Segal v. Rochelle
1966 U.S. LEXIS 2751, 382 U.S. 375, 15 L. Ed. 2d 428 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A potential claim for a loss-carryback tax refund, which is based on business losses that occurred before the bankruptcy petition was filed, constitutes 'property' that passes to the bankruptcy trustee, even if the claim cannot be formally realized until after the filing date.
Facts:
- Gerald Segal and Sam Segal operated a partnership named Segal Cotton Products.
- In 1959 and 1960, the Segals earned net income and paid federal income taxes on it.
- During the 1961 calendar year, their partnership experienced significant net operating losses.
- On September 27, 1961, before the end of the tax year, the Segals and their partnership filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions.
- After the 1961 tax year concluded, claims were filed to carry back the 1961 business losses to offset the income from 1959 and 1960.
- As a result of these loss-carryback claims, the United States issued tax refunds.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Segal, Sam Segal, and their partnership filed voluntary bankruptcy petitions in a federal district court in Texas, and Rochelle was appointed as the trustee.
- The Segals applied to the referee in bankruptcy to award them tax refunds obtained by the trustee, arguing the claims were not part of the bankruptcy estate.
- The referee in bankruptcy denied the Segals' application.
- The Segals appealed to the United States District Court, which affirmed the referee's decision.
- The Segals, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the trustee, Rochelle.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.
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 potential claim for a loss-carryback tax refund, based on losses incurred in the same year but prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition, constitute 'property... which prior to the filing of the petition... [the bankrupt] could by any means have transferred' under § 70a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, thereby passing to the trustee?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, a potential claim for a loss-carryback tax refund constitutes transferable property that passes to the trustee under the Bankruptcy Act. The term 'property' is construed broadly to secure for creditors everything of value the bankrupt possesses. The refund claim is 'sufficiently rooted in the pre-bankruptcy past' because both the profits that were taxed and the losses creating the refund occurred before the bankruptcy petition was filed. Although enjoyment of the refund is postponed and contingent on future events (like not earning enough post-petition income to erase the loss), this does not remove it from the definition of property. Furthermore, classifying the claim as property does not interfere with the bankrupt's 'fresh start,' as it does not attach to future wages or earnings. While the federal Anti-Assignment Act appears to prohibit transferring such a claim against the government, the Court held that its purpose is to protect the government from multiple liability, not to invalidate assignments between private parties. Therefore, an equitable assignment would be enforceable between the parties, satisfying the Act's transferability requirement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the definition of 'property' for the purposes of a bankruptcy estate under the former Bankruptcy Act. It established the principle that contingent and inchoate interests are part of the estate if they are sufficiently rooted in the bankrupt's pre-petition activities and assets. The ruling prioritizes the statutory goal of collecting assets for creditors over a formalistic approach based on when a claim technically matures. This reasoning has influenced the modern Bankruptcy Code's even broader definition of property and impacts how trustees assess potential assets that may not be realized until after a bankruptcy case has commenced.
