TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Flayton

In re Flayton, 42 F. Supp. 1002 (E.D.N.Y. 1942)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, E.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
January 12, 1942
Docket
No. 39977
Judges
Byers
Citations
42 F. Supp. 10021942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3301

Opinion — Byers

BYERS, District Judge.

Hearing on petition to review a decision of a referee in bankruptcy deciding that interest on sales and business taxes, incurred by a debtor in possession in a Chapter XI proceeding prior to adjudication, should not be allowed to the City of New York, although claim therefor was timely made. 11 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq.

It must be understood that the amount of the taxes, to-wit $457.85, is not in dispute. The only controversy has to do with the interest thereon, which the City claims by reason of the said non-payment.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U.S. 57, 521 , 60 S.Ct. 29 , 84 L.Ed. 78, 442 , is relied upon by the City to demonstrate the soundness of its contention.

That decision is indeed an authority to the effect that a trustee in bankruptcy (the status of debtor in possession is not to be distinguished therefrom) must pay not only such taxes as these, but also statutory exactions for delinquencies arising from nonpayment.

At the hearing, the Referee denied this interest item in the following language: “Pardon me, I don’t pay interest unless we pay interest on all the claims, so I won’t allow that.”

Under the law, that is not a reason for disallowing this-item. The distinction between City taxes and ordinary administration expenses is so clear, that the allowance of interest upon the former woitld not re *1003 quire a similar holding with respect to the latter.

The interest claim filed by. the City should have been allowed, but, under the circumstances, an amendment of the claim, by which a 5% penalty plus 1% a month interest is sought, seems not now to be in order, for the reason that, if the Referee had allowed the interest claim as filed, the City would have been satisfied. No reason is presently seen for expanding the claim to include a heavier exaction at this late day.

The petition for review is approved, and the motion to confirm the report of the Referee as filed is denied.

Settle order.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1943: 11947: 11948: 11949: 119432026peak 1943 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of New York v. Saper336 U.S. 328 (1949)
  2. Saper v. City of New York168 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1948)
  3. In re Union Fabrics, Inc.73 F. Supp. 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)
  4. In re Burbank Corporation48 F. Supp. 172 (S.D. Cal. 1943)

Most recent

  1. City of New York v. Saper336 U.S. 328 (1949)
  2. Saper v. City of New York168 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1948)
  3. In re Union Fabrics, Inc.73 F. Supp. 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)
  4. In re Burbank Corporation48 F. Supp. 172 (S.D. Cal. 1943)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U.S. 57 (1939) 74

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list