
Joel R. Glucksman
Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Joel R. Glucksman
Date: May 9, 2017

Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.comOne of the great powers of bankruptcy law is the ability to achieve a “fresh start” – that is, to use the bankruptcy process to wipe away or to “discharge” one’s debts, so that the bankrupt may start over with a clean financial slate. This is a right embodied in the United States Constitution.[1] However, the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§101, et seq. (the “Code”) does not grant an unfettered right to a discharge. One such set of “fetters” concerns tax debts.[2]

Code §523(a)(1) forbids a bankrupt from discharging a tax debt where a tax return: (i) was not filed, (ii) was filed late and within two years of the initiation of bankruptcy, or (iii) was filed fraudulently. In a recent, stunning opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Giacchi v. United States (In re Giacchi), ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 5/5/17), the court essentially said that once a return is late and the tax assessed, that return can never be considered “filed” for purposes of Code §523(a)(1), and the tax debt can therefore never be discharged. It makes no difference if the taxpayer files a proper (but late) return, nor that they wait more than two years before declaring bankruptcy, nor that they file a non-fraudulent return. Once late is always verboten, and the taxpayer is thereafter untermenschen.
In the case, the debtor Thomas Giacchi failed to file for 2000, 2001, or 2002. Beginning in 2004, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) duly assessed his liability for these years. Following that, Giacchi submitted his returns – late but otherwise properly submitted. [He did not pay the taxes due.] He then waited more than two years and filed Ch. 7 bankruptcy, filing suit in bankruptcy court for a declaration that his obligations to IRS – as disclosed by his late-filed returns – had been discharged.
The Third Circuit framed the issue as whether “belatedly filed [tax return] forms constitute ‘returns’” for purposes of Code §523(a)(1).[3] The panel noted that the 2005 amendments to the Code delphically defined “return” to mean “a return that satisfies the requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law.” They then focused on Beard v. Comm’r, 82 T.C. 766, 777 (T.C. 1984), aff’d, 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), which they felt sets the standard for determining “the requirements of applicable nonbankruptcy law.”
Beard lays out four tests for a filing to be considered a proper “return”: That it (i) purport to be a return, (ii) be executed under penalty of perjury, (iii) contain sufficient data to allow calculation of the tax, and (iv) represent an honest attempt to satisfy the requirements of tax law. (Id.) The court held that Giacchi’s late-filed returns had failed the last two requirements. As the Third Circuit stated:
Forms filed after their due dates and after an IRS assessment rarely, if ever, qualify as an honest or reasonable attempt to satisfy the tax law. This is because the purpose of a tax return is for the taxpayer to provide information to the government regarding the amount of tax due. If a taxpayer does not file a return, the IRS is required to independently assess the taxpayer’s liability, as it did when Giacchi failed to timely file his 2000, 2001, or 2002 tax returns. Once the IRS assesses the taxpayer’s liability, a subsequent filing can no longer serve the tax return’s purpose, and thus could not be an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with the tax law. Here, there is no dispute that Giacchi failed to file timely returns, and that, as a result of Giacchi’s failure, the IRS had to estimate his taxes without his assistance.
It is worth repeating the clarion call from the Giacchi ruling:
Once the IRS assesses the taxpayer’s liability, a subsequent filing can no longer serve the tax return’s purpose, and thus could not be an honest and reasonable attempt to comply with the tax law.
In other words, anyone beginning the long, sad slide into insolvency MUST continue timely to file their tax returns, and must certainly do so before the IRS assesses them for the unpaid taxes. Why? If the tax returns are properly filed, and if the taxpayer can then avoid filing bankruptcy for the statutory two years, those tax debts can be discharged in bankruptcy. If not, the tax debts will never go away, and the taxpayer will face the financial equivalent of herpes – having a condition that nothing can never cure. [4]
The Constitution guaranties citizens the right to a “fresh start.” Following the rules will assure you that this can be achieved.
Are you a creditor in a bankruptcy? Have you been sued by a bankrupt? If you have any questions about your rights, please contact me, Joel Glucksman, at 201-806-3364.
[1] Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 authorizes Congress to enact “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”
[2] Other exceptions to discharge include claims resulting from fraud (Code §523(a)(2)), from embezzlement or larceny (Code §523(a)(4)), or from willful and malicious injury (Code §523(a)(6)).
[3] There was apparently no contention that Giacchi had filed bankruptcy within two years of submitting his returns, nor that he had submitted fraudulent returns.
[4] Matters could be worse. In several federal circuits, the Beard test need not be reached. In these regions, A return that is even one day late can never be considered a proper return for purposes of §523(a)(1). See In re Fahey, 779 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2015); In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313, 1317 (10th Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Mallo v. I.R.S., 135 S. Ct. 2889 (2015); In re McCoy, 666 F.3d 924, 932 (5th Cir. 2012).
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Bringing on outside investors can provide the capital and strategic support a business needs to grow. However, raising capital also introduces important legal, financial, and operational considerations. Before bringing on investors, businesses should address key legal issues to reduce risk, streamline investor due diligence, and position the company for long-term success. Early preparation signals that […]
Author: Dan Brecher

How the Updated Law Shapes Retirement and Estate Planning The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 materially reshapes the required minimum distribution (RMD) landscape, extending tax deferral opportunities while accelerating distribution requirements for many beneficiaries. For high-net-worth individuals and families, these changes are not merely technical. They require a reassessment of retirement income strategies, beneficiary planning, […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]
Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.

On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]
Author: Dan Brecher

Operating a business in the New Jersey and New York City metropolitan region offers incredible opportunities, but it also requires navigating a dense and highly regulated legal environment. From entity formation to regulatory compliance, seemingly minor legal oversights can expose business owners to significant risk. In our work with businesses throughout the region, our attorneys […]
Author: Dan Brecher

High-profile founder litigation is more than just a media spectacle. For startup founders, these cases underscore the legal and structural risks that can arise when rapid growth outpaces formal oversight. While launching a new company can be both an exciting and deeply rewarding endeavor, founders must be mindful that it also comes with significant risks. […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!