Advertisement

May 18, 2013

Can You Preserve Your Claims Against a Borrower After Filing a 1099-C Cancellation of Debt?

Borrowers who file a bankruptcy petition are always looking for creative new challenges to claims asserted by their bank creditors.  In recent years, debtors have argued that a bank’s issuance of an Internal Revenue Code form 1099-C “Cancellation of Debt” has the effect of waiving the bank’s claims against the borrower, and should preclude the bank from having an allowed claim in the bankruptcy case.  Fortunately, some recent court opinions state that a bank’s issuance of a 1099-C does not constitute a waiver, and the bank remains entitled to enforce its claim in a subsequent bankruptcy case.

Bankruptcy courts around the country have expressed differing opinions about whether a 1099-C forgives or discharges the debtor from further liability on a debt.  For example, courts in Connecticut have said that filing a 1099-C has the effect of discharging the underlying debt.  Arizona courts have declined to state a definitive answer, whereas courts in Indiana have held that filing a 1099-C does not excuse the debt, and instead is an administrative filing made merely to meet IRS requirements.  Similarly, in a recent bankruptcy case in Pennsylvania, In re Zilka, a bankruptcy court held that filing a 1099-C does not waive the debt, operate as a release or discharge the borrower’s liability.  In addition, the bankruptcy court in Zilka held that the lender’s issuance of a written statement to the borrower citing the outstanding loan balance as $0.00 due to a “charge off” only reflected the bank’s internal accounting procedure and was not an admission that the loan balance was forgiven.

A recent North Carolina decision follows the Pennsylvania bankruptcy court’s reasoning in Zilka.  In FDIC as receiver for Bank of Asheville v. Cashion, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina rejected the debtor’s argument that the note was cancelled when the bank filed a 1099-C.  Citing Zilka, the North Carolina court held that the 1099-C did not operate to discharge the debtor’s liability, and was issued only to comply with IRS administrative requirements.

A few practical tips may help banks protect themselves from challenges to their proofs of claim or debt collection activities following issuance of a 1099-C: 

  • The bank can attach a notice to the 1099-C when sent to the debtor stating that the 1099-C is being filed due to administrative requirements of the IRS, but in no way constitutes a waiver of the bank’s claims against the debtor, which claims the bank expressly reserves the right to pursue.
  • Note that the 1099-C  form includes a box for the bank to provide an “identifiable event” code.  A bankruptcy filing by the debtor is an identifiable event so the bank should make sure to list the bankruptcy code in this box as doing so may bolster the argument that the bankruptcy case triggered the bank’s duty to file a 1099-C, but does not signify that the bank released its claim or will forego its right to file a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case. 
  • In the event a bank realizes that it has made an erroneous 1099-C filing, the bank should make a corrective filing promptly because some courts have shown a greater inclination to deny or subordinate a bank’s claim due to an erroneous 1099-C filing, especially if collection activity was ongoing. 
  • Finally, the most prudent course of action is for a bank to carefully evaluate the necessity and timing of filing a 1099-C and refrain from filing one until it is clear that the bank has exhausted collection options, an “identifiable event” has occurred within the meaning of I.R.C. Section 6050P, and the bank is prepared to forgive the remaining balance owed.
© 2013 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Diane practices in the areas of creditor’s rights and bankruptcy, workouts, banking and commercial law. She represents secured and unsecured creditors in Chapter 11 cases involving preferences, reclamations, debtor-in-possession financing, asset purchases, workouts, and turnarounds, and also represents debtors in Chapter 11 cases.

Representative Experience

  • Represents secured and unsecured creditors in Chapter 11 cases.
  • Serves as counsel for committees of unsecured creditors in retail and convenience store bankruptcy cases.
  • As...
704-342-5338

About the Author

Partner

Lisa is the Chair of our Bankruptcy and Creditors' Rights practice group.

Representative Experience:

  • Represents secured and unsecured creditors, including creditors’ committees, in bankruptcy court on contested matters such as cash collateral, DIP financing, claims objection and lien contests, stay relief, confirmation, and executory contracts.
  • Represents creditors in defense of preference actions as well as debtors, trustees or committees in prosecution of avoidance actions.
  • Represents banks and other business interests as plaintiff and...
919-783-2869

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.