Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />f <br />1 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />S <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />it <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />iB <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />t <br />30 DSC 93i(b)(1) claiaifiss the liability as one <br />for repayment and does not azpisssly differentials the <br />liability to be a tax. 2hs Court shouldn't look nay farther <br />than that and shouldn`t lsvastigate the lsgislativ~ history <br />if the statute is clear oa its fats. I don't believe that it <br />is asesssary to asks further inquiry, but in addition to <br />that, it does appear that the priaary liability is owd to <br />the former smplopee^ oz their surviving dependents. I can <br />find ao direct obligation to any goverameatal Wait, and it <br />does appear that the payaeat of this obligation inures to a <br />specific and sl*~*~Tked fund rather than to the general <br />treasury. <br />Therefore, Hader the ?eirina Decision, I'a going <br />find that these obligations do not have the characteristics <br />of a Lax. Therefore, the liability is not one characteri:ad <br />as forth under 11 DSC 307 as a tau required to be collected <br />or withheld by the Debtor, Sul instead is one of <br />reimbursement. <br />I.11 also find that the liability is not as szcise <br />tax because it is not asisiag frog nay transaction ~rithia the <br />applicable tine frees. I'll fiord, thszafozs, that ohs 18 <br />aillioa dollar elms is not a slain for a tor: as set forth <br />mdez Ssetioa S07(a)(7). <br />Therefore, the Debtors' notion for snamary judgment <br />is granted, and I'll role that the claias as currently filed <br />~ ' 32 I <br />