296 F.2d 152 - Newberg v. United States — 296 F.2d 152

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1991

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *153Herbert M. Markham, of Markham & Strauss, New York City, for plaintiff - appellant.

¶2Robert M. Hausman, Asst. U. S. Atty., S. D. N. Y., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

¶3Before CLARK, HINCKS, and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5We affirm on the reasoned opinion of Judge Metzner below, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 187 F.Supp. 158. As he shows, while failure •of the government to file a tax claim against a bankrupt estate will prevent sharing in that estate, Bankruptcy Act, § 57, sub. n, 11 U.S.C. § 93, sub. n, yet -the personal liability of the taxpayer remains and is not affected by a discharge, Bankruptcy Act, § 17, sub. a, 11 U.S.C. § 35, sub. a. The statutory provision is quite explicit and there is no room for •estoppel or other defense. Hence the plaintiff’s claim for income tax refund must fail notwithstanding his discharge in bankruptcy. California State Bd. of Equalization v. Coast Radio Products, 9 Cir., 228 F.2d 520; Salsbury Motors, Inc. v. United States, 9 Cir., 210 F.2d 171, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 953, 74 S.Ct. 679, 98 L.Ed. 1099; Menick v. Hoffman, 9 Cir., 205 F.2d 365, cited on argument by plaintiff, is not directly in point, but indeed looks the other way and in accord with the cases cited above; it holds the bankrupt “aggrieved” by a referee’s order refusing a late amendment to increase the amount of a tax claim.

¶6Affirmed.