David James Truscott

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In re:
David James Truscott,
Debtor.
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 25-30378
Chapter 11
Judge Crist
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF DEBTOR AND DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION
TO RETAIN RELIABLE TAX & BOOKKEEPING AS ACCOUNTANT EFFECTIVE
AS OF THE [APPLICATION] DATE (Doc. 151)
I. 	Background
This matter is before the Court on the Application of Debtor and Debtor-in-Possession to
Retain Reliable Tax & Bookkeeping as Accountant Effective as of the Petition Date (Doc. 151)
(the “Application”), which was filed on April 20, 2026. Through the Application, Debtor and
Debtor-In-Possession, David James Truscott (the “Debtor”), seeks an order (this “Order”)
authorizing him to retain Reliable Tax and Bookkeeping (“Reliable Tax”) effective as of the
Petition Date of March 7, 2025. In support of the Application is an attached Affidavit of Steven
Barth (Doc. 151, Ex. B), a principal of Reliable Tax. On May 11, 2026, as with many other motions
and applications in this chapter 11 case, Creditor Jonathan D. Krachenfels (“Mr. Krachenfels”)
filed his Objections to Debtor’s Application to Employ Reliable Tax & Bookkeeping as Accountant
(Doc. 151) (Doc. 161). In response, on May 18, 2026, Debtor submitted the Supplemental Affidavit
of Steven Barth for Application (Doc. 164) (the “Supplemental Affidavit”), as well as the Reply of
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2026
Case 3:25-bk-30378 Doc 176 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/11/26 13:53:53 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 5

Debtor/Debtor-In-Possession to Creditor Jonathan D. Krachenfels’ Objections to Debtor’s
Application to Employ Reliable Tax & Bookkeeping as Accountant (Doc. 161) (Doc. 165).
II. Summary
After review of the foregoing, the Court has determined that it is appropriate to grant the
Application as the Debtor has the need for an accountant in order to prepare his taxes and to comply
with his duties as a debtor-in-possession under 11 U.S.C. § 1107; it makes sense for Debtor to hire
an accountant familiar with his finances and Reliable Tax’s employment is not prohibited because
they worked for the Debtor prepetition (see § 1107(b)); Reliable Tax’s rates are reasonable; Mr.
Barth appears to be qualified; and with the waiver of Reliable Tax’s prepetition claim for $200,
Reliable Tax is “disinterested” such that their employment is not prohibited. See, e.g., In re
Florence Tanners, Inc., 209 B.R. 439, 446 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997) (stating “[t]here is no issue
with Halbert’s status as a disinterested person due to his status as a pre-petition creditor; upon his
waiver of that claim, he was no longer disqualified as a pre-petition creditor.” (citing 	In re
Brennan, 187 B.R. 135, 152 (Bankr. N.J. 1995); In re Watervliet Paper Co., Inc., 111 B.R. 131
(Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1989))).
The two issues that Mr. Krachenfels raised in his Objection that had merit, were that (1)
“Reliable Tax [wa]s a prepetition creditor and therefore not disinterested under § 101(14)[,]” based
on Debtor owing Reliable Tax $200 for services as of the petition date;1 and that (2) “[t]he
Application improperly seeks retroactive employment (‘effective as of the Petition Date’) without
meeting the Sixth Circuit’s strict standards for nunc pro tunc relief.” The first issue has since been
remedied through the Supplemental Affidavit, in which Mr. Barth confirms that he waives the
$200 prepetition claim. Supp. Aff. at 3, ¶ 12. The second issue, however, has not been fully
addressed by the Debtor. There is no mention in the Affidavit or Supplemental Affidavit of whether
Mr. Barth has performed services for the Debtor since the petition date. Further, the Reply filed
by the Debtor is confusing on this point, stating that “Debtor is not seeking to compensate Reliable
Tax for services performed before employment was authorized.” Reply at 5, ¶ 16. Yet at the same
time stating that “Debtor is simply seeking to appoint Reliable Tax to perform services for the time
period dating back to the filing of this case, not for compensation for services already performed.”
Id. These statements, which are just statements of counsel and not in an affidavit or declaration,
1 Perhaps Debtor’s counsel should have addressed this issue with Mr. Barth prior to filing the Application.
Case 3:25-bk-30378 Doc 176 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/11/26 13:53:53 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 5

3
are contradictory. Moreover, there is no explanation for why Debtor waited for over a year to file
the Application. Accordingly, the Court cannot determine whether this issue even matters, such
that the Court will only approve the Application as of the date it was filed, April 20, 2026, and not
retroactive to the petition date of March 7, 2025, over a year earlier, for the reasons further
discussed below.
III. 	Findings and Conclusions
Based upon the foregoing, the Court hereby finds that:
A. 	It has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334.
B. 	The matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).
C. 	Venue of this case is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.
D. 	Adequate notice of the Application has been given under the circumstances.
E. 	The Affidavit and Supplemental Affidavit of Mr. Barth, taken together, and based
upon the waiver of Reliable Tax’s $200 prepetition claim provided for therein, discloses that
Reliable Tax does not have an adverse interest to the Debtor’s estate, is disinterested pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 101(14), and is qualified to represent the Debtor under §§ 327(a) and 1107(b) of title
11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).
F. 	The disclosures by Reliable Tax are sufficient pursuant to Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rule”) 2014 and Local Bankruptcy Rule (“LBR”) 2014-1.
Reliable Tax has a continuing obligation to disclose pursuant to LBR 2014-1(f), including but not
limited to any conflicts due to Reliable Tax handling tax matters for the Debtor’s business,
Finishing Touches Flooring Specialists, LLC (dba Daco Custom Flooring, and David James
Construction). See In re LPN Healthcare Facility, 498 B.R. 196, 199-200 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2013)
(discussing the requirement to timely disclose known connections under Bankruptcy Rule 2014
and LBR 2014-1).
G. 	The relief requested in the Application is in the best interests of the Debtor, their
estate, creditors, and other parties in interest; and after due deliberation thereon; and good and
sufficient cause appearing therefore,
Case 3:25-bk-30378 Doc 176 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/11/26 13:53:53 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	The Application is granted as set forth herein. Reliable Tax will “assist the Debtor
with the preparation of tax returns and prepare financial statements and prepare monthly operating
reports or any other necessary financial reporting for the Bankruptcy Court. The services . . .shall
not include any compilation, review or audit of Debtor’s records.” (Doc 151, Ex. B. ¶ 5.) The
Objection of Mr. Krachenfels (Doc. 161) is overruled, except as provided by the provisions of this
Order. The hourly rate of Reliable Tax is $125 per hour, and Reliable Tax shall file a Notice of any
post-petition increase in its hourly rate.
2. 	The Debtor is authorized to retain and employ Reliable Tax as accountant, effective
as of the date the Application was filed, April 20, 2026, on the terms and conditions otherwise
described in the Application, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 327(a) and 328(a). With respect to Debtor’s
request for retroactive approval, “[t]he prevailing approach is that a bankruptcy court should grant
retroactive retention orders only in extraordinary or exceptional circumstances to deter attorneys and
other professionals from general nonobservance of section 327.” 3 Collier on Bankruptcy
¶ 327.03[3] & n.41 (16th ed.) Moreover, “[p]ut colorfully, ‘[n]unc pro tunc orders are not some
Orwellian vehicle for revisionist history—creating “facts” that never occurred in fact.’ ” Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Feliciano, 589 U.S. 57, 65 (2020) (quoting United States v.
Gillespie, 666 F. Supp. 1137, 1139 (N.D. Ill. 1987) and citing Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33,
49 (1990)).2
2 In the event that Reliable Tax has already performed postpetition services for the Debtor, the Debtor may move to
modify the terms of employment as approved in this Order; however, the Debtor will need to fully explain the reasons
that approval was not sought earlier and establish a basis upon which employment should be approved post facto,
retroactive to a date prior to filing the Application in accordance with applicable case law. For opinions in this District
pre-dating the Feliciano opinion see In re Vlachos, 61 B.R. 473, 477 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1986) (Waldron, J.) (adopting
the view expressed in In re Tom’s Variety and Hardware Inc., 30 B.R. 298 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1983) as not being
inconsistent with Hunter Savings Association v. Baggott Law Offices Co., L.P.A. (In re Georgetown of Kettering,
Ltd.), 750 F.2d 536 (6th Cir. 1984)); In re McDaniels, 86 B.R. 128, 133 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio) (Calhoun, J.) (concluding
that “[t]o establish the basis for a nunc pro tunc order of employment, an applicant must demonstrate each of the
following [eleven] requirements and, all evidentiary matters must be established by clear and convincing
evidence[.]”); In re Carter, 533 B.R. 632, 636-38 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2015) (Preston, J.). For a post-Feliciano opinion
see In re Roberts, 618 B.R. 213, 217 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2020) (Preston, J.) (holding that “[b]ased on the Supreme
Court’s ruling [in Feliciano], the use of nunc pro tunc orders to retroactively seek employment of professionals is an
improper use of the mechanism and this Court will no longer enter such orders[,]” but concluding that it would still
grant “late-filed applications that comply with the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules” and “the requirements set
forth in Carter”).
Case 3:25-bk-30378 Doc 176 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/11/26 13:53:53 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 5

5
3. 	Reliable Tax shall not charge the Debtor or estate in this case for any services
performed for the Debtor’s businesses, only for services provided to the Debtor for his personal
tax returns and to comply with his requirements as a Debtor-in-Possession in this case.
4. 	Reliable Tax has waived any pre-petition claim, including but not limited to the
$200 it was owed for pre-petition services provided to the Debtor and any fees related to the two
(2) hours of post-petition services, and shall not have any prepetition claim in this case against the
Debtor or the estate. See Supp. Aff. at ¶ 13.
5. 	Reliable Tax shall make timely applications to this Court for allowance of
compensation and reimbursement of expenses in accordance with 11 U.S.C. §§ 330 and 331,
Bankruptcy Rule 2016, LBR 2016-1(a), and any orders of this Court.
6. 	This Court shall retain jurisdiction over all matters relating to the implementation
of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Copies to:
Default List Plus Top 20.
Case 3:25-bk-30378 Doc 176 Filed 06/11/26 Entered 06/11/26 13:53:53 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 5