) extends the statute of limitations for creditors. Thus, if a creditor is stayed from commencing or continuing an action against the debtor because of the bankruptcy case, then the creditor is permitted an additional 30 days after notice of the event by which the stay is terminated, whether that event be relief from the automatic stay under proposed 11 U.S.C. 362 or 1301, the closing of the bankruptcy case (which terminates the stay), or the exception from discharge of the debts on which the creditor claims.

In the case of Federal tax liabilities, the Internal Revenue Code [title 26] suspends the statute of limitations on a tax liability of a taxpayer from running while his assets are in the control or custody of a court and for 6 months thereafter (sec. 6503(b) of the Code [title 26]). The amendment applies this rule in a title 11 proceeding. Accordingly, the statute of limitations on collection of a nondischargeable Federal tax liability of a debtor will resume running after 6 months following the end of the period during which the debtor’s assets are in the control or custody of the bankruptcy court. This rule will provide the Internal Revenue Service adequate time to collect nondischargeable taxes following the end of the title 11 proceedings.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2005—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 109–8 substituted “922, 1201, or” for “922, or”.

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–554, § 257(b)(1), inserted reference to section 1201 of this title.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–554, § 257(b)(2)(A), inserted reference to section 1201 of this title in provisions preceding par. (1).

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 99–554, § 257(b)(2)(B), which directed the amendment of subsec. (c) by inserting “1201,” after “722,” could not be executed because “722,” did not appear in text.

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–353, § 424(b), inserted “nonbankruptcy” after “applicable” and “entered in a” in provisions preceding par. (1).

Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 98–353, § 424(a), substituted “or” for “and” after the semicolon.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–353, § 424(b), inserted “nonbankruptcy” after “applicable” and “entered in a” in provisions preceding par. (1).

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 98–353, § 424(a), substituted “or” for “and” after the semicolon.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98–353, § 424(b), inserted “nonbankruptcy” after “applicable” and “entered in a” in provisions preceding par. (1).

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 98–353, § 424(a), substituted “or” for “and” after the semicolon.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2005 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–8 effective 180 days after Apr. 20, 2005, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before such effective date, except as otherwise provided, see section 1501 of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–554 effective 30 days after Oct. 27, 1986, but not applicable to cases commenced under this title before that date, see section 302(a), (c)(1) of Pub. L. 99–554, set out as a note under section 581 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,462 cases (113 in the last 5 years), 1917–2026 · leading case: Lawrence H. Ramming v. United States of Am., John Thomas Cloud v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lawrence H. Ramming v. United States of Am., John Thomas Cloud v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001). · cites it 4× “Judge Gilmore’s order of December 30, 1999, also rejected Appellant’s argument that Appellant was entitled to a two-year extension of the FTCA limitations period as of the date of his November 26, 1997, bankruptcy filing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 108 (a) of the Bankruptcy Code.”
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Kenneth Crum, 907 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “11 U.S.C. § 108 . Extension of time 11 U.”
Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Grade, 2003 WI App 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 30× “57, and that the two-year extension provided for by 11 U.S.C. § 108 (a) did not apply. [2] Further, the circuit court held that the defendants *397 owed no duty to Beloit Corporation's creditors.”
Tingley v. Harrison, 867 P.2d 960 (Idaho 1994). · cites it 14× “Whether the district court erred in ruling that 11 U.S.C. § 108 (a) extends the statute of limitation to a trustee only and in finding that the trustee failed to timely join this cause of action under 11 U.”
Coy Cox, Jr. v. Specialty Veh. Solutions, 715 F. App'x 443 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 15× “SVS also argued that the one-year statute of limitations had run because Cox did not refile his action within the thirty days allowed by 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) as a grace period after the lifting of the stay.”
In Re Joan Morton, Debtor. Joan Morton v. Nat'l Bank of New York City, 866 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1989). · cites it 9× “We hold that 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) tolls New York’s ten-year period limiting judgment liens on real property until the automatic stay is terminated.”
In re Jimerson, 564 B.R. 430 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2017). · cites it 36× “§ 1322 can be used to permit the redemption amount to be paid over time, or whether 11 U.S.C. § 108 (b) provides the only extension of time associated with redemption, foreclosing modification of the payment obligation under 11 U.”
Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Grade, 2004 WI 39 (Wis. 2004). · cites it 7× “The court of appeals reversed the circuit court, concluding that the officers and directors had a duty to the creditors before Beloit Corporation went out of business. The court of appeals further concluded that Delaware, not Wisconsin, law was applicable to the present case.”
Prod. Credit Ass'n of Minot v. Burk, 427 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 1988). · cites it 20× “Instead, 11 U.S.C. § 108 addresses the running of statutory time periods and provides in pertinent part: "(b) Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, if applicable nonbankruptcy law, an order entered in a nonbankruptcy proceeding, or an agreement fixes a period…”
Baker v. Gold Seal Liquors, Inc., 417 U.S. 467 (1974). · cites it 10× “[1] That is the procedure under § 68 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U. S. C. § 108 . [2] *470 The problem of the bankruptcy Reorganization Court is somewhat different.”
William Canada, Jr. v. USA (IRS), 950 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 6× “§ 7430 was untimely and not tolled by 11 U.S.C. § 108 (a). 5 Case: 18-11398 Document: 00515316589 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/20/2020 No.”
Hermosilla v. Hermosilla (In Re Hermosilla), 450 B.R. 276 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2011). · cites it 15× “In any event, Attorney Baker was on notice as to the existence of 11 U.S.C. § 108 (c) because that case expressly references 11 U.”
Show all 1,462 citing cases →
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(a) — 9 cases
Citizens'nat. Bank of Gastonia, Nc v. Lineberger, 45 F.2d 522 (4th Cir. 1930).
Brandt v. Hicks, Muse & Co. (In Re Healthco Int'l, Inc.), 195 B.R. 971 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1996).
Waldschmidt v. Metals (In Re Ward), 42 B.R. 946 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984).
Sabre Farms, Inc. v. Jordan, 717 P.2d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).
E. Cecil Wiley v. Pub. Investors Life Ins. Co., 498 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 1974).
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(b) — 3 cases
Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Afl-Cio v. Custom Air Sys., Inc., 333 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. 2003).
In Re Henke, 84 B.R. 693 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1988).
Oletta Thorpe (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2019).
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) — 18 cases
Rogers v. Corrosion Prods., Inc., 42 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1995).
Palmer v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In Re Palmer), 228 B.R. 880 (6th Cir. BAP 1999).
Grotting v. Hudson Shipbuilders, Inc., 85 B.R. 568 (W.D. Wash. 1988).
In Re WorldCom, Inc., 362 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Town of Colchester v. Hinesburg Sand & Gravel, Inc. (In Re APC Constr., Inc.), 112 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D. Vt. 1990).
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(1) — 1 case
Michelle Merceri v. Deutsche Bank Ag A/k/a (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— 11 U.S.C. § 108(c)(2) — 1 case
Rapp v. Schmidt (Haw. App. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.