Laserfiche WebLink
<br />U <br />i <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4. <br />S <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />31 <br />12 <br />13 <br />1a <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />•et forth in the provisions of the CFR. <br />b <br />The Debtors believe that the Court should apply <br />this same rationale and disallor the Department oi: Labor'• <br />assertion of a claim to priority Hader 8ectioa S07'ia~ this <br />case. <br />•ith respect to the uses'tioa of this e].aim for <br />reimbursement as a tar, the Department of Labor aaia~taias <br />that it's entitled to priority because of the plain language <br />under either S07(a)(7)(C) oz (E). However, before: nay claim <br />can be found to be entitled to priority Hader 307(a)(7), <br />there must be a determination that there is a tax. <br />In their papers the Department of Labor eaaerhat <br />skips over thi• precursor to a determination of priority <br />under 507(a)(7) and skips directly to the argument that this <br />is an excise tax or a tax rhich is to bs collected. Horever, <br />that is getting the cart bfore the horse, having oracle a <br />determination that there is • tax, oz asrnmiag that, then <br />trying to determiae.rhether thi• is an excise tax. <br />The Debtors believe, ?our Hoaos, that the first <br />thing rhich should be determined is rhetber tbese~cl~~ias are <br />taxes. If they are not tares, there is ao aced to qo nay <br />further is the analysis of the priority of this claim. If <br />they are not fazes, they are not entitled to priority. <br />The Dspartaeat of Labor first argues that the Court <br />should find that it's claim is a tax because Congress does <br />9 <br />1 <br />