establishes that the payment “was intended by the debtor and the creditor ... to be a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to the debtor” and was “in fact a substantially contemporaneous ex change.” See also 11 U.S.C. § 547(g) (allocating the burden of proof to the creditor). We have recognized that the release of a security interest to the extent of a payment is one form of “new value” that a creditor may give in exchange for the debtor’s payment. “[P]ayments by a debt- or in exchange for a secured creditor’s release of its security interest falls within the exception of section 547(c)(1).” O’Rourke v. Seaboard Sur. Co. (In re E.R. Fegert, Inc.), 887 F.2d 955, 959 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Sulmeyer v. Pac. Suzuki (In re Grand Chevrolet, Inc.), 25 F.3d 728, 734 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Thus, 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1) permits a
holding that for purposes of  547c1 a creditor confers new value on the debtors estate by releasing security interests holding that making a demand on the estate is especially the duty of a secured creditor who has the choice  of relying upon the security and thereby giving up all or a part of his claim upon the estate holding that the creditor did not satisfy the foregoing requirement because it was trying to exercise the avoidance power for itself as a sole creditor not for the benefit of the debtors estate or the creditors as a whole holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property holding that where a security agreement contained collateral other than collateral for which creditor advanced funds to debtor since it secured antecedent debts as well as new debt and the agreement provided that the security interest secured payment and performance of the debtors present and future debts to the creditor the creditor did not have a pmsi and the debtors could avoid the creditors lien on collateral claimed as exempt