Daily Development for Friday, December 3, 2004
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin Kansas City, Missouri dirt@umkc.edu
BANKRUPTCY: CHAPTER 11; TRANSFER TAX EXEMPTION; TRANSFER TO NON-DEBTOR OF
NON-ESTATE PROPERTY: Where a transfer transaction is necessary for the
consummation of a confirmed Ch. 11 plan, the exemption from stamp or similar
taxes contained in § 1146(c) of the Bankruptcy Code applies, even as to
third-party transactions involving non-estate property.
State of Florida v. T.H. Orlando, Ltd. (In re T.H. Orlando, Ltd.), 2004 U.S.
App. LEXIS 24692 (11th Cir. Nov. 30, 2004)
Two debtors owned three hotels in the Orlando, Florida area. Facing foreclosure
of the $70 million mortgage loan on the hotels, the debtors filed a Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding. The mortgage lender agreed to accept a discounted payoff
in full of $23.5 million, contingent on receipt of this amount not later than
August 31, 1997. The debtors obtained a loan commitment from another lender to
advance the $23 million payoff amount, subject to the additional requirement
that the non-debtor owner of a hotel adjacent to one of the debtor's hotels also
refinance its hotel with the new lender as part of the same transaction. The
adjacent owner agreed to this arrangement, solely as an accommodation to the
debtors, even though it was under no obligation to do so.
The Chapter 11 plan of reorganization filed by the debtors contained an express
provision stating that the new lender would not have provided the refinancing
unless the adjacent landowner also refinanced its hotel with the lender, and
that such additional refinancing "therefore is incident to and a condition
precedent to the reorganization of the [debtors]" and thus exempt from the
imposition of Florida documentary stamp taxes pursuant to § 1146(c). [Note:
Florida is one of the relatively few states that taxes mortgage transactions.]
The Florida Department of Revenue ("FDOR") filed an objection, claiming that the
§ 1146(c) exemption did not apply, as a matter of law, to sales of non-estate
property to non-debtor parties. The bankruptcy court confirmed the debtors'
plan, but ruled that the amount of the mortgage transaction would not, until
further order of the court, be deemed exempt under § 1146(c). The debtors paid
the disputed tax amount ($161,425) under protest, and then filed an action for
declaratory relief in the Osceloa County Circuit Court, seeking a refund of this
payment. The FDOR removed this proceeding to the bankruptcy court, which then
ruled that because the adjacent landowner's agreement to refinance was done
pursuant to the approved plan and was necessary in order to consummate and
implement the plan, it was "under a plan" as required by § 1146(c), and the
debtors were entitled to a refund of the disputed amount. The district court
reversed, holding that the § 1146(c) exemption did not a!
pply t
o transfers involving non-debtors.
The Eleventh Circuit began by analyzing the language "under the plan." The court
reviewed the applicable decisions on this issue by other federal circuit courts,
i.e., In re Hechinger (4th Circuit), In re NVR LP (4th Cir.), and City of New
York v. Jacoby Bender (2nd Cir.), and agreed with their conclusion that a
transfer "under a plan" refers to a transfer authorized by a confirmed Chapter
11 plan. The Eleventh Circuit therefore reasoned that a plan authorizes any
transfer that is necessary to the consummation of the plan, irrespective of
whether the transfer involves the debtor or estate property. The court noted
that even though in this case the transaction involved two non-debtor parties
(the adjacent landowner and the new lender), without the participation of these
parties the plan would not have been consummated, the first lender would have
foreclosed its mortgage, and the unsecured creditors would have received
nothing. The court distinguished this factual situation !
from t
hat of cases (cited by the FDOR) where the transaction could be completed either
by outright purchase or financing of the purchase and no mention of the
necessity of obtaining any particular form of financing (or any financing at
all) was mentioned in the plan, i.e., the transfer in this case was not
"irrelevant" and was essential to the consummation of the plan "because the plan
could not have been consummated absent that transfer."
The Eleventh Circuit also found that the determination of whether the exemption
applied was a matter within the "core jurisdiction" of the bankruptcy court, and
noted that Florida's own regulatory interpretation of § 1146(c), contained in
the Florida Administrative Code, "implicitly recognizes that an exemption may
extend to third parties," and does not restrict the exemption solely to transfer
taxes imposed on debtors (although it restricts the exemption to transactions in
which the debtor is a party).
Finally, the Eleventh Circuit declined to rule on the "policy" arguments raised
by the debtors (i.e., that applying the exemption would further the
Congressional policy of encouraging financing of debtors to enable the debtors
to continue in business and provide funds for unsecured creditors) and by the
FDOR (i.e., that U.S. Supreme Court decisions have articulated a policy of
construing tax exemptions narrowly), because the court could find no ambiguity
in the language of § 1146(c).
Reporter's Comment 1: The T.H. Orlando case -- which the Reporter believes was
very well reasoned and correctly decided -- involves a very unusual (and perhaps
unique) fact situation, and very little case-law precedent exists in this area.
The § 1146(c) exemption generally has been deemed to limit eligible transfers to
those over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction; i.e., those which affect
the debtor and property of the debtor's estate, and not to transfers between
third parties. For example, in In re Kerner Printing Co., 188 B.R. 121 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 1995), the bankruptcy court held that subsequent sales and purchases of
condominium units by non-debtor parties were not exempt under § 1146(c) from New
York City's Real Property Transfer Tax. The confirmed bankruptcy plan provided
for the transfer of the bankruptcy estate's property interests in the
condominiums to a non-debtor entity, which subsequently resold the units to
third-party purchasers. The court found tha!
t the
exemption did not apply because no agency relationship existed between the
debtor and the newly created party to whom the debtor's fee interest in the
condominium units was transferred. The court stated that, "[c]ases in which §
1146(c) has been found applicable uniformly involve transfers of estate assets
by debtors in possession." Id. at 124. See also Mensh v. Eastern Stainless Corp.
(In the Case of Eastmet Corp.), 907 F.2d 1487, 1489 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding
that while non-debtor purchase money deed of trust can be described as "part of
the same transaction by which the buyer acquired debtor's real property, that
does not elevate the deed of trust to the status of something 'under a plan
confirmed'"); In re Bel-Aire Invs., Inc., 142 B.R. 992, 995 (Bankr. M.D. Fla.
1992) (holding that § 1146(c) exemption does not apply to non-debtor
transactions); California State Bd. of Equalization v. Sierra Summit, Inc., 490
U.S. 844, 851-52 (1989) ("Although Congress can confer an immu!
nity f
rom state taxation . . . '[a] court must proceed carefully when asked to
recognize an exemption from state taxation that Congress has not clearly
expressed ' . . .") (citations omitted). Cf. Maryland v. Antonelli Creditors'
Liquidating Trust, 123 F.3d 777, 785 (4th Cir. 1997) (ruling that transfers at
issue fell within literal terms of § 1146(c) exemption because liquidating trust
established by debtor to take title to properties and subsequently sell them to
third parties was an "adequate means" for liquidating substantially all of
debtor's property; it was not "patently invalid" means of disposition; and it
was "entirely appropriate to use a liquidating trust to sell and distribute an
extremely large estate . . . which would otherwise consume a large amount of
judicial resources and dissipate much of the estate in legal costs"; and stating
that bankruptcy court had correctly distinguished Kerner on the basis that "in
that case the so-called new entity was actually the sing!
le cre
ditor (or its assignee) most likely to be benefitted by the transfers over
time").
Reporter's Comment 2: As the Eleventh Circuit noted in the T.H. Orlando case,
because § 1146(c) focuses on the transaction itself, and not the individual
parties involved, the exemption generally applies regardless of whether the
debtor or the grantee is obligated to pay the tax under applicable state law.
See In re CCA Partnership, 70 B.R. 696, 698 (Bankr. D. Del. 1987) (upholding
ruling of bankruptcy court that precluded State Director of Revenue from
dividing liability for stamp or similar tax between debtor-grantor and solvent
grantee when transfer was pursuant to confirmed plan, and stating that "a stamp
tax is, by definition, a tax on the instrument of transfer, not on the parties
to the transfer or the act of recording the transfer"); In re Cantrup, 53 B.R.
Bankr. D.Colo. 1985) (ruling that because city's real estate transfer tax was
stamp tax or similar tax, grantee of deed from trustee was entitled to § 1146(c)
exemption, whether presented for recording by grantor !
or gra
ntee). Cf. Lake v. Gleeson, 11 Pa. D & C 2d 584, 586 (Pa. 1956) (holding that,
under § 267 of Bankruptcy Act, while trustee could not be made liable for
transfer tax for "making or delivering of instruments of transfer," nothing in
Bankruptcy Act relieved grantee who "accepted the deed and presented it for
recording" (emphasis in text); In re Amsterdam Ave. Dev. Ass'n., 103 B.R. 454,
460-61(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989) (finding argument that proper focus is not on
parties to tax but on instrument itself "misplaced"; while acknowledging that §
1146(c) exemption may apply to non-debtor grantee required to pay transfer tax,
court held that issue - and not answer - was whether mortgage executed by
nondebtors was an "instrument under a plan" for purposes of § 1146(c)
exemption).
Reporter's Comment 3: Bankruptcy courts consistently have held that the giving
of a mortgage or deed of trust is a "transfer" under § 1146(c). See Amsterdam,
103 B.R. at 458 ("like a stamp tax, the mortgage recording tax is on a written
instrument recognized in law as evidence of the enforcement of legal rights
(citation omitted"); Eastmet Corp., 907 F.2d at 1489 ("there can be no doubt
that the deed of trust transaction involved the making or delivery of an
instrument of transfer"); Hughes v. Lawson (In re Lawson), 122 F.3d 1237, 1240
(9th Cir. 1997) ("Granting of security for a debt is a transfer under the
Bankruptcy Code"); Jacoby-Bender, 758 F.2d at 842 (reflecting "Congress'
understanding that 'transfer' is a word of broad meaning" under Bankruptcy
Code); First Fidelity Savs. & Loan v. Hulm, 738 F.2d 323, 27 (8th Cir. 1984)
(broad definition of 'transfer' includes grant of mortgage). "Transfer" is
defined in the Bankruptcy Code as follows:
"[T]ransfer" means every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional,
voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with property or with an
interest in property, including retention of title as a security interest and
foreclosure of the debtor's equity of redemption.
11 U.S.C. § 101(54) (2003).
The recording of a mortgage modification agreement pursuant to a Chapter 11 plan
presumably also would be a "transfer" entitled to the § 1146(c) exemption.
Furthermore, the § 1146(c) exemption applies to taxes imposed at the time of
recording the mortgage, at least in those situations where the debtor obtains
the mortgage or deed of trust as a means to fund the plan. In New York City v.
Baldwin League of Independent Schools (In re The Baldwin League of Independent
Schools, 110 B.R. 125, 127-28 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989), the District Court ruled
that the § 1146(c) exemption applied to a recording tax on a pre-confirmation
convertible mortgage that the debtor obtained to fund its Chapter 11
reorganization plan. The court reasoned that the exemption applied because the
debtor was the borrower, and recording the mortgage was a practical necessity to
the consummation and effectiveness of the plan. The court also noted the
mortgage was the only source of funding for the plan. The court also noted that
"the mortgage recording tax is in fact a 'stamp tax or similar tax,' because the
amount is determined by the consideration cited in the !
docume
nt , because payment is a prerequisite to recordation, and because the tax is
imposed on a written instrument (citations omitted)"). Id. at 126. See also
Eastmet Corp., 907 F.2d at 1489 (ruling that purchase-money deed of trust was an
"instrument of transfer" under § 1146(c)). Cf. Amsterdam, 103 B.R. at 459-60
(holding that while giving of mortgage is "transfer" of property pursuant to
approved plan and § 1146(c) exemption applies to mortgage tax, exemption does
not apply to mortgage tax imposed on mortgage given by non-debtor borrower-buyer
to conclude purchase).
Presumably, transfers of the debtor's leasehold interest (or interests) under a
confirmed Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan also would benefit from the § 1146(c)
exemption.
Readers are encouraged to respond to or criticize this posting.
Items reported on DIRT and in the ABA publications related to it are for general
information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true
of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data
provided and opinions expressed by the DIRT editor the sole responsibility of
the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily
accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into
account in evaluating confidentiality issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals.
Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 - 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv
address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only commercial
and general real estate matters but also focuses upon residential real estate
matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable,
it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers,
lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe
to this alternative list. If you subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary
also to subscribe to DIRT, as BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to
the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message signoff BrokerDIRT
to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property,
Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law.
Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of
Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for copying or
distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed for such
distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor Randolph, DIRT,
and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/
Members of the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate and Trust Law or of the
National Association of Realtors can subscribe to a quarterly hardcopy report
that includes all DIRT Daily Developments, many other cases, and periodic
reviews of real estate oriented literature and state legislation by contacting
Antonette Smith at (312) 988 5260 or asmith4@staff.abanet.org
*************************************
To unsubscribe from this discussion list, send an email to
dirt-dd-unsubscribe-request@mail.abanet.org or use the following link:
http://w3.abanet.org/abanet/common/email/listserv/listcommands.cfm?parm=unsubscribe&LISTGROUP=dirt-dd
If you have any problems, please contact the list owner at
dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.