Thus, the proper method for determining whether the bankruptcy court has retained post-confirmation jurisdiction is to review the terms of the confirmed plan. If the Bankruptcy Court retained post-confirmation jurisdiction to make a determination under Code § 505(a), then it would be permitted by the Declaratory Judgment Act to make a declaration pertaining to the Liquidating Trust’s federal tax liability. A-C’s 96 *96 plan had been confirmed without appeal. Further, in Allis-Chalmers the relief sought was to prevent the IRS from disallowing any claimed NOLs. In contrast, here, as previously noted, the LT sought a declaration pertaining to a tax liability already incurred. Unlike Allis-Chalmers, the relief sought here was a consequence of a transaction made in the administration of the reorganization plan pursuant to an amendment of the plan ordered by the court to determine, not future tax issues, but tax issues that arose directly from the LT carrying out the confirmed plan. Here the LT sought relief from the Bankruptcy Court on behalf of the Liquidating Trust pertaining to a tax liability incurred in the course of the liquidation. As previously discussed, the Liquidating Plan in this case specifically provided that the Bankruptcy Court would retain jurisdiction to hear matters arising under Code § 505, among others. at 340 (quoting In re Johns-Manville Corp., 7 F.3d at 34 ). Thus, the relief sought was not only post-confirmation, but it was also post-emergent from the bankruptcy. In this case, although the declaratory relief was sought post-confirmation, it was sought during the administration of the Liquidating Plan pursuant to an amended confirmation plan. A-C had not yet attempted to use NOLs to reduce its tax liability, but was merely seeking to prevent disallowance should it do so in the future. at 812 (stating that “under the circumstances presented here, it would be improper for this Court to determine in advance the post-confirmation NOL tax rights of a former debtor who has not yet attempted to use its NOLs”).  Because the IRS did not cross-appeal, its arguments regarding case or controversy, lack of controversy under 28 U.
Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, FEINBERG and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges. Fidelity incurred additional costs, including legal fees, enforcing its indemnity rights against Agway in prolonged litigation. See, e.g., In re SNTL Corp., 571 F.3d 826, 839-45 (9th Cir.2009) (“SNTL ”); Martin v. This Court allowed such claims in a case that was decided under the former Bankruptcy Act, but that commented on section 506(b) of the Code. When Agway thereafter defaulted on payments to its insurers, the insurers in turn sought payment from Fidelity, and Fidelity tendered payment consistent with its obligations under the Bonds. One line of cases holds that an unsecured claim for post-petition attorneys' fees asserted on the basis of a prepetition contract is allowable. The Liquidating Plan further provided for appointment of a liquidating trustee who would oversee liquidation of the Liquidating Trust assets and distribution to creditors pursuant to its terms. under section 505(b) of the Bankruptcy Code for all returns filed for, or on behalf of, the Liquidating Trust for all taxable periods through dissolution of the Liquidating Trust.” Plan § 7.01(f). Under the Liquidating Plan, the entire bankruptcy estate was to be liquidated through the Liquidating Trust, and, upon complete liquidation of the estate the Liquidating Trust would be dissolved. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court had jurisdiction under Code § 505(a) to determine the tax issue that arose post-confirmation, therefore falling within the exception to the prohibition on deciding tax matters set forth in the Declaratory Judgment Act.  The appeal was taken on submission without oral argument. The Liquidating Plan provided for establishment of the Liquidating Trust, and all of the bankruptcy estate’s assets were transferred to the Liquidating Trust. The Plan provided that the “Liquidating Trustee may request an expedited determination of taxes of the Liquidating Trust… It was error to conclude that no jurisdiction existed under Code § 505. Did the Bankruptcy Court err when it determined that it did not have jurisdiction under 11 U. On September 15, 2008, the debtors filed Form 1120-C, reporting an income tax liability of 5,693 resulting from the income generated by the transaction.
Clark Ogle, the Liquidating Trustee (the “LT”) of the Agway Liquidating Trust (the “Liquidating Trust”), filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the August 14, 2009, Memorandum-Decision, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Hon. The LT designated the issues on appeal as follows: 1. § 505(a) to determine the tax liability of the estate arising from a post-confirmation transaction? Did the Bankruptcy Court err when it determined that 11 U. The LT moved to transfer sponsorship of the Retirement Plan in order to implement the strategy. The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion on October 10, 2007, modifying the Liquidating Plan to permit continuation of the Retirement Plan and completion of the transaction. On July 11, 2008, debtors filed a Form 5330 with the IRS reporting zero dollars of excise tax liability related to the transaction. The tax liability at issue certainly was a matter arising from or relating to the bankruptcy cases. Ill.2006) does not support a finding to the contrary. Court held Code § 505 did not allow determination of the tax consequences of a proposed reorganization plan. In fact, here the Bankruptcy Court ordered amendment of the confirmed plan so that the Retirement Plan transaction could take place. DISCUSSION The Declaratory Judgment Act prohibits entry of a declaratory judgment regarding federal tax matters except those brought pursuant to “section 7428 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a proceeding under section 505 or 1146 of title 11.” 28 U. The general rule in the Second Circuit is that the “bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction extends until the debtor’s plan of reorganization has been confirmed.” Icco Design/Build, Inc. Further, the Liquidating Plan provided that the Bankruptcy Court would retain jurisdiction over all matters arising from or relating to the bankruptcy cases. The LT 95 *95 sought a determination of the estate’s excise tax liability, which arose post-confirmation pursuant to an amended Liquidating Plan ordered by the Bankruptcy Court, pursuant to Code § 505(a). At issue in this case is determination of the tax liability of a confirmed plan, not a proposed plan. § 505(a) does not provide a basis to render an opinion as to the estate’s tax liability, because no actual controversy existed? Did the Bankruptcy Court err when it determined that it lacked jurisdiction to make a finding under 11 U. Broad terms of the strategy are sufficient to set the stage: sponsorship of the Retirement Plan was to be transferred to an Agway subsidiary, which would in turn transfer its shares to an independent company allowing for the continuation of the Retirement Plan (“the transaction”). However, a strategy was devised to preserve the Retirement Plan, the specific terms of which are unimportant here. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that August 14, 2009, Order of the Bankruptcy Court is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Decision.  This is somewhat a misstatement of the Bankruptcy Court’s holding.  The Bankruptcy Court noted that the IRS still had not responded as of the hearing date of the LT’s motion, May 26, 2009.