Louisiana House Bill HB410

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/11
• Refer: 4/25/11

Caption

Exempts a seizing creditor or keeper from liability for unpaid taxes

Impact

The passage of HB410 represents a significant change in the legal landscape pertaining to property seizures and the responsibilities of those involved in this process. By exempting creditors and keepers from tax liabilities related to unpaid taxes, the bill could encourage more institutions to participate in the management and seizure processes without the fear of being held liable for back taxes. This could potentially streamline the process of handling seized properties and reduce the financial burden on those managing an estate in the event of noncompliance with tax obligations by the original business owners.

Summary

House Bill 410, introduced by Representative Landry, aims to limit the liability of seizing creditors and keepers of property for any unpaid taxes incurred prior to the seizure of property. The bill amends Louisiana Revised Statutes to explicitly state that neither a seizing creditor nor a keeper will be responsible for such taxes arising from the operation of any business conducted on or from the seized property before its actual seizure. This legislative move seeks to provide financial protections for creditors and keepers who are involved in such property management roles.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB410 appears to be largely favorable among those in the business and financial sectors, who see the bill as a necessary measure to protect creditors from unforeseen tax liabilities. Supporters argue that it encourages responsible management of seized properties and provides clarity in uncertain situations. However, there may be some concerns from legal advocates about the implications of reducing accountability for creditors in managing these properties.

Contention

One notable point of contention is whether this bill undermines the rights of local tax authorities and potentially shifts the burden of unpaid taxes away from the property owners to the state. Critics argue that while it may provide short-term relief for creditors, it could also create a loophole that hinders local governments from collecting due taxes, thus affecting local revenue streams. The lack of accountability could raise questions about the quality of management and potential disinterest from keepers if they don’t face financial repercussions.