The Oyez Project: Federal Taxation Issues - Priority of Federal Fiscal Claims Decisions http://www.oyez.org/issues/federal-taxation/priority-of-claims/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us Aquilino v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_1/ Begier v. IRS <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_393/ Joint Industry Board v. U.S. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_616/ Meyer v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_61/ Nicholas v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_650/ Otte v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_375/ Phelps v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_74_121/ Slodov v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1835/ Small Business Adm'n v. McClellan <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_42/ U.S. v. Durham Lumber Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_23/ U.S. v. John Hancock Mut. Ins. Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_18/ U.S. v. Pioneer American Ins. Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_405/ U.S. v. Union Central Life Ins. Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_52/ United States v. Noland <p>May a bankruptcy court subordinate government attempts to collect tax penalties?</p><p>No. In a unanimous decision, announced by Justice David H. Souter, the Court ruled that giving tax-penalty claims a lower priority than other claims contradicts Congress_ scheme of priorities regarding federal bankruptcy law.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_323/ United States By And Through Internal Revenue Service v. Mcdermott <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_1229/ United States v. Brosnan <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_137/ United States v. Buffalo Sa v. Bank <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_96/ United States v. Equitable Life <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_645/ United States v. Estate Of Donnelly <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_104/ United States v. Hougham <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_24/ United States v. Key <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_402/ United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1359/ United States v. Moore <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_687/ United States v. Randall <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_125/ United States v. Reorganized CF& I Fab. of UT <p>Is the Internal Revenue Code's 10% tax liability claim on any "accumulated funding deficiency" in pension plans an "excise tax" under the Bankruptcy Code? May the Government's tax claims be given a lower priority than competing claims by other creditors in bankruptcy proceedings?</p><p>No and no. In an opinion authored by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the Internal Revenue Code's 10% tax liability claim on any "accumulated funding deficiency" in pension plans, 26 U.S.C. Section 4971(a), does not create an excise tax under the Bankruptcy Code. Additionally, the Court held that the subordination of the Government's tax claim to those of other creditors was an error.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_325/ United States v. Rodgers <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1476/ United States v. Romani <p>Does the federal priority statute, 31 USC section 3713(a), require that that a federal tax claim be given preference over a judgment creditor's perfected lien on real property where such a preference is not authorized by the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966?</p><p>No. In an opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that section 3713(a) does not require that a federal tax claim be given preference over a judgment creditor's perfected lien on real property. Justice Stevens reasoned that section 3713(a) has been limited by Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, which provides that says a federal lien for back taxes is not valid until the government files proper notice with state or local officials. Accordingly, Justice Stevens wrote that the Tax Lien Act "represents Congress' detailed judgment as to when the Government's claims for unpaid taxes should yield to many different sorts of interests... in many different types of property... specifically crafted for tax collection purposes." Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_1613/ United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1043/ United States v. Sotelo <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1800/ United States v. Speers <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_17/ United States v. Vermont <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_509/