Jacqueline M Reeder

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
JACQUELINE M. REEDER,
Debtor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 09-00728
(Chapter 13)
Not for Publication in
West’s Bankruptcy Reporter
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE OBJECTION
TO PROOF OF CLAIM OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The debtor has objected to the proof of claim filed by the
District of Columbia asserting unsecured claims for income taxes
for the years 2001, 2002, and 2004. 	The debtor alleges that
“[t]his debt appears to have been already paid in the Debtor’s
prior Chapter 13, case number 04-00662, in which she received a
discharge.” 	The District’s allowed claim in the prior case was
for tax, prepetition interest, and prepetition penalties for the
years 2001 and 2002.
I
No claim was filed for the year 2004 in the debtor’s prior
case as that year ended after the April 2004 commencement of the
prior case, and the debtor does not allege, and the proof of
claim filed in this case does not reflect, that the tax year 2004
The document below is hereby signed.
Signed: March 09, 2010.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 09-00728 Doc 56 Filed 03/10/10 Entered 03/10/10 09:10:33 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
was bifurcated into prepetition and postpetition components in
the prior case (assuming that such bifurcation was an available
option under District of Columbia law in the same way that it is
available as to Federal income taxes).
II
The plan in the 2004 case provided for all of the District’s
prepetition claims, and the trustee’s final report reflects that
the District’s allowed claims were paid in compliance with the
terms of the plan. 	For the reasons discussed below, the debtor’s
discharge discharged the income tax claims (including interest
and penalties relating thereto) for the years 2001 and 2002.
A.
The debtor’s prior case was commenced in 2004, and the
provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1328 in force in 2004 governed the
effect of the debtor’s discharge. 	Unlike the version of § 1328
that was enacted in 2005, the 2004 version did not carve out any
exception for taxes. 	It thus discharged the 2001 and 2002 tax
debts, including prepetition interest and penalties, as “debts
provided for by the plan or disallowed under section 502 . . . .”
11 U.S.C. § 1328(a).
B.
This discharge extended to postpetition interest and
penalties as well. 	Unmatured interest (meaning interest accruing
after the petition date) was disallowed under 11 U.S.C.
Case 09-00728 Doc 56 Filed 03/10/10 Entered 03/10/10 09:10:33 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

3	O:\TEEL\Judge Temp Docs\Reeder Mem Decsn re Objetion to DC Tax Claim_v2.wpd
§ 502(b)(2)) and postpetition penalties, being a claim not in
existence on the petition date, were not part of the allowed
claims, which 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) restricts to “the amount of
[the] claim as of the date of the filing of the petition.” 	As
claims disallowed under § 502, such claims were discharged by the
debtor’s discharge under § 1328(a) (discharge extends to claims
“disallowed under section 502").
III
The District’s claims for 2001 and 2002 are barred by the
debtor’s discharge in the 2004 case, but the claim for 2004 was
unaffected by that discharge. 	It is thus
ORDERED that the District’s claims are disallowed except
that the District has an allowed claim not entitled to priority
for the year 2004 in the amount of $171.88.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: Debtor; Debtor’s attorney; Chapter 13 Trustee; Office
of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia;
Government of the District of Columbia
Office of Tax and Revenue
P.O. Box 37559
Washington, D.C. 20013
Case 09-00728 Doc 56 Filed 03/10/10 Entered 03/10/10 09:10:33 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3