the issue of whether punitive damages are excepted from discharge under this section. The BAP, however, has resolved this question in In re Ellwanger. In that case, the BAP held that under section 523(a)(2), “a wholly private penalty cannot be the basis for a nondischargeability judgment.” Ellwanger v. McBroom (In re Ellwanger), 105 B.R. 551, 555 (9th Cir.BAP 1989). Other bankruptcy courts addressing the issue have generally found that section 523(a)(2) does not bar discharge of punitive damages. See, e.g., Larson v. Norris (In re Larson), 79 B.R. 462 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.1987); Haile v. McDonald (In re McDonald), 73 B.R. 877 (Bankr.N.D.T 428 (9th Cir.1985) (section 523(a)(6) bars discharge of both punitive and actual damages); Brawer v. Gelman (In re Gelman), 47 B.R. 735 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1985) (<HOLDING>). Palmer argues that there is no basis in
holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that both actual and punitive portions of judgment for defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity were nondischargeable holding that punitive damages are not fines holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable holding a court may not award punitive damages holding punitive damages nondischargeable under  523a6 when such damages are based on the same conduct as the underlying nondischargeable judgment