Scott David Stewart and Susan G. Stewart

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WILMINGTON DIVISION
IN RE:
SCOTT D. STEWART and
SUSAN G. STEWART,
DEBTORS.
CASE NO. 11-04129-8-JRL
Chapter 11
ORDER
This matter came before the court on W. Vaughan Stanaland’s (“Mr. Stanaland”) motion
for debtors to file tax documents. A hearing was held on August 14, 2012, in Wilmington, North
Carolina.
The debtors filed their voluntary petition pursuant to chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
on May 27, 2011 and are currently operating as debtors-in-possession. 	The male debtor and Mr.
Stanaland are each fifty percent owners and member-managers of Stanaland Stewart Company,
LLC. It is undisputed that Mr. Stanaland is a contingent creditor in the debtors’ case. On June
28, 2012, Mr. Stanaland filed the present motion, requesting that the debtors produce and/or file
with the court their 2007 through 2010 federal individual income tax returns and their 2011
federal income tax returns, pursuant to § 1228 of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”). The debtors objected to Mr. Stanaland’s
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 28 day of August, 2012.
________________________________________
J. Rich Leonard
United States Bankruptcy Judge
____________________________________________________________
Case 11-04129-8-SWH Doc 258 Filed 08/28/12 Entered 08/28/12 14:55:37 Page 1 of 3

2
request on July 13, 2012.
Section 1228—an uncodified provision of BAPCPA—provides that “[t]he court shall not
confirm a plan of reorganization in the case of an individual under chapter 11 or 13 under title
11, United States Code, unless the requested tax documents have been filed with the court.” It
appears to the court that this provision, standing alone, does not provide Mr. Stanaland or other
creditors with an independent right to demand tax documents from individual debtors, but rather,
it only has significance if considered in conjunction with a provision of the Bankruptcy Code or
similar authority. In other words, there must be some other provision that defines the scope of
the “requested tax documents” referenced in § 1228 of BAPCPA. In the present case, the court
finds that § 1228 must be read in conjunction with 11 U.S.C. § 521(e)(2), which provides:
(A) The debtor shall provide--
(i) not later than 7 days before the date first set for the first meeting of
creditors, to the trustee a copy of the Federal income tax return required under
applicable law (or at the election of the debtor, a transcript of such return) for the
most recent tax year ending immediately before the commencement of the case and
for which a Federal income tax return was filed; and
(ii) at the same time the debtor complies with clause (i), a copy of such return
(or if elected under clause (i), such transcript) to any creditor that timely requests
such copy.
(B) If the debtor fails to comply with clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A), the
court shall dismiss the case unless the debtor demonstrates that the failure to so
comply is due to circumstances beyond the control of the debtor.
(C) If a creditor requests a copy of such tax return or such transcript and if the
debtor fails to provide a copy of such tax return or such transcript to such creditor at
the time the debtor provides such tax return or such transcript to the trustee, then the
court shall dismiss the case unless the debtor demonstrates that the failure to provide
a copy of such tax return or such transcript is due to circumstances beyond the
control of the debtor.
11 U.S.C § 521(e)(2) (emphasis added).
Case 11-04129-8-SWH Doc 258 Filed 08/28/12 Entered 08/28/12 14:55:37 Page 2 of 3

3
As Mr. Stanaland is a “creditor” for the purposes of § 521 and the debtors’ case was filed
in 2011, the court finds that Mr. Stanaland’s request entitles him to a copy of the 2010
documents that were provided to the Bankruptcy Administrator—whether they be tax returns or
transcripts thereof— in order to comply with § 521(e)(2). However, in order to protect the
debtors’ privacy interests, the copied documents must be redacted in accordance with Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9037(a). Furthermore, Mr. Stanaland is disallowed from
spreading the provided information beyond his attorney or others that are consulted in a
professional capacity for the purpose of analyzing or interpreting the documents for use in this
case.
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Stanaland’s motion is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in
part.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case 11-04129-8-SWH Doc 258 Filed 08/28/12 Entered 08/28/12 14:55:37 Page 3 of 3