in which Congress recognized that the governmental increase in taxation “absorbed greater percentages of the bankrupt’s estate”). The court pointed out that Congress had taken note that accelerating taxation and the resulting expansion of the tax priority category tended to undermine the objective of the Bankruptcy Act to promote equitable distribution of the debtor’s estate and, in effect, penalized general creditors. See id. at 1068. The reaction of Congre ); In re Hutchinson, 135 B.R. 890 (Bankr.D.Ariz.1992); In re Waldo, 186 B.R. 118 (Bankr.D.Mont.1995) (following Lorber to hold that Montana’s reimbursement claims were “excise taxes” and distinguishing that state’s workers’ compensation scheme from that in Suburban II); In re Olga Coal Co., 194 B.R. 741 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1996) (<HOLDING>); In re Hynes, 229 B.R. 405
holding reimbursement claims were excise taxes under the lorber test without addressing the bankruptcy codes central policy of equal distribution holding that michigan reimbursement claims were excise taxes under both lorber and suburban ii holding that reimbursement claims were excise taxes under lorber holding west virginias reimbursement claims were excise taxes under lorber suburban ii and the chateaugay district court decision holding that ohios reimbursement claims met the lorber criteria but were not excise taxes because they were not universally applicable to similarly situated entities and in addition disadvantaged private creditors with like claims