Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Development, Inc.
716 F.3d 736, 2013 WL 2162781, 111 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2028 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debtor subsidiary's tax classification, such as its Qualified Subchapter S Subsidiary (QSub) status, is not property of its bankruptcy estate because the subsidiary lacks any legal or equitable interest in, or control over, that status, which is determined solely by the elections of its non-debtor parent corporation.
Facts:
- Barden Development, Inc. (BDI), solely owned by Don H. Barden, was an S-corporation, a pass-through entity for federal tax purposes.
- Majestic Star Casino II, Inc. (MSC II) was a wholly-owned subsidiary of BDI.
- BDI had elected to treat MSC II as a Qualified Subchapter S Subsidiary (QSub), which meant MSC II was also a pass-through tax entity, and its income and losses were reported on Barden's personal tax returns.
- On November 23, 2009, MSC II and its affiliates (the "Debtors") filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. BDI and Barden did not file for bankruptcy.
- Sometime after the bankruptcy petition was filed, Barden, as BDI's sole shareholder, consented to revoke BDI's S-corporation status.
- The revocation of BDI's S-corp status automatically terminated MSC II's QSub status, converting both entities into C-corporations subject to corporate income tax.
- As a C-corporation, MSC II became liable for its own income taxes on its holdings and operations.
- Later, as part of its confirmed reorganization plan, MSC II was converted into a limited liability company (LLC) and its ownership was transferred to former creditors, actions which would have independently terminated any QSub status.
Procedural Posture:
- Majestic Star Casino, LLC and its affiliates (the 'Debtors') filed an adversary complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against Barden Development, Inc. (BDI), Don H. Barden's estate, and the IRS.
- The complaint sought to void the post-petition revocation of BDI's S-corp status and MSC II's resulting QSub status as an unlawful transfer of estate property.
- The IRS filed a motion to dismiss, and the Barden Appellants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- The Debtors cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The Bankruptcy Court granted summary judgment for the Debtors, holding that the QSub status was property of the estate and its termination was void, and ordered the defendants to restore the tax statuses.
- The Bankruptcy Court granted the Barden Appellants and the IRS leave to appeal its order.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware certified the appeals for direct review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-debtor parent corporation's revocation of its S-corporation status, which automatically terminates its debtor subsidiary's Qualified Subchapter S Subsidiary (QSub) tax status, constitute an avoidable post-petition transfer of property of the subsidiary's bankruptcy estate under the Bankruptcy Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Jordan, Circuit Judge
No, a non-debtor parent's revocation of its S-corp status, which terminates its debtor subsidiary's QSub status, is not an avoidable post-petition transfer of estate property. A subsidiary's QSub status is not 'property of the estate' under § 541 of the Bankruptcy Code because the debtor-subsidiary has no control over or independent legal interest in that status. The court reasoned that for an interest to be considered property of the bankruptcy estate, the debtor must have possessed some legal or equitable interest in it at the commencement of the case. Here, a QSub's tax status is entirely contingent upon the choices and qualifications of its S-corp parent and the parent's shareholders. MSC II had no right to elect, revoke, or control its QSub status; that power resided exclusively with BDI and its shareholder, Barden. The court rejected the analogy to Net Operating Losses (NOLs), distinguishing S-corp/QSub status as being far more contingent and lacking the alienable, monetizable value of an NOL. Treating the QSub status as the debtor's property would improperly expand the debtor's rights beyond what they were pre-bankruptcy, allowing it to control the actions of its non-debtor parent and inequitably shift tax liabilities to the former shareholder. Because the QSub status was not property of MSC II's estate, the Debtors also lacked standing to challenge its revocation, as they were impermissibly asserting the rights of a third party (BDI) whose interests were adverse to their own.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent within the Third Circuit, creating a split with bankruptcy court decisions elsewhere that had treated S-corp status as property of the estate. The ruling clarifies the limits of what constitutes 'property of the estate' under § 541, emphasizing the debtor's pre-petition control as a key factor. By refusing to extend the definition of property to a tax status wholly controlled by a non-debtor, the court prevents debtors from using the automatic stay and avoidance powers to unfairly burden non-debtor parent companies and their shareholders with post-reorganization tax liabilities. This holding will likely influence future cases involving complex corporate structures in bankruptcy, particularly where the tax attributes of a debtor are intertwined with the decisions of non-debtor affiliates.
Unlock the full brief for Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Barden Development, Inc.