the plaintiff is in the present case, and correspondingly, who stands to benefit if calculation pursuant to § 1341 is permitted. To be sure, it is not the debtor. The government states in its brief in opposition to Plaintiffs motion, that “the plain language of the bankruptcy code bars the court from considering the trustee’s status as an innocent successor to the debtor’s claims.” This Court is not convinced. Admittedly, Courts, on public policy grounds, consistently find that persons who receive income as a result of bad acts, and who later repay the money are not entitled to calculation under § 1341. See McKinney v. United States, 574 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir.1978) (same); Wood v. United States, 863 F.2d 417 (5th Cir.1989); see also Revenue Ruling, Rev. Rui. 68-153, 1968 WL 15327 (1968) (<HOLDING>). As such, the Court concedes that if the
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 a mortgageeinsureds loss cannot be determined unless the note is not repaid and the security for the mortgage proves inadequate holding the real estate sale proceeds holding that an overstatement of basis can constitute an omission from gross income within the meaning of irc  6501e1a holding proceeds from embezzlement activity later repaid the embezzler not permitted a refund calculated pursuant to irc  1341