11 U.S.C. § 523

Section 523(a)(4) requires a fiduciary duty that predates the act creating the debt; fiduciary status arising from unpaid employer contributions does not satisfy that requirement.

I.U.P.A.T. DISTRICT COUNCIL57 COMBINED FUNDS v. Barlow · filed 2021-04-06(a)(4)

In this particular instance, the Court recognizes that while the Debtors may have been fiduciaries under ERISA in connection with the unpaid contributions, they were not acting in a fiduciary capacity within the meaning of Section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires a fiduciary relationship that existed before the act creating the debt; fiduciary status arising from unpaid employer contributions does not suffice.

I.U.P.A.T. District Council No. 57 Combined Funds v. Roetter · filed 2021-04-06(a)(4)

In this particular instance, the Court recognizes that while the Debtors may have been fiduciaries under ERISA in connection with the unpaid contributions, they were not acting in a fiduciary capacity within the meaning of Section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust; the general fiduciary duty created by a power of attorney alone is insufficient.

Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc. v. Georges · filed 2021-06-22(a)(4)

Such implicit duty lacks the specificity to create the elevated level of duty required to invoke a § 523(a)(4) claim.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a debt from discharge based solely on default under a note and guaranty.

ReadyCap Lending, LLC v. Lalwani · filed 2021-08-03(a)(4)

An alleged default under the Note and guaranty cannot form the basis of a claim under section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat an LLC manager as acting in a fiduciary capacity based on the manager’s relationship with a member alone.

Cinq Music Group, LLC v. Kabara · filed 2021-09-02(a)(4)

Therefore, Kabara was not acting in a fiduciary capacity as required under § 523(a)(4) as manager of FTR with Cinq as a member based on that relationship alone.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust to establish the fiduciary relationship needed for this exception to discharge.

NSB Horatio LLC v. Maniscalco · filed 2021-09-24(a)(4)

The existence of a fiduciary relationship is a threshold matter and without such a relationship, a section 523(a)(4) claim cannot succeed.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a technical trust for an attorney to act in a fiduciary capacity; managing a client’s cause of action alone does not establish one.

Richardson v. Douglass · filed 2021-11-01(a)(4)

Though the management of a cause of action might burden an attorney with significant and solemn duties to their client, it does not create the sort of technical trust necessary to place a debtor in a “fiduciary capacity” under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for a fiduciary defalcation claim; an officer’s duty to an insolvent corporation’s creditors does not create that trust for an individual creditor’s direct claim.

Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. Veale · filed 2021-11-30(a)(4)

However, the fiduciary duty owed to creditors when a corporation is insolvent cannot support a claim under § 523(a)(4) because it does not create an express or technical trust relationship for the benefit of a particular creditor’s direct claims.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for a fiduciary debt to be nondischargeable; an insolvent corporation’s duty to creditors does not suffice.

Michelle A. Veale · filed 2021-11-30(a)(4)

However, the fiduciary duty owed to creditors when a corporation is insolvent cannot support a claim under § 523(a)(4) because it does not create an express or technical trust relationship for the benefit of a particular creditor’s direct claims.

Section 523(a)(4)’s fiduciary-capacity requirement is satisfied for Tennessee partners because state law creates an express trust over partnership profits.

Long v. Lester Dan Piercy, Jr. · filed 2021-12-29(a)(4)

TRUPA thus creates an express trust (and not a constructive or resulting trust) on the partnership’s profits, with each partner obligated to act as a trustee for the other partners, as soon as those profits are realized and without regard to whether they were wrongfully withheld.

Section 523(a)(4) requires fraud or defalcation to occur in a fiduciary capacity, but embezzlement or larceny may support an exception to discharge without a fiduciary relationship.

Chowdary v. Ozcelebi · filed 2021-12-29(a)(4)

Fraud, standing alone, is not a basis to except discharge of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). To satisfy § 523(a)(4), fraud or defalcation must have been committed while the perpetrator was “acting in a fiduciary capacity.” However, the § 523(a)(4) exception to discharge may still apply outside of a fiduciary relationship when Defendant’s actions constitute “embezzlement” or “larceny.”

Section 523(a)(4) covers fraud or defalcation by an investment adviser entrusted with a client’s funds when the fiduciary relationship existed before the debt arose.

Berry v. Pentecost, Jr. · filed 2021-12-30(a)(4)

The Court concludes that the fiduciary relationship between Mr. Pentecost, as a trustee-type fiduciary, and Ms. Berry, as the intended beneficiary of Mr. Pentecost’s management of her Schwab Account, is within the scope of § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat an ordinary commercial relationship as a fiduciary relationship for fraud or defalcation.

Wood v. Hortman, II · filed 2022-01-27(a)(4)

The Plaintiffs’ claim arises solely out of the Agreement, and upon careful reading of the Agreement, as well as the testimony presented to the Court, the Court finds it clear that no such fiduciary relationship arose out of the ordinary commercial relationship created by the Agreement. As such, the Plaintiffs’ § 523(a)(4) claim fails the first available prong, for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, prior to even addressing any allegations of fraud or defalcation.

Section 523(a)(4) can treat a corporate officer’s duties under Arkansas law as a fiduciary capacity, making a debt from fraud in that capacity nondischargeable.

Jewell v. Lewis · filed 2022-02-04(a)(4)

The application of federal law in light of the Arkansas statute as applied and as interpreted by courts in Arkansas creates a “fiduciary capacity” relationship within the meaning of section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust to establish fiduciary capacity; an implied or constructive trust is insufficient.

KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. Pfender · filed 2022-03-08(a)(4)

For purposes of §523(a)(4), a fiduciary relationship requires an express or technical trust, and implied and constructive trusts are insufficient to create a fiduciary relationship.

Section 523(a)(4) requires intentional deceit for fiduciary fraud; transfers the creditor authorized or ratified do not satisfy that requirement.

The Truth Tellers, LLC v. Levine · filed 2022-03-31(a)(4)

Because the Court finds that Ms. Meador was aware of the Disputed Transfers and authorized them, either expressly or by ratifying them after the fact, the Court likewise holds that the Disputed Transfers were not fraudulent.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust created by statute or contract for a debt to be nondischargeable on the basis of defalcation in a fiduciary capacity.

Bach v. Cabot · filed 2022-08-03(a)(4)

For liability under § 523(a)(4), a federal court must first find that a statute or contract imposed an express or technical trust that in turn created a fiduciary relationship.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except debts incurred by a produce buyer acting as a PACA trustee from discharge because a PACA trust lacks sufficient duties to qualify as a technical trust.

Spring Valley Produce, Inc. v. Forrest · filed 2022-08-31(a)(4)

We hold that debts incurred by a produce buyer acting as a PACA trustee are not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for fraud or defalcation by a fiduciary; a contract alone is insufficient.

Flowers v. BENZ · filed 2022-10-20(a)(4)

A contract, without more, is insufficient to indicate a fiduciary relationship for the purposes of § 523(a)(4).

A contractual relationship alone does not create the fiduciary capacity required to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

Marko v. Natrachvili · filed 2022-12-16(a)(4)

Rather, Mr. Marko’s testimony at trial establishes that the parties had a contractual relationship. This does not create the “fiduciary capacity” required for purposes of a nondischargeability claim under § 523(a)(4).

For a fiduciary defalcation claim under Section 523(a)(4), the creditor must prove an express or technical trust and the debtor’s status as trustee.

Souch v. Princo · filed 2023-02-27(a)(4)

As to Section 523(a)(4), Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof as to the existence of an express or technical trust, Defendant’s status as the trustee of the trust, and thus, the existence of a fiduciary duty.

Section 523(a)(4) uses federal bankruptcy law to determine whether a debtor acted in a fiduciary capacity for purposes of nondischargeability.

The Truth Tellers, LLC v. Levine · filed 2023-03-20(a)(4)

Instead, federal bankruptcy law determines whether a debtor was acting as a fiduciary in any fact situation for purposes of finding a debt to be nondischargeable for breach of fiduciary duty.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for a debt arising from fiduciary fraud or defalcation to be excepted from discharge; a general fiduciary relationship is insufficient.

Myers Operations, Inc. v. Noles · filed 2023-03-24(a)(4)

This exception to discharge is a narrow one and, in the Tenth Circuit, an express or technical trust is required for a fiduciary relationship; neither a general fiduciary duty of confidence, trust, loyalty, and good faith, nor an inequality between the parties will give rise to a claim under Section 523(a)(4). ... Accordingly, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for nondischargeability of debts pursuant to Section 523(a)(4) based on fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Section 523(a)(4) treats an ERISA-deemed fiduciary as acting in a fiduciary capacity when the statutory trust imposes sufficient trust-like duties.

Thrower v. Godwin · filed 2023-03-31(a)(4)

Therefore, the statutory trust created by § 1002(21) has “sufficient trust-like duties imposed on the trustee” necessary for Godwin to have been acting “in a fiduciary capacity” under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires a fiduciary duty for fraud or defalcation; an independent contractor relationship alone does not establish one.

We Sell Restaurants, Inc. v. Maddox · filed 2023-06-07(a)(4)

As a mere independent contractor, and in the absence of additional facts to support a finding to the contrary, Defendant did not owe Plaintiff a fiduciary duty. Consequently, he could ... not have committed “fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity,” as required by section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires a qualifying fiduciary relationship for a debt arising from fraud in a fiduciary capacity; a seller-purchaser relationship alone does not qualify.

Tri-State Surgical Supply & Equipment LTD. v. McKinnon · filed 2023-09-25(a)(4)

As is the case here, this Court has previously found that there is no fiduciary relationship between a seller and purchaser in the context of § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for a debt to be excepted from discharge as fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity.

The City of Atlantic City v. Drummon · filed 2023-11-30(a)(4)

As it is used in this context, the term “fiduciary capacity” applies only to express or technical trusts. ... Thus, because the undisputed facts show that Drummon was not a fiduciary, the City cannot prevail on summary judgment as to this claim.

Section 523(a)(4) treats a debtor as acting in a fiduciary capacity when an express or technical trust exists.

Decker v. Stewart, Jr. · filed 2024-01-23(a)(4)

For the purposes of § 523(a)(4), the existence of an express or technical trust gives rise to a fiduciary duty.

Section 523(a)(4)’s fiduciary capacity exception requires a trust relationship; an ordinary business relationship does not suffice.

Cox v. Corona · filed 2024-01-24(a)(4)

Accordingly, Defendant has shown that Plaintiff cannot establish fiduciary capacity as required by § 523(a)(4). This issue being a question of law, there is no genuine dispute as to a material fact and Defendant is entitled to entry of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim under the Fiduciary Capacity Exception.

A PACA trust does not create the fiduciary capacity required to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(4).

B.C. Produce, Inc. v. Kaloyanides · filed 2024-04-15(a)(4)

PACA does not sufficiently define or identify the trust res or adequately impose trust-like duties on a trustee to establish a technical trust for purposes of § 523(a)(4) because PACA permits commingling of proceeds and use of proceeds for any purpose.

Section 523(a)(4) requires more than a state court finding of breach of fiduciary duty to establish that a debtor acted in a fiduciary capacity.

Knoll, Jr. v. Uku · filed 2024-04-24(a)(4)

In other words, the mere fact that the State Court found a breach of fiduciary duty is insufficient to meet Mr. Knoll’s threshold burden to establish that Debtor was acting in a fiduciary capacity under §523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust that existed before the alleged defalcation for a debt based on fiduciary fraud or defalcation to be nondischargeable.

Tran v. Nguyen · filed 2024-12-31(a)(4)

For a debtor to be a fiduciary under Section 523(a)(4) the fiduciary relationship must arise from an express or technical trust that exists before the alleged defalcation and without reference to the alleged wrongdoing that caused the debt.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or statutory trust to establish fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity.

Durflinger v. Estrada · filed 2025-02-03(a)(4)

For this Court to conclude that fraud or defalcation occurred under § 523(a)(4), the Court must first determine that an express or statutory trust existed between the parties.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a fiduciary relationship for a debt to be excepted from discharge as fraud or defalcation; a simple judgment dividing marital property does not create one.

Schultz v. Downing · filed 2025-03-11(a)(4)

The plaintiff’s debt is a money judgment entered to equalize the division of marital property. It is a simple money judgment. It does not create a fiduciary relationship or trust.

Section 523(a)(4) requires a qualifying trust for a claim of fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Fusion Industries, LLC v. Friday · filed 2025-03-21(a)(4)

While citing the statute, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege or refer to any trust, either express or statutory; accordingly, there is no fiduciary duty and consequently no fraud or defalcation acting in that capacity.

Section 523(a)(4)'s fiduciary-capacity exception requires an express or technical trust; a position of trust alone is insufficient.

Castillo v. Berkley · filed 2025-05-15(a)(4)

Without more, which the Plaintiffs have not shown, it is insufficient to establish the existence of an express or technical trust for purposes of a fiduciary capacity under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4)’s exception for fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity cannot be established through issue preclusion when the prior judgment contains no finding of a fiduciary relationship.

Jordan v. Redmond · filed 2025-07-31(a)(4)

Given that the Decision is silent as to a finding of a fiduciary relationship, Jordan cannot rely on issue preclusion to satisfy this element of §523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4)'s fiduciary defalcation exception requires an express or technical trust, which Michigan's property management account and recordkeeping provisions do not create.

Xu v. Nasser · filed 2025-08-15(a)(4)

The Court concludes that the cited provisions of the Michigan Occupational Code do not establish an express or technical trust. Because no such trust was created, no fiduciary relationship can exist for purposes of section 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) treats a debtor who is a fiduciary under ERISA or New York’s Article 3-A trust law as a fiduciary for purposes of the discharge exception.

Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund et v. Rusi · filed 2025-08-19(a)(4)

This Court holds that a debtor that is a fiduciary under ERISA or Article 3-A is a fiduciary for purposes of 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat an employer-employee relationship alone as a fiduciary relationship for the exception to discharge.

Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Kong · filed 2025-09-18(a)(4)

A mere employer/employee relationship is insufficient to establish a fiduciary relationship under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) does not treat a California corporate officer as a fiduciary to the corporation or its shareholders.

Vuong v. Lopez-Flores · filed 2025-09-30(a)(4)

Under California law, a corporate officer is not a fiduciary to the corporation or its shareholders for purposes of § 523(a)(4).

For a defalcation claim under § 523(a)(4), a technical trust may be established by a statute and contract together when they identify a specific fund and beneficiary and impose trust-like duties before a breach.

Xu · filed 2025-10-20(a)(4)

The Court reaches this conclusion based on its determination that a technical trust can be established where a statute and/or the parties’ contractual agreements contemplate one party holding legal title to a specific res for the benefit of defined beneficiaries where trust-like duties (specifically, a prohibition on commingling, reporting requirements, and a lack of discretion with respect to the use of funds) are imposed prior to the occurrence of a breach.

Section 523(a)(4) does not make a contractor a fiduciary merely because the contractor receives funds for repairs; the creditor must establish a duty to hold the funds in trust.

Church · filed 2025-11-06(a)(4)

Thus, simply being employed as a contractor is not enough to create a fiduciary relationship.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust that predates the debt for a fiduciary defalcation claim; an ordinary debtor-creditor relationship does not suffice.

Tucker · filed 2025-12-05(a)(4)

Here even when the facts are accepted as true and construed most favorably to the Plaintiff, the Adversary Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as the allegations do not support a plausible claim under §523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) requires a contractual trust to impose sufficient trust-like duties before a debtor can be treated as acting in a fiduciary capacity for fraud or defalcation.

Pavel · filed 2026-02-03(a)(4)

For all the above reasons, the Complaint does not plead sufficient facts to establish a claim that the Debtor acted in a fiduciary capacity based on an express trust created by contract under Section 523(a)(4) because the language of the Subcontract does not adequately create such a trust by imposing sufficient trust-like duties.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for fraud or defalcation in a fiduciary capacity; a general principal-agent duty alone is insufficient.

Turpen · filed 2026-02-17(a)(4)

Here, the Complaint’s reference to “Colorado law” and general principal/agent law is insufficient as a matter of law to plead a technical trust.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust for fiduciary capacity; a typical attorney-client relationship alone does not qualify.

Librizzi · filed 2026-01-22(a)(4)

Based on the Eleventh Circuit’s historically narrow interpretation of Section 523(a)(4), the Court finds that a technical trust relationship did not arise in this Case. The Plaintiff’s displeasure with the Debtor’s representation of him, in what appears to have been a highly contentious divorce case, does not transform the party’s typical attorney-client relationship into the narrow and high bar that the term “fiduciary” under Section 523(a)(4) requires.

Section 523(a)(4) requires courts to consider the agreement and the parties’ dealings when deciding whether a fiduciary relationship existed; trust language alone is insufficient.

Garcia · filed 2026-04-01(a)(4)

Surely language dictating that property will be held in trust is relevant to whether the fiduciary standard is met, but it is insufficient on its own. A court must consider both the surrounding provisions of any transaction documents as well as the parties’ actual dealings.

Section 523(a)(4) requires an express or technical trust established before the conduct creating the debt for a fiduciary capacity claim.

Nauss · filed 2026-06-04(a)(4)

The fiduciary relationship necessary to satisfy the first element is one that arises from an express or technical trust established or imposed prior to the allegedly tortious conduct creating the debt.

A fiduciary duty imposed by Colorado’s Mechanics’ Lien Trust Fund Statute can support a fraud or defalcation claim under § 523(a)(4).

Swanson · filed 2026-05-29(a)(4)

The Mechanics’ Lien Trust Fund Statute satisfies the express or technical trust requirement and imposes a fiduciary duty necessary to establish a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) encompasses fiduciary duties imposed by the Texas Construction Trust Fund Statute on an owner who receives construction trust funds.

LVR Carpet Center, Inc. v. Coley (In Re Coley) · filed 2006-10-16(a)(4)

The Fifth Circuit has held that the Texas Construction Trust Fund Statute creates fiduciary duties encompassed by section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. ... Coley is a “owner” that received “trust funds” and thus became a “trustee” under the Texas Construction Trust Fund Statute.

Section 523(a) addresses the dischargeability of individual debts arising from prepetition misconduct; that misconduct does not itself bar a debtor from bankruptcy relief.

In Re Hua · filed 2009-08-24(a)

To the contrary, Congress provided that debts that arose prepetition because of wrongful conduct might be individually nondis-chargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), but the facts involved in how those debts arose are relevant to their individual dis-chargeability, but not to a debtor’s eligibility to be a debtor under Title 11 of the United States Code.

Section 523(a) does not allow a debtor to waive discharge of a particular debt through a prepetition agreement declaring it nondischargeable.

Double v. Cole (In Re Cole) · filed 2009-11-13(a)

Accordingly, contrary to the position urged by the Plaintiff, this Court will not enforce paragraph 10(f) of the Parties’ Agreement wherein the Debtor acknowledged that his obligation to the Plaintiff was a nondischargeable debt pursuant to § 523(a)(2), § 523(a)(4) and § 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not treat a broken pre-petition promise not to file bankruptcy or seek discharge as a false representation.

Saggus v. Saggus (In re Saggus) · filed 2015-03-23(a)(2)(A)

Thus, the Court holds, as a matter of law, that broken pre-petition promises to not file bankruptcy or to not seek to discharge a debt are not false representations within the meaning of § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523 does not make a debt nondischargeable solely because the debtor agreed before bankruptcy that it would be.

Howard v. Eckerd, Jr. · filed 2019-10-16

This Court thus accepts the soundness of the policy position that, in the absence of binding factual determinations, such pre-petition ipso facto clauses precluding the dischargeability of a debt are unenforceable.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor breached a prepetition promise to waive discharge; the creditor must prove fraud.

Landrum-Ellis · filed 2026-01-12(a)(2)(A)

Nor will the Court allow creditors to sidestep the policy voiding prepetition waivers of a bankruptcy discharge by declaring those same statements as fraudulent under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Section 523(a) requires proof of a ground for excepting a debt from discharge; liability for the debt alone is insufficient.

Cadle Co. v. Iulo (In Re Iulo) · filed 2009-12-04(a)

Even if the Court can be said to have determined liability, which it cannot, liability is not the question on an action to except a debt from discharge pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §§ 523(a)(2)(A) (fraud, false representation or actual fraud), 523(a)(4) (fraud while acting in a fiduciary capacity), and 523(a)(6) (willful and malicious injury). These sections of the Bankruptcy Code raise profound questions of a debtor’s state of mind, which are usually determined at trial and are only incidentally concerned with a debtor’s liability.

Section 523(a) does not except a debt from discharge based on a breach of contract alone.

Ubriaco v. Martino (In Re Martino) · filed 2010-04-28(a)

A breach of contract or agreement, without more, does not give rise to an exception to discharge under any of the subparagraphs of Section 523(a).

Section 523(a)(4) requires proof of every element of the claim; a criminal conviction alone does not make a debt nondischargeable.

Von Kahle Ex Rel. Professional Resources Systems International, Inc. v. Roemmele (In Re Roemmele) · filed 2012-03-14(a)(4)

But the existence of a criminal conviction, in and of itself, or the notion that a particular type of conviction establishes the dishonest character of a debtor does not alone make out a claim under § 523(a)(4).

Section 523(a)(4) makes a debt for fiduciary fraud or defalcation nondischargeable only if the misconduct caused the debt.

Farahani v. Bastanipour (In re Bastanipour) · filed 2016-06-07(a)(4)

Therefore, there is no causation link between Bastanipour’s defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity and any claim for damages that Farahani might have against her.

Section 523(a)(6) does not make a debt nondischargeable merely because the debtor buys basic household transportation instead of paying an unsecured creditor.

Horvath v. Waite · filed 2019-09-27(a)(6)

Similarly Waite was free to use his $200 as down payment on a 12 year old used truck instead of paying Horvath under the Agreement without creating a nondischargeable debt under § 523(a)(6).

Section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts contract damages from discharge when the breach arose from fraud, but a breach alone does not make the debt nondischargeable.

Onuma v. Arthur · filed 2019-09-30(a)(2)(A)

However, where the breach of contract arose from fraud, such as where a debtor entered into the contract with no intention of fulfilling his contractual obligations, the damages awarded therefore are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). ... As such, Mr. Arthur’s breach of the Purchase Agreement was not caused by or the result of fraud. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Breach of Contract Award is dischargeable.

Section 523 does not except a debt from discharge merely because it arises from a personal guaranty.

Mark D. Aragona · filed 2024-03-08

Section 523 then enumerates twenty exceptions to discharge, none of which are personal guaranties.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except an attorney’s fee award from discharge when the award is payable to private counsel rather than a governmental unit.

Smith & Greene, P.A. v. Luca (In Re Luca) · filed 2010-01-14(a)(7)

The award is not payable to a governmental unit, as required by § 523(a)(7), and an essential element of the claim is therefore absent from the Plaintiffs Complaint.

Section 523(a)(7) treats the Florida Bar as a governmental unit when determining whether an attorney disciplinary cost judgment is dischargeable.

Tobkin v. The Florida Bar · filed 2014-08-28(a)(7)

We find that the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the Bar is a governmental unit.

Section 523(a)(7) requires a debt to be payable to a governmental unit as well as for its benefit; restitution payable directly to consumers does not qualify.

State of New Hampshire, Banking Department v. Dargon, Sr. · filed 2022-03-11(a)(7)

Because the Debtor’s restitution obligation is not payable to a governmental unit, it does not fall within the § 523(a)(7) exception to discharge.

Section 523(a)(4) limits liability for defalcation to funds misappropriated or unaccounted for.

Destfino v. Bockting · filed 2012-01-30(a)(4)

The Destfinos’ liability is only for the funds misappropriated or unaccounted for—not for the entire amount of funds that Bockting contributed to the scheme.

Section 523(a)(4) excepts the entire debt arising from fiduciary fraud from discharge, even if the fraudulent payments were only part of that debt.

Shaffer v. Allen W. Bird, II · filed 2014-07-08(a)(4)

Consequently, even if Bird's fraud was in fact limited to the specified payments, the penalty imposed by the NWFX court, i.e., the debt for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, was Bird's entire trustee fee.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a judgment debt from discharge for defalcation or embezzlement when the judgment includes no damages for misappropriation.

Montrond v. Barros · filed 2021-09-27(a)(4)

It follows that no portion of the judgment is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4) as a debt for defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity or embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(4) does not except a judgment debt from discharge for defalcation or embezzlement when no part of the judgment compensates for the alleged misappropriation.

Montrond v. Barros · filed 2021-10-07(a)(4)

But no portion of that judgment debt consists of damages for misappropriation or conversion of funds of the parties’ business. It follows that no portion of the judgment is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(4) as a debt for defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity or embezzlement.

Section 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) do not except a debtor’s own divorce lawyer’s fees from discharge when the debt is owed only to the lawyer, even if some services concerned support.

Berse v. Langman (In re Langnam) · filed 2012-02-06(a)(5), (a)(15)

Even when the statute is interpreted broadly under the Prensky cases’ adoption of the equitable “substance over form” principle, the Plaintiffs claim for nondis-chargeability under § 523(a)(5) must fail as a matter of law and the Motion to Dismiss is granted as to that claim. ... The Plaintiff faces a similar obstacle in her claim brought under § 523(a)(15). As a threshold matter, she must demonstrate that her non-support-related legal fees are a “debt to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor.” § 523(a)(15). As with the support-related debts, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate this. The non-support-related component of the debt, like the support-related component, was in fact incurred by Ms. Langman herself, and the debt is owed to Ms. Berse alone, not to Ms. Langman or her children.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts attorney disciplinary cost awards from discharge when they are penalties and do not compensate for actual pecuniary loss.

Bach v. Office of Lawyer Regulation · filed 2023-01-24(a)(7)

As the Bankruptcy Court noted, this means that Bach’s debt to OLR is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss and is therefore exempted from discharge under Section 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) does not except from discharge attorney-discipline restitution payable to a private client or disciplinary costs that compensate the state bar for its expenses.

Basquin v. Stasson (In re Stasson) · filed 2012-03-09(a)(7)

This debt, based on the Attorney Discipline Board’s Order that Stasson “pay restitution to complainant Donald Basquin in the amount of $29,178.88,” clearly does not fall within § 523(a)(7), for three independent reasons. ... Based on the reasoning and discussion in the Love case, this Court concludes that Defendant Stasson’s debt for costs to the State Bar of Michigan is “compensation for pecuniary loss” within the meaning of § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts discretionary attorney disciplinary cost assessments from discharge when they serve as penalties rather than compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania v. Feingold · filed 2013-09-17(a)(7)

In sum, because the Disciplinary Board’s judgment against Feingold is in the nature of a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, [which] is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss,” it is nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) treats the Florida Bar as a governmental unit when it enforces attorney discipline in a judicial capacity.

Tobkin v. Florida Bar · filed 2014-01-10(a)(7)

The Bankruptcy Court properly found below that when the Florida Bar, acting in a judicial capacity, enforces its regulatory powers over attorney disciplinary proceedings, it is acting as a “governmental unit” under § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts attorney disciplinary costs from discharge when they are penalties imposed by a governmental unit rather than compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

Netzer v. Office of Lawyer Regulation (In re Netzer) · filed 2016-02-03(a)(7)

For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that the costs imposed by OLR are fines and penalties within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7), and thus the debt is nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts an attorney’s obligation to reimburse a state bar client protection fund from discharge when repayment serves penal and rehabilitative goals, even if the amount reflects the fund’s losses.

Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar v. Young (In re Young) · filed 2017-08-30(a)(7)

This reinstatement order and its reimbursement obligation serves society’s broader rehabilitative and penal goals and cannot be viewed narrowly as merely representing compensation to the victims. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the VSB’s Motion for Summary Judgment and declare the debt owed to the VSB nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) excepts attorney disciplinary costs and sanctions from discharge when they serve punitive and rehabilitative purposes, even if the sanctions are payable to private parties.

In re: Lenore L. Albert-Sheridan · filed 2019-04-11(a)(7)

Despite this characterization, Kelly and its progeny support the conclusion that once the discovery sanctions were ordered paid by the supreme court as part of a disciplinary proceeding, they were transformed into a primarily punitive sanction that was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7), despite the fact that the sanctions are payable to the affected parties rather than the State Bar.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts attorney disciplinary costs from discharge when they serve a penal purpose, even if calculated from the regulator’s expenses.

Osicka v. Office of Lawyer Regulation · filed 2020-05-15(a)(7)

The debt owed to the OLR in the amount of $12,500.64 is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) makes costs for attorney disciplinary proceedings nondischargeable.

Albert-Sheridan v. State Bar of California · filed 2020-06-10(a)(7)

As we explain in our opinion, bankruptcy does not disturb the State Bar’s authority since costs for attorney disciplinary proceedings may not be discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).

Section 523(a)(7) prevents discharge of attorney disciplinary costs imposed as punishment rather than compensation for actual pecuniary loss.

Osicka v. Office of Lawyer Regulation · filed 2022-02-07(a)(7)

Adhering to Kelly, we also understand § 523(a)(7) to prevent discharge of Osicka’s cost order because it was a punishment and did not make the OLR whole for actual loss.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts attorney disciplinary costs from discharge when they are a penalty payable to a governmental unit and do not compensate it for an actual pecuniary loss.

Bach v. Office of Lawyer Regulation · filed 2022-06-08(a)(7)

Having met all three statutory conditions of § 523(a)(7), the debt that Ms. Bach owes to OLR for the costs of her attorney disciplinary proceeding was not discharged in her bankruptcy case.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts a penalty imposed as an attorney disciplinary administrative fee from discharge, but permits discharge of costs that reimburse the state bar for actual expenses.

Commonwealth of Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Ba v. Francis · filed 2022-12-01(a)(7)

The Court finds that the costs assessed by the State Bar are dischargeable, with the exception of $667.20 of the Administrative Fee, which is determined to be non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(7).

A payment may qualify as a nondischargeable penalty under § 523(a)(7) even when its amount is measured by the victim's loss.

PENNSYLVANIA LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT SECURITY v. MCKEE · filed 2023-10-05(a)(7)

Even calculating a penalty by reference to the amount due to a victim does not detract from the penal nature of the payment.

Section 523(a)(7) does not except Nevada Rule 120 attorney disciplinary costs from discharge when they compensate for the costs of the proceedings rather than impose a fine or penalty.

State Bar of Nevada v. Wike · filed 2025-07-31(a)(7)

We affirm the BAP and conclude that the debt was not exempt from discharge because the money Wike owed to the State Bar was for compensation allocable to the cost of his attorney discipline hearings and not for a fine or penalty.

Section 523(a)(7) excepts California State Bar disciplinary cost awards from discharge, even when the awards are entered after the bankruptcy petition if the debts arose before it.

In re: Marilyn S. Scheer · filed 2024-03-22(a)(7)

Debtor acknowledges that statutory cost awards issued as part of California attorney disciplinary proceedings are nondischargeable under § 523(a)(7)9 and Ninth Circuit authority. ... Debtor is correct that the Disciplinary Orders were entered post-petition, but the cost awards are nevertheless prepetition debts. ... Because the cost awards are prepetition debts which were not discharged under § 727, they are unaffected by the discharge injunction.

Section 523(a) treats a written stipulation to a nonbankruptcy judgment or final order as a tax return only if it binds the taxpayer as to liability and is not appealable.

Green v. United States (In re Green) · filed 2012-04-27(a)

Thus, the ordinary meaning of the term “stipulation” and the statutory context in which the term is used in § 523(a)(), strongly suggests the stipulation made by the taxpayer must be binding as to liability (such as a judgment) and non-appealable (such as a final order) to qualify as a “return” under § 523(a)().

Section 523(a)(1)(B) does not treat a Form 1040 filed after the IRS assesses the tax as a return, so the tax debt is nondischargeable.

Casano v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Casano) · filed 2012-05-16(a)(1)(B)

At issue is whether a Form 1040 filed after the IRS has made an assessment against the debtor constitutes a tax return filed within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B). The Court finds that the filing of a Form 1040 post-assessment does not constitute a tax return within the meaning of § 523(a)(1)(B).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debt from discharge when a debtor files a Form 1040 without justification only after the IRS has assessed the tax, because the filing does not meet applicable filing requirements.

Wogoman v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Wogoman) · filed 2012-07-03(a)(1)(B)(i)

Regardless of whether the hanging paragraph creates a much more restrictive rule than the Beard test developed by courts pre-BAPCPA, the 2001 return filed by the Wogomans’ post-assessment does not meet applicable filing requirements, and therefore, their 2001 tax liability is excepted from discharge.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) does not exclude a tax return from discharge solely because it was filed late or after an IRS assessment; whether it shows an honest effort to comply is judged from the document itself.

Martin v. United States (In re Martin) · filed 2012-11-14(a)(1)(B)(i)

In making the determination of whether a document “evinces an honest and genuine endeavor” to satisfy the law, an objective test, based on the face of the document, not the timeliness of its filing, must be used.

Section 523(a)(1)(B) excepts tax debts from discharge when the debtor did not file a valid return; a form that makes no honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the tax laws is not a valid return.

Flint v. Comm'r · filed 2012-10-09(a)(1)(B)

The IRS relies on 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(B), which provides that tax liabilities with respect to which a return was not filed are not discharged. The IRS is correct. The Forms 1040 Flint submitted are not valid tax returns. They reported that Flint earned no wages even though he earned substantial wages. The Forms 1040 do not qualify as returns because they do not represent an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax laws.

Section 523(a)(1)(B) does not except a tax debt from discharge merely because the debtor filed the return late; a late-filed Massachusetts return filed before the state assesses the tax qualifies as a return.

Brown v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue (In re Brown) · filed 2013-03-11(a)(1)(B)

In connection with the taxes at issue in these cases there was no assessment by the commissioner of revenue prior to Messrs. Brown and Gonzalez filing their returns. Their late-filed returns are thus “returns” under applicable Massachusetts law and there is no basis in Bankruptcy Code § 523(a) for excepting from discharge the taxes assessed by such returns.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) does not automatically except a tax debt from discharge because the debtor filed a return after assessment; the filing may qualify as a return if it satisfies the four-prong Beard test.

Rhodes v. United States (In re Rhodes) · filed 2013-05-06(a)(1)(B)(i)

For reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that whether the Debtor filed returns for 1999 and 2000 requires application of Beard’s four-prong test and that, therefore, clause (i) of § 523(a)(1)(B) does not except the debtor’s liabilities from discharge as a matter of law. Issues of fact remain as to whether the Debtor can satisfy all four prongs of the Beard test.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debt from discharge when a late-filed state tax return fails to meet applicable filing requirements and therefore does not qualify as a return.

Pendergast v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue (In re Pendergast) · filed 2013-06-11(a)(1)(B)(i)

Returning to the case at bar, because each of the Debtor’s tax returns for the Periods at Issue were filed late, they each failed to satisfy Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 62C, § 6(c), one of the “applicable filing requirements” of the “applicable nonbank-ruptcy law,” and therefore, are not “returns” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) makes tax debt nondischargeable when a return filed after an IRS assessment does not qualify as a return for dischargeability purposes.

Pitts v. United States (In re Pitts) · filed 2013-08-14(a)(1)(B)(i)

The non-trust fund portion of DIR’s FICA taxes for these quarters are also non-dischargeable because the IRS prepared and filed substitutes for returns under I.R.C. § 6020(b) and assessed these taxes before DIR submitted its Form 941 Returns for each of these periods. Accordingly, under (a) 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(l)(B)(i) and (b) the Beard, Hindenlang, Payne, Moroney, and Hatton Circuit Court line of cases, the non-trust fund portion of DIR’s FICA taxes are non-dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts a tax debt from discharge when a post-assessment filing fails the Beard test’s requirement of an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with tax law.

Mallo v. United States (In re Mallo) · filed 2013-09-11(a)(1)(B)(i)

Thus, the belated returns in this case did not constitute “returns” for purposes of § 523(a)(1)(B)® in that they failed the fourth element of the Beard test because they were not reasonable attempts to comply with the tax law.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debt from discharge when Forms 1040 filed after IRS assessment fail the Beard test’s reasonable attempt requirement and therefore are not returns.

Martin v. United States (In re Martin) · filed 2013-09-23(a)(1)(B)(i)

As a result, the belated 1040s in this case did not constitute “returns” for purposes of § 523(a)(1)(B)®, in that it failed to meet the fourth element of the Beard test as it was not reasonable attempts to comply with the tax law.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debts from discharge when belated filings do not qualify as returns because they were not an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with tax law.

Perry v. United States · filed 2013-10-30(a)(1)(B)(i)

Accordingly, applying the Beard test, the court finds that Mr. Perry’s tax liabilities for the years 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2003 are the result of his failure to file tax returns within the meaning of § 523(a)(l)(B)(i). Under this theory, Mr. Perry’s debts are not dischargeable, and the bankruptcy court’s judgment is due to be affirmed.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the required return was filed after the applicable deadline.

Wendt v. United States (In re Wendt) · filed 2013-11-27(a)(1)(B)(i)

A return filed after the applicable deadline does not satisfy the filing requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and thus cannot be considered a “return” for purposes of subsection 523(a).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debts from discharge when the debtor fails to file a required return.

In re Ryan · filed 2013-12-30(a)(1)(B)(i)

The IRS has met its burden on summary judgment of demonstrating that there is no genuine dispute as to the material facts, and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law that the Debtor’s tax obligations for those years have not been discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(l)(B)(i).

Section 523(a)’s definition of a return includes a late-filed Massachusetts income tax return filed before assessment when Massachusetts law treats it as a return.

Gonzalez v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue (In re Gonzalez) · filed 2014-03-06(a)(*)

Thus, we discern no timeliness requirement encompassed in the applicable nonbankruptcy law which governs the specific situation confronting us, namely the case of a late-filed — but pre-assessment — state income tax return.

Section 523(a) treats a late-filed state tax return as no return for discharge purposes when the applicable filing requirements include a deadline.

Perkins v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue · filed 2014-03-07(a)(1)(B)(i)

As approved, the law is straightforward, and does not allow one to read out timeliness issues from the applicable filing requirements.

A late-filed Form 1040 can qualify as a return under § 523(a)(1)(B)(i) even when filed after the IRS assesses the tax.

Martin v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Martin) · filed 2014-03-31(a)(1)(B)(i)

Based on the foregoing, the court finds and concludes that the Martins’ Form 1040 tax returns for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 were “returns” within the meaning of § 523(a)(l)(B)(i) and § 523(a)’s hanging paragraph. The court declines to adopt either the Fifth Circuit’s one-day-late result or the Sixth Circuit’s post-assessment approach urged by the IRS to define what constitutes a tax return for purposes of determining dischargeability of the tax debt. Instead, the court relies on the Eighth Circuit’s no-time-limit interpretation to conclude that the “requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law (including applicable filing requirements)” do not include a temporal restriction.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts a tax debt from discharge when a belated Form 1040 is not an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with tax law and therefore is not a return.

Internal Revenue Service v. Smith (In re Smith) · filed 2014-04-29(a)(1)(B)(i)

In sum, Debtor’s belated Form 1040 for Tax Year 2001 does not meet the definition “return” under established tax law. It follows that the tax liability assessed by the IRS for Tax Year 2001 is a “tax ... with respect to which a return ... was not filed or given,” and is not dischargeable in bankruptcy pursuant to section 523(a)(l)(B)(i).

Section 523(a)'s definition of a return excludes a late-filed Massachusetts income tax return submitted after the state assesses the tax.

Pendergast v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue · filed 2014-05-02(a)(*)

Accordingly, we now conclude that a late-filed, post-assessment Massachusetts state income tax return does not qualify as a return for discharge purposes.

Section 523(a)(1)(B) excepts income tax liability from discharge when a required return was filed late and less than two years before the bankruptcy petition.

Largent v. Commissioner · filed 2014-05-29(a)(1)(B)

Contrary to Largent’s contention, his tax liability for 2005 was not discharged in bankruptcy because Largent filed his 2005 tax return less than two years before he filed his bankruptcy petition.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) permits a late-filed tax return to qualify as a return even when it was filed after the IRS assessed the tax.

Briggs v. United States (In re Briggs) · filed 2014-06-10(a)(1)(B)(i)

The Court further holds that a post-assessment late-filed return, such as that filed for 2002, may qualify as a “return” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i).

Section 523(a)(1)(B) does not bar discharge of a tax debt when a substitute return was prepared with the taxpayer’s cooperation more than two years before the bankruptcy petition.

In re Kemendo · filed 2014-09-17(a)(1)(B)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), a substitute for return prepared with the cooperation of the taxpayer is a return for dischargeability purposes. ... Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(1)(B) excepts from discharge tax liabilities as to which no return was filed or as to which a return was filed late and after two years before the date of the filing of the petition in bankruptcy. ... ORDERED that Debtor’s taxes, penalties, and interest for tax years 1995 and 1996 are discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a).

Section 523(a) excludes late-filed Form 1040s from the definition of a return, except for returns prepared with IRS assistance under § 6020(a).

Mallo v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Mallo) · filed 2014-12-29(a)(*)

We agree with these decisions and hold that, because the applicable filing requirements include filing deadlines, § 523(a)(*) plainly excludes late-filed Form 1040s from the definition of a return.

A Form 1040 filed after an IRS assessment is not a return under § 523(a)(1)(B), so the tax debt is excepted from discharge.

Coyle v. United States (In re Coyle) · filed 2015-01-14(a)(1)(B)

In sum, because the Debtor filed her Form 1040 for 2006 after the IRS Assessment, it was not an honest and good faith effort to comply with the tax laws. As such, the Debtor’s Form 1040 for 2006 is not a “return” under the Beard test and the Debtor’s 2006 tax debt is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(1)(B)® of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a) treats a Massachusetts income tax return filed after the state deadline as failing the applicable filing requirements, so the related unpaid taxes are not discharged.

Fahey v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue · filed 2015-02-18(a)(*)

Accordingly, under this straightforward reading of Massachusetts law, a return filed after the due date is a return not filed as required, i.e., a return that does not satisfy "applicable filing requirements."

Section 523(a)’s definition of a tax return directs courts to applicable nonbankruptcy law to determine what qualifies as an acceptable return.

McBride v. City of Kettering (In re McBride) · filed 2015-04-09(a)(*)

Instead, the court holds that § 523(a)(*) requires the court to look to relevant nonbankruptcy law to determine what qualifies as an acceptable return under that law.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts assessed tax debt from discharge when a Form 1040 filed after assessment serves no tax purpose; additional liability reported on the form may be discharged.

Biggers v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Biggers) · filed 2015-04-10(a)(1)(B)(i)

Instead, the only issue is whether the Form 1040s submitted by the debtors after the IRS had assessed tax liability served any tax purpose or had any effect under the Internal Revenue Code. The debtors’ tax forms for 2001, 2003, and 2004 all reported a lower liability than the amount originally assessed by. the IRS, and therefore, these forms served no purpose. The tax form for 2002 reported $15,088 of additional tax liability beyond what the IRS had assessed. Therefore, the 2002 tax form served a purpose under the Internal Revenue Code to the extent that it reported an additional $15,088 in tax liability, and the IRS has conceded that this amount is subject to discharge.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) excepts from discharge taxes on required returns filed late and within two years before the bankruptcy petition.

Jeff Kaiser, P.C. and Jeffery Benedict Kaiser, A/K/A Jeffrey B. Kaiser v. State · filed 2015-06-01(a)(1)(B)(ii)

Regardless of Defendant's abandonment of the defense of Discharge in Bankruptcy, the taxes made the subject of this lawsuit are excepted from discharge in bankruptcy by the operation of Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(B)(ii). That section excepts from discharge any taxes for which a return is required and for which the returns are filed after they were due, and after two years before the date of filing the petition in bankruptcy.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii)’s two-year period runs from the original tax return when an amended return does not increase the tax liability.

Maitland v. State of New Jersey Division of Taxation (In re Maitland) · filed 2015-06-10(a)(1)(B)(ii)

This court finds that the filing of an amended tax return that does not increase the tax liability should not give the taxing authority a second chance to collect unpaid taxes.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the debtor fails to file a required return.

Blalock v. Mississippi Department of Revenue (In re Blalock) · filed 2015-09-14(a)(1)(B)(i)

The Court agrees with the MDOR’s interpretation and finds that the Debtor’s Sales Tax Assessments were not discharged in his Bankruptcy Case because of his failure to file sales tax returns.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debts from discharge when documents filed after the IRS assessed the taxes do not qualify as returns.

Giacchi v. United States (In re Giacchi) · filed 2015-09-30(a)(1)(B)(i)

Giacchi’s tax documents filed for 2000, 2001, and 2002 did not meet the requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law because they were filed too late — after the tax assessments had been made. Accordingly, the post-assessment filed tax documents are not “returns,” and the tax liabilities for 2000, 2001, and 2002 are not discharged.

Section 523(a)(1)(B) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the debtor fails to file a required amended return reporting changes that affect the tax liability.

McBride v. City of Kettering (In re McBride) · filed 2015-11-25(a)(1)(B)

Their failure to file the required amended City tax returns renders their corresponding tax obligation nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B).

Section 523(a)(1)(B) does not treat late-filed tax returns as equivalent reports.

Nilsen v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue (In re Nilsen) · filed 2015-12-14(a)(1)(B)

The Debtor filed Form 1040s and Form Is late. He did not file something akin to or equivalent to those documents. He filed actual returns, not something different.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) uses the Beard test to determine whether a late-filed federal tax filing counts as a return, including whether the debtor made an honest and reasonable effort to comply with tax law.

In re: Kevin Wayne Martin Susan Martin · filed 2015-12-17(a)(1)(B)(i)

In this appeal, in the context of late-filed federal income tax returns prepared and filed by the taxpayers, there is no convincing or persuasive indication that BAPCPA or the hanging paragraph abrogated Hatton II’s holding that we should use In re Hindenlang’s version of the Beard test – a test derived from nonbankruptcy law – to determine whether the Martins’ untimely tax returns qualify as tax returns for nondischargeability purposes. ... Because the bankruptcy court did not apply the correct legal standard for assessing the honesty and reasonableness of the Martins’ efforts to comply with applicable tax laws, we must VACATE AND REMAND so that the bankruptcy court can apply the proper legal standard to the relevant facts of this case, which are not limited to the form and content of the Martins’ filings, but also include the number of missing returns, the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and any other circumstances reasonably pertaining to the honesty and reasonableness of the Martins’ efforts.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) bars discharge of tax debt when a debtor’s Form 1040, filed after the IRS assessed the tax, does not qualify as a return.

Selbst v. United States Department of Treasury (In re Selbst) · filed 2016-01-15(a)(1)(B)(i)

For the reasons discussed below, because the Debtor failed to file the Forms 1040 for the 2006 and 2007 tax years prior to the IRS’ assessments of his tax liability for those years, the forms he ultimately filed for those tax years are excluded from the definition of return, as provided in § 523, and therefore the Debtor’s debt to the IRS for the 2006 and 2007 tax years may not be discharged.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debt from discharge when a debtor’s filing is not an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with tax law and therefore does not qualify as a return.

Earls v. United States (In re Earls) · filed 2016-04-15(a)(1)(B)(i)

In summary, this Court finds that the IRS has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 2008 Filings were not an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the requirements of the tax law and, therefore, are not tax “returns” for purposes of ... § 523(a)(1)(B).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) bars discharge of tax debt when a filing does not qualify as a return because the taxpayer’s conduct, viewed over the relevant period, shows no honest and reasonable effort to comply with tax law.

Justice v. United States, Treasury Department · filed 2016-03-30(a)(1)(B)(i)

Even making that assumption, however, we hold that Justice’s late-filed Forms 1040 do not qualify as tax returns under the Beard test because they do not evince an honest and reasonable effort to comply with the tax law. As a result, his tax debts for tax years 2000 through 2003 are debts for tax obligations with respect to which no return was filed. They are not dischargeable in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the debtor failed to file a required return.

Uplinger v. Commonwealth of Virginia · filed 2016-05-23(a)(1)(B)(i)

As noted, § 523(a)(l)(B)(i) prevents a discharge only if, as a matter of fact, a tax return was required.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debt from discharge when no return was filed; a filing must be an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy tax law to qualify as a return.

Smith v. United States Internal Revenue Service (In Re Smith) · filed 2016-07-13(a)(1)(B)(i)

We hold that Hatton applies to the bankruptcy code as amended, and that Smith’s tax filing, made seven years late and three years after the IRS assessed a deficiency against him, was not an “honest and reasonable” attempt to comply with the tax code.

Section 523(a)(1)(B) does not allow a debtor to treat late-filed tax returns as equivalent reports to discharge the related tax debt.

Nilsen v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue · filed 2016-09-06(a)(1)(B)

Nilsen cannot escape this outcome by characterizing his late-filed returns as “equivalent reports.” Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court correctly determined that his tax debt for the periods at issue was not dischargeable, and the Court rejects Nilsen’s argument on appeal.

A late tax filing can qualify as a return for discharge purposes even after IRS assessment and without reporting additional tax liability if it reflects an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with tax law.

Biggers v. Internal Revenue Service · filed 2016-09-09(a)(1)(B)(i)

Having considered applicable non-bankruptcy law requirements for a return, the Court concludes that the determination of the fourth prong of Beard is a subjective test that allows for circumstances in which there can be an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with the tax law even after assessment by the IRS and even when untimely forms do not report additional tax liability.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debts from discharge when a required return was not filed.

United States, Tax Division v. Case (In re Case) · filed 2017-01-13(a)(1)(B)(i)

Based upon the record before it, the court finds that the Government has met its burden of proving that Debtor was required to file tax returns but failed to do so for the indicated Tax Years. ... Accordingly, all outstanding tax obligations of the Debt- or for the Tax Years are found to be nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debts from discharge when a late Form 1040 does not qualify as a return because it was not an honest and reasonable effort to satisfy the tax laws.

Bell v. United States (In re Bell) · filed 2017-01-25(a)(1)(B)(i)

For these reasons, the late Form 1040s do not represent an honest and reasonable effort to satisfy the tax laws, and do not constitute returns under applicable non-bankruptcy law. Accordingly, the Debtor’s tax liabilities for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 are excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(l)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 523(a)(1)(B) excepts tax debts from discharge when forms filed after an IRS assessment do not qualify as returns because they were not an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with tax law.

Giacchi v. United States of America Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service · filed 2017-05-05(a)(1)(B)

We hold that Giacchi’s belated filings after assessment are not an honest and reasonable effort to comply with the tax law under the Beard test and, as such, the filings do not constitute returns. Because Giacchi’s tax debts for tax years 2000, 2001, and 2002 are debts for tax obligations for which no return was filed, the debts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) excepts tax debt from discharge when the return was filed after its due date and within two years before the bankruptcy petition.

Nedelka v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Nedelka) · filed 2018-12-20(a)(1)(B)(ii)

Section 1328(a) read together with 11 USC § 523(a)(1)(B) clearly excludes tax liabilities from discharge when the relevant tax return "was filed or given after the date on which such return, report, or notice was last due, under applicable law or under any extension, and after two years before the date of the filing of the petition."

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debts from discharge when the debtor failed to file a return for those taxes.

Fremont v. United States · filed 2019-01-14(a)(1)(B)(i)

Because Fremont did not file a “return” within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B), see id. at 1096–97, his tax debts from the 2001, 2002, and 2003 tax years are excepted from discharge. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i).

Section 523(a)(1)(B) treats a tax return filed after the applicable deadline as unfiled and excepts the related tax debt from discharge.

Kriss v. United States of America (IRS) · filed 2019-09-27(a)(1)(B)

When applying Fahey, each of the Late Filed Returns must be treated as “unfiled returns” under Section 523(a)(1)(B), and the underlying debts are therefore excepted from discharge and not subject to 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2)’s discharge injunction.

Section 523 does not automatically bar discharge of tax debt because the return was filed late; a late-filed return can qualify for discharge when filed at least two years before bankruptcy.

Massachusetts Department of Revenue v. Shek · filed 2020-01-23(a)(1)(B)(ii)

We conclude that § 523 does not incorporate a mandatory precondition that a tax return must be timely filed to be dischargeable.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the debtor fails to give a required report of federal tax changes to the state taxing authority, even if the IRS supplies the information.

California Franchise Tax Board v. Berkovich · filed 2020-01-23(a)(1)(B)(i)

As Debtor has not filed or given a required equivalent report or notice as required under RTC §18622(a), his liabilities to the FTB for tax years 2003, 2004 and 2005 are not discharged under §523(a)(1)(B).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts state income tax debt from discharge when the debtor filed the required returns late under applicable state law; a later bankruptcy filing does not change that result.

Linda Trenett McCoy · filed 2020-02-03(a)(1)(B)(i)

Her late-filed “returns” remain late even after ten (10) years. ... For this reason, the Court agrees with the MDOR that the Current Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief in light of the “one-day-late” filing rule and should be dismissed.

Section 523(a)(1)(B) excepts a tax debt from discharge when a required return was not filed or was filed late within two years before the bankruptcy petition.

Ivison v. Internal Revenue Service, United States of America · filed 2020-04-23(a)(1)(B)

Either way, Plaintiffs’ joint and several 2011 individual tax liability in the amount of $308,750.87 and Anita Ivison’s 2012 individual tax liability in the amount of $6,238.00 are excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B).

Section 523(a) permits a debtor’s post-assessment Form 1040 to qualify as a return under the Beard test, even after the IRS prepares a substitute return.

Bryan Starling · filed 2020-06-19(a)(1)(B)(ii)

Debtor is asserting that his post-assessment Form 1040, which was filed with the IRS on August 27, 2007, meets the definition of a “return” under the Beard test, which qualifies as “applicable nonbankruptcy law” under § 523(a)(*). This Court agrees.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) excludes tax debts from discharge when the required return was filed after its due date and within two years before the bankruptcy petition.

McClure v. Cal. Franchise Tax Board · filed 2020-08-10(a)(1)(B)(ii)

The bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment because McClure failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his tax debt was discharged by the bankruptcy court. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) (a discharge of debts under 11 U.S.C. § 1328 does not include tax debts “filed or given after the date on which such return, report, or notice was last due, under applicable law or under any extension, and after two years before the date of the filing of the petition”).

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the return was filed or given after its due date and within two years before the bankruptcy petition.

Harold · filed 2021-02-22(a)(1)(B)(ii)

Pursuant to § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii), Harold’s 2008 tax liability could only be dischargeable if the return for that tax year had been filed with the IRS more than two years before Harold filed her bankruptcy petition.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debt from discharge when a Form 1040 filed years late, after ignored IRS notices and an assessment it merely repeats, does not qualify as a return.

In Re: Starling · filed 2021-09-16(a)(1)(B)(i)

While the IRS presents compelling reasons why I should adopt this approach, I need not decide which test is appropriate under the BAPCPA, because under each analysis the result is the same: Debtor’s late-filed Form 1040 was not a “return,” and his 2002 tax liability was therefore not discharged.

Section 523(a)(1)(B) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the debtor fails to file a required report equivalent to a return, including California’s report of federal tax changes.

Berkovich v. California Franchise Tax Board · filed 2021-10-14(a)(1)(B)

The report required by RTC section 18622(a) is an “equivalent report or notice” under § 523(a)(1)(B). Mr. Berkovich does not dispute that he failed to file such report with the FTB following the IRS’s assessment. Thus, his state tax debts for the relevant tax years are excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(1)(B).

Section 523(a)(1)(B) bars discharge of tax debts when the debtor did not file a return; faxed notices of federal tax adjustments did not qualify as state tax returns.

Sienega v. State of California Ftb · filed 2021-12-06(a)(1)(B)

Section 18622(a) is not “similar” to 26 U.S.C. § 6020(a). It does not authorize the FTB to prepare or execute a return. Therefore, under the plain words of the relevant statutes, the return exception contained in § 523(a)’s hanging paragraph does not apply.

A late tax filing can qualify as a return under § 523(a)(1)(B) when it satisfies the four-part test, including an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with tax law.

Golden v. United States of America (Internal Revenue Service · filed 2022-04-27(a)(1)(B)

Plaintiff-Debtor has established that the four prong test is satisfied: (1) purports to be a return, (2) is executed under penalty of perjury, (3) contains sufficient data to calculate the tax and (4) is an honest and reasonable attempt to satisfy the law.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debt from discharge when a required return was not filed, and § 523(a)’s definition of a return excludes one prepared by the IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 6020(b).

Johnson v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE · filed 2022-05-02(a)(1)(B)(i)

The IRS assessed the Debtor’s 2005 and 2006 tax liability under Section 6020(b) and Section 523(a)(*) clearly defines “return” to exclude returns made by the IRS under Section 6020(b).

Under § 523(a)(*), a tax filing that fails the honest and reasonable effort requirement of the Beard test does not qualify as a return for discharge purposes.

Kriss v. United States · filed 2022-11-22(a)(*)

Rather, even if Fahey does not control, Kriss loses because his much belated filings did not qualify as returns under section 523(a)(*) even under the alternative test put forward by Kriss in the bankruptcy court.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts a tax debt from discharge when the debtor did not file a required return.

Robertson v. United States · filed 2023-09-18(a)(1)(B)(i)

Therefore, although Plaintiff was granted a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 by the Bankruptcy Court, his 2007 tax debt was not discharged based on the plain language of § 523(a)(1)(B)(i).

A tax filing made after the IRS has assessed the debtor’s liability generally does not qualify as a return, so the tax debt is nondischargeable.

In Re: John Salvador v. United States · filed 2024-03-01(a)(1)(B)(i)

Under a straightforward application of Beard and Smith, his filing does not qualify as a return and his tax debts are nondischargeable.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts taxes and related interest from discharge when the debtor fails to file a required return.

Xenakis v. US DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, IRS · filed 2001-11-16(a)(1)(B)(i)

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a discharge of debt otherwise available under Section 727 of the Code does not apply to a debt arising from taxes and interest if the debtor failed to file a return required with respect to that tax.

Section 523(a)(1)(B)(i) excepts tax debts from discharge when the debtor failed to file the required returns.

Howard v. Comm'r · filed 2005-05-09(a)(1)(B)(i)

Although the bankruptcy court issued an order of discharge in that case, petitioner’s unpaid tax liabilities for 1983 and 1993 to 1995 were not discharged because petitioner failed to file tax returns for those years. See 11 U.S.C. sec. 523(a)(1)(B)(i) (2000); Swanson v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 111, 124-125 (2003).