U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART III— COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES › Chapter CHAPTER 57— GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

28 U.S.C. § 960

Tax liability

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Any officers and agents conducting any business under authority of a United States court shall be subject to all Federal, State and local taxes applicable to such business to the same extent as if it were conducted by an individual or corporation.(b) A tax under subsection (a) shall be paid on or before the due date of the tax under applicable nonbankruptcy law, unless—(1) the tax is a property tax secured by a lien against property that is abandoned under section 554 of title 11, within a reasonable period of time after the lien attaches, by the trustee in a case under title 11; or(2) payment of the tax is excused under a specific provision of title 11.(c) In a case pending under chapter 7 of title 11, payment of a tax may be deferred until final distribution is made under section 726 of title 11, if—(1) the tax was not incurred by a trustee duly appointed or elected under chapter 7 of title 11; or(2) before the due date of the tax, an order of the court makes a finding of probable insufficiency of funds of the estate to pay in full the administrative expenses allowed under section 503(b) of title 11 that have the same priority in distribution under section 726(b) of title 11 as the priority of that tax.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 927; Pub. L. 109–8, title VII, § 712(a), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 127.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 124a (June 18, 1934, ch. 585, 48 Stat. 993).

A proviso in section 124a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to taxes accruing prior to the effective date of the 1934 act, was omitted as obsolete.

References in section 124a of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., to specific officers was omitted as covered by the words “Any officers.”

Word “Federal” was added before “State” in recognition of the liability of such officers for Federal taxes under the revenue laws.

Changes in phraseology were made.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2005—Pub. L. 109–8 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

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 Title 11, Bankruptcy, 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 Title 11.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1950–2026 · leading case: Nicholas v. United States, 384 U.S. 678 (1966).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nicholas v. United States, 384 U.S. 678 (1966). · cites it 14× “The result here is in no way inconsistent with the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 960 , which states that persons conducting a business under the authority of a federal court shall be taxed as if they were conducting a private business.”
California State Bd. of Equalization v. Sierra Summit, Inc., 490 U.S. 844 (1989). · cites it 4× “[6] The Goggin courts also based their proscription of state sales and use taxes on an implied prohibition that they found *851 in 28 U. S. C. § 960 . [7] The Goggin II court read § 960 as setting forth "the sole area where the state is permitted to impose a tax of any type" and…”
Bezanso v. State, Bureau of Taxation (In Re Warmings A.G. Food Ctr.), 50 B.R. 748 (D. Me. 1985). · cites it 11× “The initial question presented is whether the sales tax here imposed falls within the reach of 28 U.S.C. § 960 , which provides: Any officers and agents conducting any business under authority of a United States court shall be subject to all Federal, State and local taxes…”
In Re Supergrate Open Steel Flooring Co., 1 B.R. 660 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1979). · cites it 7× “Also, 28 U.S.C. § 960 provides that “Any officers and agents conducting any business under authority of a United States court shall be subject to all Federal, State, and local taxes applicable to such business to the same extent as if it were conducted by an individual or…”
United States v. Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn (In Re Unitcast, Inc.), 219 B.R. 741 (6th Cir. BAP 1998). · cites it 3× “§ 124a, predecessor to 28 U.S.C. § 960 : Any receiver, liquidator, referee, trustee, or other officers or agents appointed by any United States court who is authorized by said court to conduct any business, or who does conduct any business, shall, .”
In Re Samoset Assocs., 14 B.R. 408 (Bankr. D. Me. 1981). · cites it 5× “1956) [ 28 U.S.C. § 960 ]; In re Owl Drug, 21 F.Supp.”
LTV Steel Co. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Cleveland City Sch. Dist. (In Re Chateaugay Corp., Reomar, Inc.), 93 B.R. 26 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 959 (a) as a debtor in possession which has failed to pay its local taxes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 960 . Section 959(a) provides that “Trustees .”
In Re Statmaster Corp., 332 F. Supp. 1248 (S.D. Fla. 1971). · cites it 7× “The district judge concluded that § 6012(b) (3) did not change the result, basing his conclusion partially upon the fact the Congress had not undertaken to change the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 960 which then (and still) provides: “Any officers and agents conducting any business…”
California State Bd. of Equalization v. George T. Goggin, Tr. of the Est. of Columbia Stamping & Mfg. Corp., Bankrupt, 245 F.2d 44 (9th Cir. 1957). · cites it 4× “” 28 U.S.C.A. § 960 . The Trustee in this case has paid sales or use taxes to the state during the period in which he operated the business of the Columbia Stamping and Manufacturing Corporation for seven years under this statute.”
In Re Bh S & B Holdings LLC, 435 B.R. 153 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010). · cites it 3× “” This is because 28 U.S.C. § 960 (b) requires debtors to pay most taxes on or before when they are due under nonbankruptcy law while the bankruptcy case is pending.”
New Jersey v. Reading Co., 101 S. Ct. 1997 (1981). · cites it 2× “Title 28 U.S.C. § 960 provides: “Any officers and agents conducting any business under authority of a United States Court shall be subject to all Federal, State and Local taxes applicable to such business to the same extent as if it were conducted by an individual or corporation.”
Ernst v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue (In Re Hubs Repair Shop, Inc.), 28 B.R. 858 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1983). · cites it 4× “The first issue presented is the reach of 28 U.S.C. § 960 , which subjects federal officers acting under authority of a United States Court to applicable state and local taxes.”
Show all 88 citing cases →
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.