ÿWPC¤ —ZæÑ\p1³Z&W?Ûd‚DØ6“i”R²$Q´J„ðÀn1Z€Åæ[Ü^¥%àÉkcãÏ~ÇõꀹjêW‰Õ8î«ÿ[¬ q#Ìa"cz÷í?éU‚e±\8IþÚ`j5¼-•ú¾ö¯L±Uú²üí`ÙÐàhÝé´Ž% ñ7Oýo€<ÆÇJ0í8³@•‘=ÁãS;Á ilìÞ¾ÝaÄKÛߚd+6‰³K$œa¨x6¹ÃåÐ/ÅØ¾Én}^xò±=è¤UHNJàœæ±[A{Š”ó©6gÕœöÁöÞ 0Q'“‹¡â„–÷"^Yž{êÒàŽ#›­´ÄB¦ìÇ!Ãôºñ©áRp_vç¡|kÔÿµ=Òñ)Ïy©teãs7{ÖvfÆo8ý­}hK™‰ñ¨È-êÒÌû ¶zéW>Rfåú¯\ÛëhöÜ©jR¢éH’vƒ‡btº‰úv+qšªÂËiûCn?b!¿„AU$Ó²O—·š ¶[„ƒVpî9B’ªÿlª¨2õ] h?µQTbm¹Vžp}ùQî˜Ýßý‰cöJ OËàR@áØp "k2"'‡@kW‰`%S —]bKª7WIÍ‹(#!0 %Q 0DW 0(›NÃU:Å 0‰ÿUNˆNÖUFØU>^ \w@h4¨¼ËEÍfÏaÑ måüNUBbH¾Pê ø Vû û û û û û 6QQQQQ B‡˜HP LaserJet 4 LOCAL,ü,,,,,ü0X(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó($¡¡<þ6X9`("Courier NewTT(':2u³$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóvÖr Z‹6Times New Roman Regular´¾½Q 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular<è\( 9Z+&Courier Regular,Œ)Æ DU D!U"V#î$D%Ó€&'|)p#‰ðq…3|x' øÀTABLE AÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ <þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- ù- ´Ý ƒu³$ÝÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Youngs€argue€that€the€automatic€stay€was€lifted€uponÐ ° Ðtheir€motion€to€dismiss€rather€than€when€the€bankruptcy€courtÏclosed€the€case.€€Because€the€choice€of€dates€does€not€affect€ourÏanalysis€or€outcome,€we€assume€for€simplicity's€sakeòòóó€that€theÐ X Ðclosing€date€controls.€€òòóó àÝ ƒu³$ÝÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIf€the€IRS€assessed€and€obtained€liens€within€three€years€ofÐ ° Ða€tax€due€date,€taxes€due€more€than€three€years€prior€to€aÏbankruptcy€petition€would€be€secured€through€liens;€and€although€Ïa€bankruptcy€petition€would€automatically€stay€assessment€andÏcollection€of€any€new€taxes,€the€three„year€lookback€provisionÏwould€prevent€discharge€as€to€them.€ ùÝ ƒu³$ÝÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô11€U.S.C.€ðð€108(c)€(extending€nonbankruptcy€statutes€ofÐ ° Ðlimitation€for€creditors€when€they€are€barred€by€the€BankruptcyÏCode€from€taking€action€against€a€debtor)×Ã"°×× C ×;€26€U.S.C.€ðð€6503(h)Ï(extending€the€statutes€of€limitation€for€the€IRS's€assessment€andÏcollection€of€taxes€while€it€is€stayed€by€the€Bankruptcy€Code€fromÏpursuing€a€debtor).€€ LÝ ƒu³$ÝÓ  Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòWaughóó€v.€òòIRSóó€(òòIn€reóó€òòWaughóó),€109€F.3d€489,€491„93€(8th€Cir.),Ð ° Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€€522€U.S.€823€(1997);€òòIn€reóó€òòTayloróó,€81€F.3d€20,€22„24Ð xÈ Ð(3d€Cir.€1996);€òòWestóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó€(òòIn€reóó€òòWestóó),€5€F.3d€423,Ð @ Ð426„27€(9th€Cir.€1993),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€511€U.S.€1081€(1994);€òòUnitedÐ X ÐStatesóó€v.€òòRichardsóó€(òòIn€reóó€òòRichardsóó),€994€F.2d€763,€765„66€(10thÐ Ð  ÐCir.€1993)òòóó;€òòÔ_ÔMontoyaÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó€(òòIn€reóó€òòÔ_ÔMontoyaÔ_Ôóó),€965€F.2d€554,Ð ˜è Ð557„58€(7th€Cir.€1992)òòóó. ,Ý ƒI‹$ÝÔ‡ XŒ©XXXÔÓ  ÓÓ=€ÅÐXdÐd=Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔSection€108€provides,€in€relevant€part:Ð ° ÐÐ xÈ † ÐÒ°ÒÒ« °ÒÓ*« û…X” –Xÿÿ°œX*Ó(c)€[Ô_ÔI]fÔ_Ô€applicable€nonbankruptcy€law€.€.€.€fixesÏa€period€for€commencing€or€continuing€a€civilÏaction€in€a€court€other€than€a€bankruptcy€court€onÏa€claim€against€the€debtor€.€.€.€and€such€periodÏhas€not€expired€before€the€date€of€the€filing€ofÏthe€petition,€then€such€period€does€not€expireÏuntil€the€later€of„„ÌÒ « ÒÒ«  Ò(1)€the€end€of€such€period,€including€anyÏsuspension€of€such€period€occurring€on€or€after€theÏcommencement€of€the€case;€orÌ(2)€30€days€after€notice€of€the€termination€orÏexpiration€of€the€stay€under€section€362,€922,Ï1201,€or€1301€of€this€title,€as€the€case€may€be,Ïwith€respect€to€such€claim.€€ÌÒ « ½ÒÌÒ° Ò11€U.S.C.€ðð€108(c).€€ dÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRXà3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !ÙÔ€X­&XXXÔÔ€°J°XX­&Ôò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÔ€„ Õ„°°JÔÐ ° ÐFor€the€First€Circuitó óÔ€ „ý4„„„ ÕÔÔ€ XgœX„ „ý4ÔÐ „Ô ÐÓ÷ÓññÌññññÌññßA€') °°` dE<¹` AßÐ º  ÐÔ€ XU#XX XgœÔñ ñÌññÌñññ ññ!ñÌÌñ!ñNo.€00„1484ÌÌà@¬¬ìàIN€RE:€€CORNELIUS€P.€YOUNG€and€SUZANNE€P.€YOUNG,ˆÌÌà@  &ìàDebtors.ˆÌà@””%ìà__________ˆÌÌà@Œ Œ ìàCORNELIUS€P.€YOUNG€and€SUZANNE€P.€YOUNG,ˆÌÌà@<< ìàDebtors,€Appellants,ˆÌÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÌÌà@ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA,ˆÌÌà@ÐÐ&ìàAppellee.ˆÌà@””%ìà__________ˆÌÌà@àà$ìàVICTOR€Ô_ÔDAHARÔ_Ô,ˆÌÌà@  &ìàTrustee.ˆÌÌßA€') °°` dE<ˆ` AßÐ ‰Ù ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÌÌà@0 0 ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€NEW€HAMPSHIREˆÌÌà@èèìà[Hon.€Steven€J.€Ô_ÔMcAuliffeÔ_Ô,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ €Ð" ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<!` AßÐ !`$ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÌÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Ô_ÔTorruellaÔ_Ô,€òòChief€Judgeóó,Ð w#Ç( ÐÌÔ_ÔBownesÔ_Ô,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð %W * ÐÌand€Ô_ÔBoudinÔ_Ô,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð —&ç!, ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<&(` AßÐ '(w#. ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòGrenville€Clark€IIIóó€with€whom€òòGray,€Wendell€&€Clark,€P.C.óó€wasÐ þ(N$0 Ðon€brief€for€appellants.ÌÐ  Ž*Þ%2? Ðà  àòòThomas€J.€Sawyeróó,€Tax€Division,€Department€of€Justice,€withÐ ° Ðwhom€òòPaula€M.€Ô_ÔJunghansÔ_Ôóó,€Acting€Assistant€Attorney€General,€òòPaul€M.Ð xÈ ÐÔ_ÔGagnonÔ_Ôóó,€United€States€Attorney,€and€òòBruce€R.€Ô_ÔEllisenÔ_Ôóó,€Tax€Division,Ð @ ÐDepartment€of€Justice,€were€on€brief€for€the€United€States.Ì€ÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ  ˜è ‹‹ÐÓ²Óñ'ñÐ SIüL €ÿá@36860„„‰€ÿá@‰‹‹SÐñ'ññ'ñÐ 0&üL „„‹‹0Ðñ'ñÌñ&ñDecember€1,€Ô_Ô2000ñ&ñÔ_ÔÌÐ 0&!Œ Ü " ‹‹0ÐÐ(üL   (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÌÓ  ÓÌñ"ñÐ  Ü ,  ÐÔ_Ôñ"ññ#ñÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€U=XXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óñ#ññ$ññ#ñÓ=€e$ÐXdÐd=Óñ#ññ$ññ#ñà ` àBOUDIN,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.€€Having€obtained€a€filingÐ ° Ðextension,€Cornelius€and€Suzanne€Young€filed€their€1992€federalÏincome€tax€return€on€October€15,€1993.€€Their€return€showed€taxesÏdue€after€withholding,€but€no€payment€accompanied€the€return.€ÏInstead,€the€Youngs€made€modest€payments€to€the€IRS€for€a€number€ofÏmonths€and€then,€on€May€1,€1996,€filed€for€Chapter€13€bankruptcy,€Ï11€U.S.C.€ðð€1321€(1994).€€This€automatically€stayed€all€IRS€effortsÏto€collect€taxes€from€the€Youngs.€€òòId.óó€ðð€362(a)(6).€Ð  ð  Ðà ` àTo€complete€a€Chapter€13€bankruptcy„„typically€aÏproceeding€that€lasts€several€years„„requires€that€tax€claims€beÏpaid€in€full.€€11€U.S.C.€ðððð€507(a)(8),€1322(a)(2).€€At€the€outset,Ïthe€IRS€filed€a€proof€of€claim€for€the€unpaid€1992€taxes.€€However,Ïthe€Youngs€did€not€stay€the€course;€instead,€on€October€23,€1996,Ïthe€Youngs€moved€to€dismiss€their€petition.€€òòId.óó€ðð€1307.€€TheÐ P Ðbankruptcy€court€did€so€on€March€13,€1997,€which€would€normallyÏterminate€the€automatic€stay.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óó€ðð€362(c)(2).Ð  p Ðà ` àOne€day€before€the€Chapter€13€proceeding€was€closed,€theÏYoungs€filed€a€new€"no€asset"€bankruptcy€petition€under€Chapter€7.ÏThis€in€turn€continued€the€automatic€stay€òòpendenteóó€òòliteóó.€€ChapterÐ Ð $ Ð7€is€usually€a€brief€proceeding€to€distribute€non„exempt€assets€toÏcreditors.€€On€June€17,€1997,€the€Youngs€received€a€discharge€inÏâ âthe€Chapter€7€proceeding,€generally€discharging€their€debtsÐ €%Ð * Ð"[e]xcept€as€provided€in€section€523€[of€title€11],"€11€U.S.C.€ððÏ727(b).Ìâ âà ` àAfter€the€discharge€the€IRS€sought€the€unpaid€balance€forÏthe€Youngs'€1992€taxes,€and€the€Youngs€then€asked€the€bankruptcyÏcourt€to€rule€that€their€remaining€1992€tax€liability€had€beenÏdischarged.€€The€IRS€countered€that€section€523(a)(1)(A)€of€theÏBankruptcy€Code€precludes€the€discharge€of€any€debt€"for€a€tax€.€.Ï.€of€the€kind€and€for€the€periods€specified€in€section€.€.€.Ï507(a)(8),"€11€U.S.C.€ðð€523(a)(1),€which€includes€in€pertinent€partÏunsecured€government€claims€for€income€taxÌÓÓà8 ` àfor€a€taxable€year€ending€on€or€before€theÏdate€of€the€filing€of€the€petition€for€which€aÏreturn,€if€required,€is€last€due,€includingÏextensions,€after€three€years€before€the€dateÏof€the€filing€of€the€[bankruptcy]€petition€.€.Ï.€.Ð ` x` x ÐÌÓÓ11€U.S.C.€ðð€507(a)(8)(A)(i).Ìà ` àThis€convoluted€language€is€commonly€understood€toÏdescribe€claims€for€taxes€for€which€the€return€was€due€òòthree€yearsÐ è8 Ðor€lessóó€before€the€petition€was€filed.€€The€Youngs'€1992€return€wasÐ xÈ! Ðdue€on€October€15,€1993;€òòmoreóó€than€three€years€before€their€ChapterÐ  X# Ð7€petition€was€filed€on€March€12,€1997.€€In€response€to€thisÏcomputational€argument€for€discharge,€the€IRS€said€that€inÏcalculating€the€three„year€period€under€section€507,€the€courtÏshould€exclude€the€period€during€which€the€Chapter€13€automaticÏstay€had€prevented€the€IRS€from€collecting€the€Youngs'€tax€debt;€ifÏthis€is€done,€the€elapsed€delay€is€well€under€three€years.Ìà ` àFollowing€the€majority€view€among€the€dividedÏauthorities,€the€bankruptcy€court€agreed€with€the€IRS€that€theÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðthree„year€period€in€section€507€should€be€tolled€during€the€periodÏof€the€prior€automatic€stay.€€The€district€court€affirmed,€sayingÏthat€the€better€reasoned€decisions€supported€this€result.€€TheÏYoungs€now€appeal€to€this€court.€€The€issues,€which€turn€solely€onÏthe€law,€are€considered€òòde€novoóó€in€this€court.€€òòMartinóó€v.€òòBajgaróóÐ ð @ Ð(òòIn€reóó€òòBajgaróó),€104€F.3d€495,€497€(1st€Cir.€1997).Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àPrior€to€1966,€no€tax€debt€was€discharged€by€bankruptcy.€Ïòòóó11€U.S.C.€ðððð€35(a)(1),€104(a)(4)€(1964).€€The€ability€of€the€IRS€toÐ  ð  Ðrecover€unpaid€taxes€was€constrained€only€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€requiring€(exceptions€aside)€assessment€within€threeÏyears€of€the€return's€filing,€and€collection€within€six€years€(nowÏten€years)€of€assessment.€€26€U.S.C.€ðððð€6501„02€(1964€&€1994).€€InÏ1966,€Congress€amended€the€Bankruptcy€Code€to€strike€a€new€balanceÏbetween€government€revenue€needs€and€the€"fresh€start"€objectivesÏof€the€bankruptcy€laws.€€Pub.€L.€No.€89„496,€ðð€2,€80€Stat.€270Ï(1966)€(codified€at€11€U.S.C.€ðð€35€(Supp.€V€1970));€S.€Rep.€No.Ï1158€(1966),€òòreprinted€inóó€1966€U.S.C.C.A.N.€2468,€2469„72.€€TaxesÐ °  Ðwere€made€dischargeable€under€Chapter€7€but€subject€to€a€three„yearÏ"lookback"€provision€which,€ignoring€exceptions€not€relevant€here,Ïread€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ` àA€discharge€in€bankruptcy€shall€release€aÏbankrupt€from€all€of€his€provable€debts€.€.€.Ïexcept€.€.€.€taxes€which€became€legally€dueÏand€owing€by€the€bankrupt€.€.€.€within€threeÏyears€preceding€bankruptcy€.€.€.€.Ð ` x` x ÐÌ11€U.S.C.€ðð€35(a)€(Supp.€V€1970).€€ÌÌÓÓà ` àThis€provision€did€not€affect€claims€of€the€governmentÏthat€were€secured€by€liens€that€the€IRS€obtained€prior€toÐ À+'2 Ðbankruptcy€through€IRS€levies€or€court€proceedings€to€collect€pastÏtaxes.€€S.€Rep.€No.€1158,€òòreprinted€inóó€1966€U.S.C.C.A.N.€at€2470.€Ð @ ÐThe€new€three„year€lookback€limitation,€said€Congress,€wouldÏ"induce€taxing€authorities€to€act€to€prevent€large€accumulations€ofÏtax€claims,"€curbing€the€past€practice€of€allowing€them€"toÏaccumulate€and€remain€unpaid€for€long€periods€of€time."€€òòId.óó€atÐ € Ð  Ð2471.€€Thus,€even€under€the€new€scheme,€the€government€couldÏeffectively€protect€itself€as€to€all€tax€claims€by€actingÏpromptly.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð 0€  Ðà ` àIn€the€Bankruptcy€Reform€Act€of€1978,€Pub.€L.€95„598,€92ÏStat.€2549€(codified€at€11€U.S.C.€ðððð€101„1330€(1994)),€CongressÏrevised€the€1966€amendments€in€various€ways.€€Notably,€it€split€theÏrelevant€discharge€provision€into€the€two€sections€described€aboveÏ(sections€727(b)€and€523(a)(1)(A));€it€fine„tuned€the€three„yearÏperiod€to€begin€with€the€date€of€the€return€instead€of€the€due€dateÏof€the€taxes,€11€U.S.C.€ðð€507(a)(8)(A)(i);€and€it€added€a€newÏexception€to€dischargeability€for€taxes€assessed€within€240€daysÏbefore€the€filing€of€a€bankruptcy€petition,€11€U.S.C.€ððÏ507(a)(8)(A)(ii).€€But€details€aside,€there€is€no€indication€thatÏCongress€intended€to€alter€the€three„year€lookback€compromiseÏâ âstruck€in€1966.Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àAgainst€this€background,€the€issue€on€this€appeal€isÏâ âreadily€framed.€€The€Youngs€rely€on€the€language€of€the€presentÏBankruptcy€Code€and€say€correctly€that€a€plain€language€readingÏfavors€their€position.€€The€IRS€claim€for€their€unpaid€1992€taxesÏwas€never€secured€and€so€is€dischargeable€in€bankruptcy€unlessÏexcepted€by€the€three„year€lookback€provision.€€And,€literallyÏread,€the€three„year€lookback€provision€does€not€apply€to€theÏYoungs€because€the€tax€return€in€question€was€filed€more€than€threeÏyears€prior€to€the€Youngs'€Chapter€7€bankruptcy€petition.Ìà ` àThe€IRS,€by€contrast,€urges€that€the€three„year€lookbackÏperiod€be€tolled„„that€is€to€say,€extended„„by€excluding€the€periodÏduring€which€the€Youngs€were€in€Chapter€13€proceedings.€€DuringÏthis€period,€the€IRS€could€not€make€collection€efforts€based€on€itsÏprior€assessment€against€the€Youngs€for€their€1992€taxes;€and€givenÏthe€overlap€of€the€two€automatic€stays€obtained€by€the€Youngs,€theÏIRS€never€got€the€three„year€period€that€Congress€intended€toÏprovide€it€to€assess€and€collect€the€1992€taxes.€€This,€says€theÏIRS,€frustrates€the€original€compromise€embodied€in€the€statute€andÏopens€the€way€to€taxpayer€manipulation.Ìà ` àCongress€has€adopted€tolling€provisions€to€deal€withÏrelated€problems€elsewhere€in€the€Bankruptcy€and€Tax€Codes;׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ð#@( Ðindeed,€there€is€a€tolling€provision€of€a€specialized€kind€builtÐ €%Ð * Ðinto€the€companion€240„day€assessment€period€added€to€sectionÏ507(a)(8)(A)(ii)€in€1978.€€But€the€inferences€from€the€presence€ofÏthese€express€provisions€more€or€less€cancel€out:€€the€IRS€getsÏsome€support€from€underlying€policies€in€favor€of€tolling€adoptedÏin€these€different€situations,€while€the€Youngs€can€say€thatÏCongress's€express€provisions€show€that€it€knew€how€to€add€tollingÏprovisions€when€it€wished€to€do€so,€òòseeóó€òòKeene€Corp.óó€v.€òòUnitedÐ `  ÐStatesóó,€508€U.S.€200,€208€(1993)€(using€the€canon€of€òòinclusioÐ  ð  Ðuniusóó).€Ð 0€  Ðà ` àThe€truth€is€that€Congress€appears€never€to€have€thoughtÏabout€the€precise€problem€posed€by€the€Youngs'€successiveÏpetitions.€€Had€it€done€so,€it€is€a€very€safe€guess€that€it€wouldÏhave€adopted€a€tolling€provision€of€some€sort€to€protect€the€IRS.€ÏThe€IRS's€policy€arguments,€based€on€the€original€1966€compromiseÏand€the€threat€of€manipulation,€are€strong€ones,€and€the€YoungsÏhave€no€serious€counter„arguments€based€on€policy;€they€rely€mainlyÏon€literal€language€and€the€impropriety€of€courts€rewritingÏstatutes.€€This€last€point€is€the€nub€of€the€matter.Ìà ` àIf€Congress€imposed€a€new€tax€on€two€classes€of€taxpayersÏand€patently€omitted€a€third€comparable€class€only€throughÏoversight,€a€court€could€not€properly€read€the€third€class€into€theÏtax€statute,€however€confident€judges€might€be€about€what€CongressÏwould€have€done€if€it€had€thought€of€the€defect.€€Yet€courts€haveÏbeen€far€more€ready€to€interpolate€omissions€into€statutes€whereÏthe€concern€is€with€ancillary€matters€such€as€remedies,€exhaustionÏrequirements,€time€period€calculations,€retroactivity,€andÐ À+'2 Ðestoppel.€€Such€matters€are€usually€subordinate€to€Congress's€mainÏconcerns,€and€courts€often€have€prior€expertise€or€existingÏdoctrine€in€point.€Ìà ` àThe€category€most€apt€in€this€case€is€that€of€statutes€ofÏlimitations.€€Ordinarily,€such€limitations€periods€are€fixedÏtersely€by€statute,€but€an€apparatus€of€judge„made€tolling€doctrineÏhas€been€superimposed€on€such€statutes.€€òòDevelopments€in€the€Law„„Ð `  ÐStatutes€of€Limitationsóó,€63€Harv.€L.€Rev.€1177,€1220„35€(1950).€Ð  ð  ÐThe€three„year€lookback€provision€is€akin€to€a€statute€ofÏlimitations„„it€preserves€recent€claims€against€discharge€and€cutsÏoff€older€ones„„and€we€think€that€courts€retain€the€same€freedomÏhere€to€assure€that€the€underlying€aims€of€Congress€are€notÏfrustrated€by€conduct€that€thwarts€the€compromise€enacted€in€1966.Ìà ` àVirtually€all€of€the€circuit€cases€dealing€withÏsuccessive€bankruptcy€petitions€and€the€three„year€lookbackÏprovision€have€chosen€to€supplement€the€statute;€the€onlyÏdifference€between€the€judges€is€how€to€do€it.€€The€most€commonÏrule,€adopted€by€five€circuits,€is€that€the€lookback€period€isÏautomatically€tolled€during€a€prior€bankruptcy.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€These€courtsÐ Ð $ Ðdiffer€only€in€using€different€analogies€or€arguments€to€supportÏthe€rule;€four€borrow€from€some€combination€of€tolling€provisionsÏelsewhere€in€the€Bankruptcy€and€Tax€Codes,€òòseeóó€note€3€above,€whileÐ €%Ð * Ðthe€Tenth€Circuit€relies€on€the€general€equitable€powers€ofÏbankruptcy€courts€under€26€U.S.C.€ðð€105(a).Ìà ` àBy€contrast,€three€other€circuits€have€held€that€theÏlookback€period€is€not€automatically€tolled€by€a€prior€bankruptcyÏproceeding€but€that€equitable€considerations€may€permit€tolling€onÏa€case„by„case€basis.€€The€Eleventh€Circuit€states€that€theÏequities€will€usually€favor€the€government,€òòMorganóó€v.€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ `  Ð(òòIn€reóó€òòMorganóó),€182€F.3d€775,€779„80€(11th€Cir.€1999);òòóó€the€SixthÐ  ð  Ðseems€to€require€a€showing€of€debtor€misconduct,€òòPalmeróó€v.€òòUnitedÐ 0€  ÐStatesóó€(òòIn€reóó€òòPalmeróó),€219€F.3d€580,€585€(6th€Cir.€2000);€and€theÐ À ÐFifth€agnostically€demands€a€"[f]ull€development€and€examination€ofÏthe€facts,"€òòQuenzeróó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó€(òòIn€reóó€òòQuenzeróó),€19€F.3d€163,Ð à0 Ð165€(5th€Cir.€1993).Ìà ` àWe€follow€the€majority€view€in€favor€of€automaticÏtolling.€€In€some€cases,€the€equities€alone€might€justify€tolling,Ïbut€the€automatic€tolling€rule€rests€on€a€broader€basis:€€itÏpreserves€for€the€government€the€benefit€of€the€1966€compromise€byÏgiving€it€the€full€three€years€to€assess€and€collect€taxes.€€TheÏtaxpayer€is€faced€with€"old"€tax€claims€only€if€he€or€she€hasÏchosen€to€make€back„to„back€bankruptcy€filings.€€And,€as€a€final,Ïalthough€less€important€benefit,€automatic€tolling€is€infinitelyÏeasier€and€more€predictable€to€administer.Ìà ` àSome€might€think€that€to€make€up€for€omissions€inÏstatutes€will€only€encourage€careless€drafting€and€that€seriousÏgaps€can€always€be€filled€by€congressional€amendment.€€Others€mightÏargue€that€in€an€age€of€numerous€and€complex€enactments,€lawmakersÐ À+'2 Ðshould€expect€that€common€law€judges€will€use€their€traditionalÏskills€to€support€legislation.€€As€usual,€it€is€a€matter€ofÏstriking€the€right€balance,€and€it€comforts€us€to€know€that€allÏcircuits€that€have€ruled€on€the€matter€agree€that€some€judge„madeÏtolling€adjustment€is€required€for€section€507(a)(8)(A)(i).Ìà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€district€court€is€òòaffirmedóó.€€EachÐ € Ð  Ðside€will€bear€its€own€costs€on€this€appeal.Ìà ` àòòIt€is€so€orderedóó.€€€€€€€€€ñ#ññ&ññ#ñÔ†ÿÿÔÔ†ÿÿÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôñ#ññ&ñ