31, 1993. See In re Thorvund-Statland, 158 B.R. 837, 838-39 (Bankr.D.Idaho 1993) (discussing both positions and concluding that the end of the tax year is the controlling date); In re Midway Indus. Contractors, Inc., 167 B.R. 139, 143 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1994) (stating that although a claim for loss carry-back tax refund was filed post-petition, the tax refund was a pre-petition debt) rev’d. on other grounds In re Midway Indus. Contractors, Inc., 178 B.R. 734 (N.D.Ill.1995); In re Conti, 50 B.R. 142, 148 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1985) (stating that the Internal Revenue Code provisions dealing with allowance of a refund do not control the date the debt arose for purposes of § 553, and the tax refund debt arose upon the end of the taxable year). Cf. Mertz v. Rott, 955 F.2d 596, 598 (8th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). As stated by the court in In re Conti, the
holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code holding that a taxpayer only has a refund right after the irs has credited the refund to other underpaid taxes therefore the refund was not part of the bankruptcy estate holding that because the amount of the debtors obligation to the government exceeded the amount of their income tax refund the refund did not become property of the estate and could not be exempted holding that personal injury action arising during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings was property of the estate holding that an anticipated tax refund was property of the bankruptcy estate as of the date the bankruptcy case was filed