CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

DOW A. HUFFMAN (06-2134/2135) and KIMBERLEE H. WOLFORD (06-2135/2136), Individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Neil A. Huffman; SANDRA E. HUFFMAN (06-2134); ETHEL M. HUFFMAN (06-2135); DOUGLAS M. WOLFORD (06-2136); JAMES A. PATTERSON (07-1180); DOROTHY A. PATTERSON (07-1180),
Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.


Nos. 06-2134/2135/2136;
07-1180

On Appeal from the United States Tax Court.
Nos. 2845-04; 2848-04; 2847-04; 2846-04.
Argued: January 29, 2008
Decided and Filed: March 4, 2008
Before: SUHRHEINRICH and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; BELL, Chief District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. The Tax Court upheld the determination by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the correction of a consistently repeated inventory accounting error in this case amounted to a “change in method of accounting” under I.R.C. § 481. Section 481 permits correction of accounts for otherwise time-barred years. Because the Commissioner properly determined that § 481 applies, we affirm.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

In re: ROBERT HARRIS LONG and GINGER DENISE LONG,
Debtors.
__________________________________________
AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Creditor-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT HARRIS LONG and GINGER DENISE LONG,
Debtors-Appellees.


No. 06-6252

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 06-30651—Richard Stair, Bankruptcy Judge.
Argued: October 23, 2007
Decided and Filed: March 4, 2008
Before: MERRITT and CLAY, Circuit Judges; COX, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This consumer bankruptcy, Chapter 13 case arises because the debtor bought a car under a typical financing arrangement in which the lender retained a lien or mortgage on the car as security for payment of the outstanding loan that enabled the debtor to buy the car. The debtor proposed to surrender the car to the finance company as part of the Chapter 13 plan. The value of the car was less than the outstanding debt. Due to a glitch or gap in a recent revision of the Bankruptcy Code intended to benefit creditors, the law is now silent on what happens to the remaining indebtedness in the surrender-of-the-car situation. The bankruptcy court below held that the congressional mistake in drafting the revision means that the remaining indebtedness is completely wiped out. We believe the gap should be filled and the Congressional mistake corrected. The law previously governing this situation should be restored until Congress can correct its mistake and fill in the gap.