(1) general creditors, who should not have the funds available for payment of debts exhausted by an excessive accumulation of taxes for past years; (2) the debtor, whose “fresh start” should likewise not be burdened with such an accumulation; and (3) the tax collector, who should not lose taxes which he has not had reasonable time to collect or which the law has restrained him from collecting. S.Rep. No. 95-989, re Jerauld), 208 B.R. 183, 189 (9th Cir.BAP 1997) (similar); Olson v. United States (In re Olson), 174 B.R. 543, 547-48 (Bankr.D.N.D.1994) (similar), and Blackwell v. Commonwealth of Va. Dep’t of Taxation (In re Blackwell), 115 B.R. 86, 88-89 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1990) (similar), with Blutter v. United States Dep’t of IRS (In re Blutter), 177 B.R. 209, 211-12 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>). In 2005, Congress, attempting to reduce the
holding that because the restitution was ordered as part of a state criminal prosecution it was excepted from discharge in bankruptcy holding that failure to report a change in federal taxable income as required by state law excepted state tax liability from discharge holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law