Supreme Court Hears Argument on Allowing a Trustee to Sue the IRS for Fraudulent Transfers

December 5, 2024

Supreme Court Hears Argument on Allowing a Trustee to Sue the IRS for Fraudulent Transfers

Most justices seemed inclined to believe that the waiver of sovereign immunity in Section 106(a) does not abrogate the “actual creditor” requirement in Section 544(b)(1).

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

ABI MEMBERS ONLY

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign in using your ABI Member credentials.

Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!

Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."

Learn More

Opinion Link

View Opinion

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-824.html

Case Details

Case Citation

U.S. v. Miller, 23-824 (Sup. Ct.).

Case Name

U.S. v. Miller, 23-824 (Sup. Ct.).

Case Type

Business

Court

Supreme Court

Bankruptcy Tags

Fraud

Practice and Procedure

Bankruptcy Taxation

Business Reorganization

Govt. Claims/Sovereign Immunity

Comments

Submitted by Thomas Salerno on December 5, 2024

Bill This is indeed a fascinating issue! If the Supreme's side with the IRS, then I wonder what happens to those cases that say the "look back" period under 544(b) isn't only state law, but also the trustee/DIP steps into the shoes of the IRS and gets the benefit of the longer look back period based on the IRS ability to recover fraudulent transactions (which I believe is 10 years, but could be wrong)? Interesting legal issue! All the best. Tom