Kokoszka v. Belford

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an income tax refund was property of the estate because it was not necessary for a fresh start
• holding that an income tax refund is sufficiently rooted in the pre-petition past to be defined as property under the bankruptcy act
• holding that the wage garnishment protections of the Consumer Credit Protection Act sought to prevent persons from entering bankruptcy in the first place and therefore were not applicable when bankruptcy did occur
• holding that post-petition tax refunds which derive from pre-petition income are property of the bankruptcy estate
• holding that a tax refund is property that passes to the bankruptcy trustee as property of the bankruptcy estate under the Bankruptcy Act
• holding that an income tax refund check did not qualify as “earnings” under the CCPA and therefore was not subject to the 25 percent garnishment cap

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).