however, does not determine the extent of the property interest in the hands of the trustee nor, as discussed above, does it determine whether that interest is subject to turnover. In summary, we hold that the pre-petition portion of the refund is property of the estate. We go further, however, to hold that only the part of the refund that (1) is attributable to pre-petition earnings and (2) reverted to debtors after application of the refund to their ultimate (2007) tax liability, is subject to turnover. With the modifications discussed above, the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel is AFFIRMED. 1 . We acknowledge a line of authority holding that an applied tax refund is not estate property. See United States v. Pritchard (In re Block), 141 B.R. 609, 611 (N.D.Tex.1992) (<HOLDING>); Grant v. United States (In re Simmons), 124
holding that regardless of whether the defendant actually had a right to monies claimed defendants demands under the contract were not extortion because they were motivated by the defendants interpretation of the agreement holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover holding that monies were not property of the estate once the irrevocable election had been made and thus were not subject to turnover holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate