§ 158.6     Postpetition Claims
Cite as:    Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 158.6, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).
[1]

The concept of “provided for” in § 1328(a) reaches its limits of statutory construction in the cases considering the dischargeability of postpetition claims at completion of all payments in a Chapter 13 case.

[2]

As detailed elsewhere,1 § 1305 of the Code recognizes a narrow class of postpetition debts that are allowable as postpetition claims. Section 1322(b)(6) permits but does not require a Chapter 13 plan to provide for the payment of all or part of a postpetition claim allowed under § 1305.2 The holder of a postpetition claim is not required to file proof of its claim.3 A postpetition claim filed under § 1305(a) is allowed or disallowed under § 502 “as if such claim had arisen before the date of the filing of the petition.”4 If the holder elects not to file a proof of claim, the postpetition claim is not allowable and will not be paid through the plan even if the plan provides for the payment of postpetition claims.

[3]

In the simplest case, the debtor exercises the option under § 1322(b)(6) to “provide for” the payment of all or part of a postpetition claim allowed under § 1305, and the holder of the postpetition claim files a proof of claim. Assume that the debt did not require the trustee’s permission for allowance.5 In this situation, the plan provides for postpetition claims, and the postpetition claim is allowed under § 1305. The discharge under § 1328(a) applies to “all debts provided for by the plan or disallowed under section 502.”6 A postpetition claim for which a proof of claim is filed fits the profile to be a dischargeable “debt” for purposes of § 1328.

[4]

This logic is supported by the surrounding structure of § 1328. Section 1328(d) states an exception to discharge for any debt based on “an allowed claim filed under § 1305(a)(2) with respect to which prior approval by the trustee of the debtor’s incurring such debt was practicable and was not obtained.7 There would be no reason for the exception in § 1328(d) if postpetition claims allowed under § 1305 were not otherwise dischargeable under § 1328(a).

[5]

The postpetition claim in this example will be discharged in its entirety—not just the portion paid through the plan—because the concept of providing for in § 1328(a) is not conditioned that a claim be paid in full.8 Applying the definition offered by the Supreme Court in Rake v. Wade,9 the plan that makes a provision for, deals with or refers to postpetition claims allowed under § 1305 provides for such claims for purposes of discharge under § 1328(a).

[6]

A plan that does not deal with or make any mention of the payment of postpetition claims does not provide for such claims, and postpetition claims will not be discharged at the completion of payments under the plan unless the claim holder (foolishly) files a proof of claim that is disallowed under § 502.10

[7]

Hobbs v. Methodist Hospitals of Memphis, Inc. (In re Hobbs)11 illustrates the dischargeability of allowed postpetition claims and reveals a dreadful but avoidable trap for postpetition lenders. The confirmed plan in Hobbs provided 10 percent payment to unsecured claim holders. The debtor incurred postpetition hospital bills. The hospital filed postpetition claims, and the bankruptcy court entered orders allowing the claims as general unsecured claims to be paid consistent with the confirmed plan. The debtor completed payments under the plan and received a discharge. Postdischarge, the hospital sought to collect the rest of its postpetition claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the postpetition medical debts were discharged, because the orders entered by the bankruptcy court “classified and provided for payment of the debts, prior approval of the debts was not practicable and [the hospital] voluntarily filed proofs of claims.”12

[8]

Any postpetition claim holder that files a proof of claim without first checking whether the plan provides for full payment runs the risk suffered by the hospital in Hobbs. The creditor’s protection is simply to refuse to file proof of a postpetition claim unless the plan provides for full payment.13 If the plan is silent with regard to postpetition claims, a postpetition lender in the hospital’s position in Hobbs might negotiate with the debtor for modification of the plan to pay the postpetition debt in full.14

[9]

An odd twist in the discharge of postpetition claims arises when the postpetition claim holder does not have an allowed claim under § 1305. The discharge after completion of payments under § 1328(a) applies only to debts that are “provided for by the plan or disallowed under § 502 of this title.”15 Section 1322(b)(6) permits the debtor to “provide for the payment of all or any part of any claim allowed under section 1305 of this title.”16 By negative implication, a Chapter 13 plan cannot provide for a postpetition claim that is not allowed under § 1305. It is widely held that the holder of a postpetition claim under § 1305 can decline to file a proof of claim and prevent allowance of its claim under § 1305(b).17 If the postpetition claim holder fails or refuses to file a proof of claim, that unfiled postpetition claim is not allowed, is not provided for by the plan and is not discharged under § 1328(a).

[10]

This logic has been accepted by every court that has considered the dischargeability of an unfiled postpetition claim.18 For purposes of discharge, the postpetition claim holder holds all the cards—the Chapter 13 debtor cannot file proof of a postpetition claim,19 and if the claim holder fails or refuses to file its own proof, the postpetition claim will survive discharge. This will be true even if the postpetition claim would not be allowable under § 502 if it was filed: so long as the claim is not filed, it cannot be provided for and is not disallowed under § 502, therefore it is not discharged by § 1328(a).

[11]

Unless the plan provides for full payment of postpetition claims, the holder is best off not to file a proof of claim. If the plan does not provide for full payment, the postpetition claim holder should withhold filing a proof of claim, it will not have an allowed claim and the entire postpetition debt will escape discharge.

[12]

It has been held that the debtor cannot force postpetition creditors to file claims or risk discharge. For example, in In re Sims,20 the debtor moved to modify the confirmed plan to add five postpetition creditors and to give those postpetition creditors 90 days in which to file a proof of claim. The modification would have “disallowed” any claim filed after that time. If filed and allowed, the postpetition creditors would have received 2.66 percent of their claims. The bankruptcy court refused this attempt to “force the postpetition creditors to file a claim and accept . . . 2.66 percent of their claim, or be ‘disallowed’ and receive nothing.”21

[13]

Even if the debtor exercises the power under § 1322(b)(6) to provide for the payment of allowed postpetition claims and even if the postpetition claim holder files proof of its claim, the debt will not be discharged if it is a consumer debt described in § 1305(a)(2) and “prior approval by the trustee of the debtor’s incurring such debt was practicable and was not obtained.”22 This statutory exception to discharge for postpetition consumer debts is mirrored in § 1305(c)—a postpetition consumer debt “shall be disallowed if the holder of such claim knew or should have known that prior approval by the trustee of the debtor’s incurring the obligation was practicable and was not obtained.”23 To be eligible for allowance and discharge, if practicable, a postpetition consumer debt must be blessed by the Chapter 13 trustee before the debtor incurs the debt.24 A postpetition consumer debt is allowable but not dischargeable if the trustee’s approval was practicable but was not obtained and the creditor did not know and should not have known that the trustee’s approval was available. The trustee’s permission is not necessary for allowance or discharge of postpetition taxes described in § 1305(a)(1).

[14]

A postpetition consumer debt described in § 1305(a)(2) is allowable if the claim holder files a proof of claim and if one of three conditions is present: (1) the prior approval of the trustee was obtained; or (2) the claim holder did not know and should not have known of the need for the prior approval of the trustee; or (3) the prior approval of the trustee was not practicable. If the claim is allowed under § 1305, then the claim can be provided for by the plan under § 1322(b)(6). If it is allowed under § 1305 and provided for under § 1322(b)(6), then upon completion of payments under the plan, the claim will be discharged by § 1328(a) unless the prior approval by the trustee of the debtor’s incurring the debt was practicable and was not obtained. In this last circumstance, the postpetition claim holder shares in distributions under the plan, but any unpaid portion is not discharged upon completion of payments.

[15]

If no proof of the postpetition claim is filed, or if none of the three conditions in § 1305(c) is satisfied, then the postpetition claim will not be allowed and will not share in distributions under the plan. However, all is not lost because if the postpetition consumer debt is not allowed but was not disallowed under § 502, then it cannot be discharged by § 1328(a).

[16]

A final twist would be a postpetition claim that is filed by the claim holder and then disallowed for a reason stated in § 502.25 This claim would not be paid and would be discharged upon completion of payments under § 1328(a) but only if the trustee’s prior approval of the debtor’s incurring such debt was either impracticable or was obtained.26 For example, if there is a time within which a postpetition claim holder must file a proof of claim,27 an untimely filed postpetition claim might be disallowed upon objection under § 502(b)(9). Or if the interest rate charged the debtor by the postpetition creditor exceeds the limits of state law, the claim might be disallowed under § 502(b)(1). If incurring the debt was approved by the trustee, the postpetition claim that is filed and then disallowed under § 502 is discharged without payment by § 1328(a) at the completion of payments to other creditors under the plan.

[17]

This is one more incentive for the postpetition claim holder to think carefully before filing a proof of claim. If allowance is at all questionable for any reason under § 502, the postpetition claim holder may be better off not filing a claim, which forfeits payment through the plan but guarantees that the claim will not be discharged.

[18]

It seems curious that Congress gave the Chapter 13 debtor the power to provide for the payment of postpetition claims in the plan and yet gave the debtor no leverage to require participation in distributions or to accomplish discharge. To discharge a postpetition claim, the debtor has to convince the holder to file proof of its claim, and, if it is a consumer debt described in § 1305(a)(2), the debtor must have the permission of the Chapter 13 trustee before incurring the debt. A postpetition claim holder is not likely to file proof of its claim unless the plan proposes to pay the claim in full with any interest or other charges included by contract. The strongest position for the debtor is a provision for full payment of § 1305 claims in the confirmed plan, or by modification under § 1329.28 Then, with the trustee’s consent, and with cooperation by the claim holder to file a proof of claim, the debtor can pay the postpetition claim in full through the plan. Discharge by full payment is usually better for everyone than no discharge at all.

[19]

The power of a postpetition claim holder to control allowance and discharge by filing or not filing a proof of claim is powerful incentive for creditors that miss the deadline for timely filing of (prepetition) claims to seek to characterize their debts as postpetition claims. This issue appears again and again in reported decisions involving tax claims. A taxing authority with a prepetition debt typically is a priority claim holder that must be paid in full (without interest) through the plan.29 But if the prepetition priority tax claim holder fails to timely file a proof of claim, the debt will be discharged without payment at the completion of payments to other creditors through the plan.30 Priority claim holders in this predicament have tried without much success to recharacterize the debt as a postpetition claim under § 1305.31

[20]

For discharge purposes, debtors sometimes have incentives to characterize § 1305 postpetition claims as administrative expenses. Discussed elsewhere,32 there is much potential overlap between postpetition claims under § 1305 and administrative expenses described in § 503(b). As demonstrated above in this section, a postpetition claim under § 1305 for which no proof of claim is filed typically escapes discharge at the completion of payments in a Chapter 13 case. However, the same cannot be said for an administrative expense under § 503(b) for which no timely “request” for payment is filed during the Chapter 13 case. If administrative expenses are provided for by the plan,33 and no request for payment is filed during the Chapter 13 case, there is no exception in § 1328 to the discharge of administrative expenses. Especially with respect to postpetition taxes, debtors have tried, but without much success, to convince bankruptcy courts that unpaid postpetition taxes are dischargeable administrative expenses when the taxing authority does not file a timely request for payment during the case.34


 

1  See § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

2  See § 204.1 [ Providing for Postpetition Claims ] § 113.6  Providing for Postpetition Claims.

 

3  See § 281.1 [ Postpetition Claims ] § 132.9  Postpetition Claims.

 

4  11 U.S.C. § 1305(b). See § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

5  See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1305(c) and 1328(d), discussed below in this section and in § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

6  11 U.S.C. § 1328(a).

 

7  See below in this section, and see § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

8  See § 349.1 [ Claims Not Provided for by the Plan or Disallowed under § 502 ] § 158.5  Claims Not Provided for by the Plan or Disallowed under § 502.

 

9  508 U.S. 464, 113 S. Ct. 2187, 124 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1993), discussed in §§ 234.1 [ Failure to Provide For ] § 121.3  Failure to Provide For and 349.1 [ Claims Not Provided for by the Plan or Disallowed under § 502 ] § 158.5  Claims Not Provided for by the Plan or Disallowed under § 502.

 

10  See Telfair v. First Union Mortgage Corp. (In re Telfair), 224 B.R. 243, 248–49 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1998) (Postconfirmation attorneys’ fees incurred by mortgage company in seeking relief from the stay and expenses for “force writing” insurance on the debtors’ property were postpetition debts that were not provided for under the debtors’ plan and thus were not discharged by the completion of payments; mortgage company did not violate automatic stay or discharge injunction by applying regular monthly payments during the plan first to the reimbursement of fees and expenses notwithstanding that the result was that the debtor was in default of the mortgage immediately upon entry of discharge. “[P]ostconfirmation attorney’s fees, was not a debt provided for under the debtor’s plan nor [dis]allowed under § 502. . . . The debtor’s plan does not provide for postpetition debt due First Union other than the regular monthly payments and the discharge does not affect the debt due First Union pursuant to § 1322(b)(5). As the discharge does not affect the debt due First Union, the discharge injunction of § 524 has no application.”), aff’d, 216 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); In re Smith, 192 B.R. 712 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1996) (Confirmed plan that is silent with respect to the treatment of postpetition claims does not “provide for” such claims; amending the schedules and statements to add nine postpetition creditors after confirmation will not accomplish discharge. The added creditors do not appear to be allowable under § 1305 nor has any holder of a postpetition claim filed a proof of claim. Postpetition claims will not be discharged upon completion of payments to other creditors.); In re DeBerry, 183 B.R. 716, 717–18 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 1995) (“The plan as confirmed in this case does not contain any provisions dealing with or providing any treatment for postpetition claims which might be allowed under Section 1305 of the Bankruptcy Code as permitted by Section 1322(b)(6). Since the plan does not deal with or make any provisions for postpetition claims, including the postpetition claim filed by the IRS, the debtors’ plan does not ‘provide for’ the IRS claim within the meaning of Section 1328 which provides a discharge to the debtor with respect to claims provided for by the plan. . . . Since the plan in this case does not provide for the postpetition IRS claim and cannot be modified to do so, the IRS claim will not be discharged by any discharge for the debtors in this Chapter 13 case.”).

 

11  No. 98-6050, 1999 WL 1252861 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 1999) (Table decision at 201 F.3d 440).

 

12  1999 WL 1252861, at *1.

 

13  See below in this section.

 

14  See § 261.1 [ To Provide for Postpetition Claims ] § 127.4  To Provide for Postpetition Claims.

 

15  11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) (emphasis added). See § 157.1  Broadest Discharge Available, § 157.2  BAPCPA Shrank the Discharge and § 157.3  Completion of Payments after BAPCPA.

 

16  11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(6) (emphasis added). See § 204.1 [ Providing for Postpetition Claims ] § 113.6  Providing for Postpetition Claims.

 

17  See § 132.9  Postpetition Claims, § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

18  See In re Sims, 288 B.R. 264, 267–69 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2003) (“Section 1322(b)(6) permits a debtor to provide for allowed claims. . . . [A]llowed claims may be provided for and therefore ultimately discharged on the completion of the plan. Conversely, claims which are not allowed are not provided for by the plan and will not be discharged at completion. . . . [T]hey may elect not to file a claim under Section 1305, waive participation in the instant plan, and seek to recover against the debtor after the Chapter 13 case is closed.”); In re Parffrey, 264 B.R. 409 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2001) (Postpetition claim for federal income taxes is not dischargeable because IRS did not file a § 1305 claim and the confirmed plan made no provision for postpetition debts.); In re Wilkoff, No. 98-34354DWS, 2001 WL 91624, at *8 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2001) (unpublished) (Claim for income taxes for 1998 is a § 1305 postpetition claim in a Chapter 13 case filed in November of 1998, and the debt is not dischargeable at the completion of payments because the IRS did not file a proof of claim. The postpetition taxes are not allowable and cannot be provided for by the plan. “[W]hen a holder chooses not to file a claim under § 1305(a), the claim is not discharged.”); In re Epstein, 200 B.R. 611, 613–14 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1996) (Taxes for 1989 are postpetition claims in a Chapter 13 case filed on September 6, 1989. That the IRS declined to file a proof of its postpetition claim is fatal to debtors’ argument that such taxes were discharged. That debtors amended the plan after confirmation to add the IRS as a creditor does not accomplish discharge. “[T]he Debtors’ 1989 income tax year ended on December 31, 1989, and . . . income taxes for 1989 were payable by April 15, 1990. Accordingly, the 1989 income tax liability is a postpetition debt. . . . [T]he discharge of a postpetition debt depends on satisfying two requirements. First, that the postpetition debt is an allowed claim under § 1305, and second, if it is allowed, that the Chapter 13 plan provide for the claim. . . . Section 1305(a) grants the postpetition creditor exclusive control regarding whether or not to file a proof of claim for a postpetition debt. The debtor may not force a postpetition creditor to file a § 1305(a) claim nor may the Debtor file such a claim on behalf of a postpetition creditor. . . . [A]n amendment of a debtor’s schedules does not operate to avoid the requirements of § 1305. . . . [T]he IRS did not file a proof of claim for the 1989 income tax . . . . [I]t was not discharged.”); In re Smith, 192 B.R. 712 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1996) (Amending the schedules and statements to add nine postpetition creditors after confirmation will not accomplish discharge. The added creditors do not appear to be allowable under § 1305, nor has any holder of a postpetition claim filed a proof of claim. Postpetition claims will not be discharged upon completion of payments to other creditors.); Matravers v. United States (In re Matravers), 149 B.R. 204, 206 (Bankr. D. Utah 1993) (In a Chapter 13 case filed on December 3, 1984, tax liability for 1984 is a postpetition claim that is not allowable and is not subject to discharge unless the IRS voluntarily files a proof of claim. “Since the IRS has failed to file a postpetition claim, under § 1305(a)(1), on the 1984 Personal Liability the IRS must wait until the case is closed to collect the sums due.”); In re Sorge, 149 B.R. 197, 203 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1993) (In a Chapter 11 case filed in 1985 and converted to Chapter 13 in 1989, tax claims for 1985 and after are postpetition claims that are not dischargeable at completion of payments because the IRS did not file a proof of claim. “[Section] 1322(b)(6) permits provision in a Chapter 13 plan only for those postpetition claims allowed under § 1305. Since a claim may not be allowed under § 502 unless a proof of the claim has been filed, a § 1305 claim as to which no claim has been filed may not be allowed and, under § 1322(b)(6), may not be provided for by the Chapter 13 plan or, under § 1328(a), discharged at the completion of payments under the plan.”); In re Trentham, 145 B.R. 564 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1992) (To accomplish allowance, payment and discharge of postpetition consumer debt, the creditor must voluntarily file a proof of claim.); In re Goodman, 136 B.R. 167 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1992) (Although postpetition medical services are postpetition claims within the contemplation of § 1305(a), “postpetition creditors who choose not to file a proof of claim cannot hold an ‘allowed’ postpetition claim and thus may not be ‘provided for’ by the debtors’ confirmed plan under § 1322(b)(6). . . . Postpetition creditors can decline to participate in the previously confirmed Chapter 13 plan by not filing a proof of claim, and the debtor cannot force or cram down such a creditor’s participation through post-confirmation modification. . . . Only postpetition debts which are allowed after the consensual filing by the creditor of a proof of claim are subject to possible discharge in the Chapter 13.”); In re Dunn, 83 B.R. 694 (Bankr. D. Neb. 1988) (Following In re Pritchett, 55 B.R. 557 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1985), postpetition claim is not provided for by the plan under § 1322(b)(6) and is not discharged under § 1328 when the debtor amends the schedules after completion of payments under the plan to add debts that accrued after the petition and the postpetition claim holder has not filed a proof of claim.); In re Ryan, 78 B.R. 175 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1987) (Tax claims for the year in which the Chapter 13 petition was filed and subsequent years are not discharged because § 1305(a)(1) gave the IRS the choice of collecting under the plan or directly from the debtors after completion of payments under the plan. The IRS did not file a proof of claim for postpetition taxes, and thus the postpetition taxes are not discharged.); In re Roseboro, 77 B.R. 38 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 1987) (Chapter 13 plan does not provide for a postpetition claim under § 1305(a)(2) unless the holder files a proof of claim. If holder declines to file a proof of claim, postpetition claim is not allowed, is not provided for and is not discharged. Even if a postpetition claim holder under § 1305(a)(2) files a proof of claim and is provided for by the plan, the claim is not discharged if the debtor’s obtaining prior approval for incurring the debt was practicable and was not accomplished.); In re Rothman, 76 B.R. 38 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1987) (Chapter 13 debtor has option to include provision in plan for payment of postpetition taxes in the event that postpetition claims for taxes are filed. When debtor fails to exercise that option, postpetition taxes for which no proofs of claim have been filed are neither provided for by the plan nor disallowed under § 502 and thus are not discharged under § 1328(a) and can be collected from the debtor after entry of discharge without violating the discharge injunction.); Hester v. Powell, 63 B.R. 607 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1986) (“Provided for” in § 1328(a) is double-talk in the context of postpetition claims. A claim is “provided for” if the plan provides for payment in some manner. Section 1322(b)(6) permits the debtor to provide for the payment of allowed postpetition claims. Allowance depends on whether the creditor files a proof of claim. When a postpetition tax claim holder declines to file a proof of claim, notwithstanding that the plan provides for full payment, the claim is not dischargeable.); In re Pritchett, 55 B.R. 557 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1985) (Even when the postpetition creditor files a proof of claim, if the debtor’s plan does not “provide for” the claim, then the claim is not discharged by § 1328(a). When a postpetition proof of claim is filed after completion of all payments under the plan, the postpetition claim is not “provided for” and is not discharged.).

 

19  See § 132.9  Postpetition Claims, § 134.1  Timing, Form, Superseding and Amended Claims before 2005 and § 134.2  Filing of Claims by Debtor or Trustee after 2005 Amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 3004.

 

20  288 B.R. 264 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2003).

 

21  288 B.R. at 268.

 

22  11 U.S.C. § 1328(d).

 

23  11 U.S.C. § 1305(c) (emphasis added). See § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

24  See § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

25  Section 1305(b) provides that a postpetition claim filed under § 1305(a) “shall be allowed or disallowed under section 502 of this title . . . the same as if such claim had arisen before the date of the filing of the petition.” See § 132.9  Postpetition Claims, § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

26  This would be true because § 1328(a) discharges debts “provided for by the plan or disallowed under section 502 of this title.” See § 157.1  Broadest Discharge Available, § 157.2  BAPCPA Shrank the Discharge and § 157.3  Completion of Payments after BAPCPA.

 

27  See § 281.1 [ Postpetition Claims ] § 132.9  Postpetition Claims.

 

28  See §§ 204.1 [ Providing for Postpetition Claims ] § 113.6  Providing for Postpetition Claims and 261.1 [ To Provide for Postpetition Claims ] § 127.4  To Provide for Postpetition Claims.

 

29  See § 73.1  Plan Must Provide Full Payment, § 73.2  What Claims Are Priority Claims?, § 136.1  Treatment of Priority Claims, § 136.2  Taxes before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

30  See § 135.5  Failure to File Proof of Claim, § 135.7  Untimely Filed Claims in Cases Filed after October 22, 1994, § 136.2  Taxes before BAPCPA, § 157.1  Broadest Discharge Available, § 157.2  BAPCPA Shrank the Discharge and § 157.3  Completion of Payments after BAPCPA.

 

31  See § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA. See, e.g., Dixon v. United States (In re Dixon), 209 B.R. 535 (Bankr. W.D. Okla.) (Taxes for 1992 are prepetition debt in a Chapter 13 case filed on April 9, 1993. IRS’s failure to file a proof of claim results in discharge of 1992 taxes without payment at the completion of payments to other creditors.), on reconsideration, 210 B.R. 610, 612–15 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1997) (Distinguishing in part and rejecting in part In re Matravers, 149 B.R. 204 (Bankr. D. Utah 1993), “[t]his court does not believe that whether a claim is prepetition or postpetition should be determined by or with reference to the language of § 1305. . . . [Section] 1305 . . .  was not intended to have applicability to prepetition claims, such as the claim of IRS in question here. IRS would have the court . . . expand the title and reach of the section by adding ‘or prepetition claims which become due and payable postpetition.’ . . . This court therefore holds that the liability of debtors in this case became payable, for purposes of § 1305(a)(1) immediately upon the close of the calendar year 1992, before the commencement of this case. Thus, the prepetition tax liability of debtors for that year could not have been the subject of a proof of claim by IRS under § 1305(a)(1), and the failure of the IRS to file a proof of claim under § 501(a) or to have one filed on its behalf under § 501(b) or (c) resulted in the personal liability of debtors for those taxes being discharged upon completion of payments under their confirmed Chapter 13 plan. . . . Section 1305 was enacted in order to permit, but not compel, taxing authorities and certain consumer creditors whose claims arise during the pendency of the Chapter 13 case to participate in the case, rather than waiting until the completion of the case to seek payment.”), aff’d, 218 B.R. 150, 152–53 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 1998) (1992 taxes are a prepetition priority claim in a Chapter 13 case filed on April 9, 1993, and cannot also be postpetition claims under § 1305(a)(1). “In sum, the IRS’s argument here is that the Debtors’ 1992 taxes are a prepetition claim that it could have forced the Debtors to pay in full through their chapter 13 plan by choosing to file a proof of claim, but that § 1305(a)(1) allowed it to choose again either: (1) to wait until the Debtors’ tax return came due and force them to pay the claim in full by filing a proof of claim at that time; or (2) to wait even longer, until the Debtors’ bankruptcy case was closed, and try to collect the claim from them then. We find this to be a strange system for Congress to have intended to establish. . . . [W]e are convinced § 1305 itself contains clues that demonstrate Congress did not intend to include prepetition claims within the statute’s reach. . . . [S]ubsection (b) indicates that claims under subsection (a) are postpetition claims . . . . The title of § 1305 . . . indicates only postpetition claims were intended to be covered . . . . We conclude the IRS’s claim for 1992 taxes is not covered by § 1305(a)(1).”).

 

32  See § 132.9  Postpetition Claims, § 136.14  Miscellaneous Administrative Expenses and Priority Claims before BAPCPA, § 136.15  Miscellaneous Administrative Expenses and Priority Claims after BAPCPA, § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA.

 

33  See § 349.1 [ Claims Not Provided for by the Plan or Disallowed under § 502 ] § 158.5  Claims Not Provided for by the Plan or Disallowed under § 502.

 

34  See § 136.2  Taxes before BAPCPA§ 136.3  Taxes after BAPCPA, § 137.1  Postpetition Claims before BAPCPA and § 137.2  Postpetition Claims after BAPCPA. See also In re Guevara, 258 B.R. 59 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2001) (Bankruptcy court rejects debtors’ argument that postconfirmation increases in taxes and insurance are dischargeable administrative expenses because the mortgage holder did not make a request for payment prior to completion of payments under the plan. Plan that cured arrearages and made regular monthly payments to the mortgage holder did not provide for increases in taxes and insurance, and thus increases in taxes and insurance that were paid by the mortgage holder during the plan were not discharged at the completion of payments.).