Menu
Tax Notes logo

Can Bankruptcy Trustee Be Held Liable for Trust Fund Recovery Penalty of Responsible Officer?

Posted on Apr. 19, 2022

In In re Big Apple Energy, LLC, No. 8-18-75807 (Bankr. EDNY 2022), the owner of a business that failed to pay the taxes withheld from employees over to the IRS sought an order that the bankruptcy trustee was personally liable for the interest and penalties arising from the failure.  In rejecting this claim, the bankruptcy court found that the trustee could not be held liable for unpaid taxes for which no claim was filed against the estate.  The holding does not mean that a bankruptcy trustee could never have liability for the failure to pay trust fund taxes, but the court does not hold the trustee liable for taxes that arose before he came on the scene and where he fully paid the claim filed by the government entities.

The debtor initially filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in 2018 but, as often happens, the case was converted to a chapter 7 later that year, at which time a trustee was appointed. While operating as a chapter 11 the debtor failed to pay over the taxes withheld from its employees. This failure would have served as an unmistakable statement that the debtor needed to convert to a liquidation. When the bankruptcy court became aware of the failure, it ordered the owner to segregate money to pay the taxes and hold it in a special account. When the conversion occurred, the owner turned the segregated account over to the trustee. The IRS filed claims against the estate for the withheld taxes, as did the state. Time marched on between the time the taxes were due and when they were ultimately paid. This caused the accrual of interest and penalties due to the late payment.

In subsequent litigation between the estate and the owner, the parties entered a stipulation identifying the segregated funds and authorized the trustee to pay the IRS and state claims for the unpaid withholding taxes. Unfortunately, the amount turned over to the trustee in the segregated funds covered only the unpaid tax and not the penalties which accumulated rapidly on the liability. In a subsequent hearing the owner sought an order that the trustee pay the interest and penalties as well. The trustee countered that neither the IRS nor the state had amended their claims to add on these amounts. So, the trustee requested an order allowing him to pay the tax claims as filed. The court granted this request.

Meanwhile, the IRS ramped up collection on the penalties against the owner while still not amending its claim. The owner sought reconsideration of the distribution order, arguing:

that the Distribution Motion neglected to mention that the Trustee failed to timely pay the IRS Claims after Ferreira turned over the Segregated Funds. The Trustee’s inaction, Ferreira alleges, resulted in over $54,000 in penalties and interest being “assessed against the Big Apple Estate.” Ferreira argues that because the December 16 Order states the IRS and NYS Claims will be paid “in full and final satisfaction,” the Trustee signaled his intention to also pay the accrued IRS penalties and interest. This language, Ferreira submits, requires the Trustee to pay all interest and penalties that have been and may be assessed on the IRS Claims and NYS Claim. Therefore, Ferreira urges the Court to reconsider the December 16 Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and amend the December 16 Order to require the Trustee to also pay the penalties and interest that have been asserted by the IRS against Ferreira personally, and any that may be asserted in the future against Ferreira by the IRS and NYS for unpaid withholding taxes.

The trustee responded to this argument by pointing out that the order defined claims by referring to the specific claims filed against the estate. He paid those claims after receiving the court’s permission. The trustee further argued that the penalties and interest assessed personally against the owner differ, even though they have the same root cause, from the claims against the estate. The trustee’s obligation is to pay debts of the estate and not collateral debts of the former owner of the company in bankruptcy. The trustee also argued that the debts resulted from the owner’s failure to pay the taxes while operating the company during the chapter 11 phase of the bankruptcy and that it was the obligation of the owner to pay those taxes as they became due.

The owner replied to the trustee’s response by citing to drafts of the stipulation agreement under which he turned over the money designated for the payment of the taxes. These drafts were exchanged during a mediation process. The bankruptcy court found that it could not look at the drafts created during the mediation process because of Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which governs statements made during settlement and mediation discussions. The bankruptcy court deemed these drafts inadmissible because of Rule 408 and also noted that the owner did not submit them during the process leading up to the distribution order. In denying the motion for reconsideration, the court stated:

The Court agrees that the Trustee is neither obligated nor authorized to pay the personal penalties imposed on Ferreira from outstanding tax obligations when there are no claims filed against Debtors for such amounts. The Trustee is neither obligated nor authorized to pay claims that are not filed against Debtors’ estates. See generally 11 U.S.C. §§ 704(a)(2); 704(a)(5). Therefore, the Court does not find that there was “mistake” warranting Ferreira relief from the December 16 Order under Rule 60(b)(1).

This leaves the former owner of the business, Mr. Ferreira, holding the bag personally for a fair amount of penalty and interest resulting from the late payment of the taxes withheld from the employees. Ultimately, the penalties and interest did stem from Mr. Ferreira’s failure to timely pay over the taxes as he was obligated to do as the person who controlled the company during the chapter 11 phase of the bankruptcy case when it operated as a debtor in possession. The case demonstrates a danger to someone operating as a debtor in possession who does not keep current with the taxes because once the case is converted to a chapter 7 the finances of the company are no longer in their control which can result in significant delays in payment in addition to payment of an amount less than the former owner needed paid in order to avoid personal liability. So, Mr. Ferreira not only has lost everything he invested in the business but comes out of the business bankruptcy with his own personal liability to the taxing authorities.

The court did not lay out when Mr. Ferreira was assessed the trust fund recovery penalty. Persons hit with this penalty do receive a break on interest because it does not start running until the assessment against them. Similarly, the penalties referred to, I believe, are penalties for failure to pay the trust fund liability which would also have run from the date of assessment. The opinion does not contain enough detail for me to tell if the IRS claim included penalties and interest to a specific date. Creditors generally lose the ability to claim interest for prepetition debts in a bankruptcy case though they have the ability to claim interest in postpetition debts such as this. I don’t know if the IRS did claim some postpetition interest or if its claim merely included the unpaid tax.

The case highlights the importance of control.  Mr. Ferreira had control during the chapter 11 and lost it as the case converted to chapter 7.  His decision not to have the company pay the taxes while he had control ultimately leads to him being left holding the bag.  A potentially important lesson for others taking a troubled entity into chapter 11 bankruptcy and making decisions about who to pay and when to shut down.

Copy RID