Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974)

41 L.Ed.
2d 374
94 S.Ct. 2431
417 U.S. 642
Henry A. KOKOSZKA, Petitioner,

v.
Richard BELFORD, Trustee, etc.
No. 735265.
Argued April 22, 1974.
Decided June 19, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1974.
See 419 U.S. 886, 95 S.Ct. 160.

Syllabus
1. An income tax refund is 'property' that passes to the trustee under
70a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, being 'sufficiently rooted in the bankruptcy
past,' and not being related conceptually to or the equivalent of future
wages for the purpose of giving the bankrupt wage earner a 'fresh start.'
Lines v. Frederick, 400 U.S. 18, 91 S.Ct. 113, 27 L.Ed.2d 124,
distinguished. Pp. 645648.
2. The provision in the Consumer Credit Protection Act limiting wage
garnishment to no more than 25% of a person's aggregate 'disposable
earnings' for any pay period does not apply to a tax refund, since the
statutory terms 'earnings' and 'disposable earnings' are confined to periodic
payments of compensation and do not pertain to every asset that is
traceable in some way to such compensation. Hence, the Act does not
limit the bankruptcy trustee's right to treat the tax refund as property of the
bankrupt's estate. Pp. 648652.
2 Cir., 479 F.2d 990, affirmed.
Thomas R. Adams for petitioner.
Benjamin R. Civiletti, as amicus curiae, in support of judgment below, by
invitation of the Court.
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case, 414 U.S. 1091, 94 S.Ct. 721, 38 L.Ed.2d 548
(1973), to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals on the questions of
whether an income tax refund is 'property' under 70a(5) of the Bankruptcy
Act1 and whether, assuming that all or part of such tax refund is property which
passes to the trustee, the Consumer Credit Protection Act's 2 limitation on wage
garnishment serves to exempt 75% of the refund from the jurisdiction of the
trustee.3
The petitioner was employed for the first three months of 1971. He was then
unemployed from April 1971 until late in December of that year. He was reemployed for about the last week and a half of December 1971. While
employed, petitioner claimed two exemptions for federal income tax purposes,
the maximum number of deductions to which he was entitled, and his employer
withheld the appropriate portion of his wages. 26 U.S.C. 3402. During the
year 1971, petitioner had a gross income of $2,322.
On January 5, 1972, petitioner filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. With

the exception of a 1962 Corvair automobile which the trustee abandoned as an
asset upon the bankrupt's payment of $25, the sole asset claimed by the trustee
in bankruptcy was an income tax refund entitlement for $250.90. On February
3, 1972, the referee in bankruptcy entered an ex parte order directing petitioner
to turn the refund over to the trustee upon its receipt. The bankrupt moved to
vacate that order and, after a hearing, the referee denied the motion. In midFebruary 1972, petitioner filed his income tax return for the calendar year
1971. Several weeks later, he received his refund check from the Internal
Revenue Service. Upon its receipt, petitioner complied with the order of the
trustee but filed a petition for review of the referee's decision in the United
States District Court. 4 The District Court, denied relief. Petitioner was granted
leave to appeal.5 On May 18, 1973, the United States Court of Appeals, for the
Second Circuit affirmed the order of the District Court, holding that the tax
refund was property within the meaning of 70a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act and
that it therefore vested in the trustee. 479 F.2d 990. The court further held that
the limitations on garnishment contained in the Consumer Credit Protection Act
did not apply to bankruptcy situations and that consequently, the trustee was
entitled to the entire refund. Petitioner seeks review of these questions here.
4(1)
5
We turn first to the question of whether petitioner's income tax refund was
'property' within the meaning of 70a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act. The term has
never been given a precise or universal definition. On an earlier occasion, in
Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 511, 15 L.Ed.2d 428 (1966), the
Court noted that "(i)t is impossible to give any categorical definition to the
word 'property' nor can we attach to it in certain relations the limitations which
would be attached to it in others." Id., at 379, 86 S.Ct. at 515, quoting Fisher v.
Cushman, 103 F. 860, 864 (CA1 1900). In determining the term's scopeand
its limitationsthe purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 'must ultimately govern.'
382 U.S., at 379, 86 S.Ct. at 515. See also Lines v. Frederick, 400 U.S. 18, 91
S.Ct. 113, 27 L.Ed.2d 124 (1970); Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 54
S.Ct. 695, 78 L.Ed. 1230 (1934).
6
In applying these general considerations to the present situation, there are some
guidelines. In Burlingham v. Crouse, 228 U.S. 459, 33 S.Ct. 564, 57 L.Ed. 920
(1913), for example, the Court stated:
'It is the twofold purpose of the bankruptcy act to convert the estate of the
bankrupt into cash and distribute it among creditors and then to the bankrupt a
fresh start with such exemptions and rights as the statute left untouched.' Id., at
473, 33 S.Ct. at 568.
See also Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 77, 25 S.Ct. 172, 175, 49 L.Ed. 390
(1904); Williams v. U.S. Fidelity Co., 236 U.S. 549, 554555, 35 S.Ct. 289,
290, 59 L.Ed. 713 (1915); Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U.S. 605, 617, 38 S.Ct.
215, 218, 62 L.Ed. 507 (1918). On two rather recent occasions, the Court has
applied these general principles to the precise statutory section and to the
precise term at issue here. In Segal v. Rochelle, supra, the Court said:
'The main thrust of 70a(5) is to secure for creditors everything of value the
bankrupt may possess in alienable or leviable form when he files his petition.
To this end the term 'property' has been construed most generously and an
interest is not outside its reach because it is novel or contingent or because
enjoyment must be postponed.' 382 U.S., at 379, 86 S.Ct. at 515.
10
At the same time, the Court noted that this construction must be tempered by
the intent of Congress 'to leave the bankrupt free after the date of his petition to
accumulate new wealth in the future,' ibid., and thus 'make an unencumbered
fresh start,' id., at 380, 86 S.Ct. at 515. Several years later, in Lines v.
Frederick, supra, these same considerations were repeated in almost identical
language. 400 U.S., at 19, 91 S.Ct. at 113. Segal and Lines, while construing
70a(5) in almost identical language, reached contrary results. In each case, the
Court found the crucial analytical key, not in an abstract articulation of the
statute's purpose, but in an analysis of the nature of the asset involved in light of
those principles.
11
In Segal, supra, this Court held that a business-generated loss carryback tax
refundwhich was based on prebankruptcy losses but received after
bankruptcyshould pass to the trustee as 70a(5) property. Balancing the dual
purpose of the Bankruptcy Act, see Burlingham v. Crouse, supra, the Court
concluded that the refund was 'sufficiently rooted in the prebankruptcy past and
so little entangled with the bankrupt's ability to make an unencumbered fresh
start that it should be regarded as 'property' under 70a(5),' 382 U.S., at 380,
86 S.Ct. at 515. The Court noted that 'the very losses generating the refunds
often help precipitate the bankruptcy and injury to the creditors,' id., at 378, 86
S.Ct. at 514, and that passing the claim to the trustee did not impede a 'fresh
start.' On the contrary, a bankrupt 'without a refund claim to preserve has more
reason to earn income rather than less.' Id., at 380, 86 S.Ct. at 515.
12
In Lines, supra, on the other hand, the Court held that vacation pay, accrued
prior to the date of filing and collectible either during the plant's annual
shutdown for vacation or on the final termination of employment, does not pass
to the trustee as 70a(5) property. As in Segal, supra, the Court analyzed the
nature of the asset in the light of the dual purposes of the Bankruptcy Act. It
concluded that such vacation pay was closely tied to the bankrupt's opportunity
to have a "clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and
discouragement of preexisting debt." 400 U.S., at 20, 91 S.Ct. at 114, quoting
Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, supra, at 244, 54 S.Ct., at 699.
13
The income tax refund at issue in the present case does not relate conceptually
to future wages and it is not the equivalent of future wages for the purpose of
giving the bankrupt a 'fresh start.' The tax payments refunded here were income
tax payments withheld from the petitioner prior to his filing for bankruptcy and
are based on earnings prior to that filing. Relying on Lines, however, petitioner
contends that the refund is necessary for a 'fresh start' since it is solely derived
from wages. In Lines, we described wages as "a specialized type of property
presenting distinct problems in our economic system"6 since they provide the
basic means for the 'economic survival of the debtor.' 400 U.S., at 20, 91 S.Ct.,
at 114.
14
Petitioner is correct in arguing that both this tax refund and the vacation pay in
Lines share the common characteristic of being 'wage based.' It is also true,
however, that only the vacation pay in Lines was designed to function as a
wage substitute at some future period and, during that future period, to 'support
the basic requirements of life for (the debtors) and their families . . ..' Ibid. This
distinction is crucial. As the Court of Appeals noted, since a 'tax refund is not
the weekly or other periodic income required by a wage earner for his basic
support, to deprive him of it will not hinder his ability to make a fresh start
unhampered by the pressure of preexisting debt,' 2 Cir., 479 F.2d, at 995. 'Just
because some property interest had its source in wages . . . does not give it
special protection, for to do so would exempt from the bankrupt estate most of
the property owned by many bankrupts, such as savings accounts and
automobiles which had their origin in wages.' Ibid.
15
We conclude, therefore, that the Court of Appeals correctly held that the
income tax refund is 'sufficiently rooted in the prebankruptcy past' 7 to be
defined as 'property' under 70a(5).
(2)
16
17
Our disposition of the first issue requires that we turn next to the petitioner's
contention that 75% of the refund is exempt under the provisions of the
Consumer Credit Protection Act. The Act provides that no more than 25% of a
person's aggregate disposable earnings 8 for any workweek or other pay period
may be subject to garnishment. A trustee in bankruptcy takes title to the
bankrupt's property 'except insofar as it is to property which is held to be
exempt . . ..' Bankruptcy Act, 70a, 11 U.S.C. 110(a). Another section
provides that the Act 'shall not affect the allowance to bankrupts of the
exemptions which are prescribed by the laws of the United States . . ..'
Bankruptcy Act 6, 11 U.S.C. 24. Petitioner argues that the Consumer Credit
Protection Act's restrictions on garnishment, 15 U.S.C. 1671 et seq., are such
an exemption. In essence, the petitioner's position is that a tax refund, having
its source in wages and being completely available to the taxpayer upon its
return without any further deduction, is 'disposable earnings' within the
meaning of the statute. 15 U.S.C. 1672(b). He further argues that the taking
of custody by the trustee is a 'garnishment' since a bankruptcy proceeding is a
'legal or equitable procedure through which the earnings of any individual are
required to be withheld for payment of any debt.' 1672(c).
18
The Congress did not enact the Consumer Credit Protection Act in a vacuum.
The drafters of the statute were well aware that the provisions and the purposes
of the Bankruptcy Act and the new legislation would have to coexist. Indeed,
the Consumer Credit Protection Act explicitly rests on both the bankruptcy and
commerce powers of the Congress, 15 U.S.C. 1671(b). We must therefore
take into consideration the language and purpose of both the Bankruptcy Act
and the Consumer Credit Protection Act in assessing the validity of the
petitioner's argument. When 'interpreting a statute, the court will not look
merely to a particular clause in which general words may be used, but will take
in connection with it the whole statute (or statutes on the same subject) and the
objects and policy of the law, as indicated by its various provisions, and give to
it such a construction as will carry into execution the will of the Legislature . .
..' Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How. 183, 194, 15 L.Ed. 595 (1857).
19
An examination of the legislative history of the Consumer Protection Act

makes it clear that, while it was enacted against the background of the
Bankruptcy Act, it was not intended to alter the clear purpose of the latter Act
to assemble, once a bankruptcy petition is filed, all of the debtor's assets for the
benefit of his creditors. See, e.g., Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 511,
15 L.Ed.2d 428 (1966). Indeed, Congress' concern was not the administration
of a bankrupt's estate but the prevention of bankruptcy in the first place by
eliminating 'an essential element in the predatory extension of credit resulting in
a disruption of employment, production, as well as consumption'9 and a
consequent increase in personal bankruptcies. Noting that the evidence before
the Committee 'clearly established a causal connection between harsh
garnishment laws and high levels of personal bankruptcies,'10 the House Report
concluded:
20
'The limitations on the garnishment of wages adopted by your committee, while

permitting the continued orderly payment of consumer debts, will relieve
countless honest debtors driven by economic desperation from plunging into
bankruptcy in order to preserve their employment and insure a continued means
of support for themselves and their families.' H.R.Rep.No.1040, 90th Cong., 1st
Sess., 21 (1967).
21
See also id., at 7. In short, the Consumer Credit Protection Act sought to
prevent consumers from entering bankruptcy in the first place. However, if,
despite its protection, bankruptcy did occur, the debtor's protection and remedy
remained under the Bankruptcy Act.
22
The Court of Appeals held that the terms 'earnings' and 'disposable earnings,' as
used in 15 U.S.C. 1672, 1673, did not include a tax refund, but were limited
to 'periodic payments of compensation and (do) not pertain to every asset that is
traceable in some way to such compensation.' 2 Cir., 479 F.2d, at 997. This
view is fully supported by the legislative history. There is every indication that
Congress, in an effort to avoid the necessity of bankruptcy, sought to regulate
garnishment in its usual sense as a levy on periodic payments of compensation
needed to support the wage earner and his family on a week-to-week, monthto-month basis. There is no indication, however, that Congress intended
drastically to alter the delicate balance of a debtor's protections and obligations

during the bankruptcy procedure.11 We therefore agree with the Court of
Appeals that the Consumer Credit Protection Act does not restrict the right of
the trustee to treat the income tax refund as property of the bankrupt's estate.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
23
It is so ordered.
24
Judgment affirmed.
The pertinent parts of 70a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. 110(a) (5),
read as follows:
'(a) The trustee of the estate of a bankrupt . . . shall . . . be vested by operation
of law with the title of the bankrupt as of the date of the filing of the petition
initiating a proceeding under this title . . . to all of the following kinds of
property wherever located . . . (5) property, including rights of action, which
prior to the filing of the petition he could by any means have transferred or
which might have been levied upon and sold under judicial process against him,
or otherwise seized, impounded, or sequestered . . ..'
It is undisputed that the refunds could have been transferred under Connecticut
law at the time of the filing of the petition, cf. Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S. 375,
381385, 86 S.Ct. 511, 515, 15 L.Ed.2d 428 (1966).
82 Stat. 146, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.
Title 15 U.S.C. 1673 reads, in pertinent part:

'(a) Maximum allowable garnishment.
'Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section and in section 1675 of this
title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual
for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed
'(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or
'(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty
times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206(a)(1) of
Title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable,
'whichever is less. In the case of earnings for any pay period other than a week,
the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal

minimum hourly wage equivalent in effect to that set forth in paragraph (2).
'(b) Exceptions.
'The restrictions of subsection (a) of this section do not apply in the case of
'(1) any order of any court for the support of any person.
'(2) any order of any court of bankruptcy under chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy
Act.
'(3) any debt due for any State or Federal tax.
'(c) Execution or enforcement of garnishment order or process prohibited.
'No court of the United States or any State may make, execute, or enforce any
order or process in violation of this section.'
4
11 U.S.C. 67(c).
11 U.S.C. 47(a).give
400 U.S. 18, 20, 91 S.Ct. 113, 114, quoting Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.,
395 U.S. 337, 340, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 1822, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969).
Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S., at 380, 86 S.Ct., at 515.
Title 15 U.S.C. 1672, entitled 'Definitions,' states:

'For the purpose of this subchapter:
'(a) The term 'earnings' means conpensation paid or payable for personal
services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or
otherwise, and includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement
program.
'(b) The term 'disposable earnings' means that part of the earnings of any
individual remaining after the deduction from those earnings of any amounts
required by law to be withheld.
'(c) The term 'garnishment' means any legal or equitable procedure through
which the earnings of any individual are required to be withheld for payment of
any debt.'
9
10
11
H.R.Rep.No.1040, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1967).

Id., at 2021.
Petitioner argues that, since Chapter XIII of the Bankruptcy Act had been
explicitly excluded from the scope of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (see
15 U.S.C. 1673(b)), it must have intended to include the other portions of the
Bankruptcy Act. Chapter XIII permits a wage earner to satisfy his creditors out
of future income under a supervised plan. This particular procedure resembles
the normal credit situation to which the CCPA is directed more than other
bankruptcy situations and, for this reason, Congress might well have felt it
necessary to ensure that the CCPA was not enforced at the expense of the
bankruptcy procedures.

Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

41 L.Ed.

Henry A. KOKOSZKA, Petitioner,

See 419 U.S. 886, 95 S.Ct. 160.

Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.

On January 5, 1972, petitioner filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. With

An examination of the legislative history of the Consumer Protection Act

'The limitations on the garnishment of wages adopted by your committee, while

drastically to alter the delicate balance of a debtor's protections and obligations

82 Stat. 146, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.

Title 15 U.S.C. 1673 reads, in pertinent part:

the Secretary of Labor shall by regulation prescribe a multiple of the Federal

Segal v. Rochelle, 382 U.S., at 380, 86 S.Ct., at 515.

Title 15 U.S.C. 1672, entitled 'Definitions,' states:

H.R.Rep.No.1040, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1967).

You might also like