in bankruptcy. We therefore hold that Lewis’s debt to the LDR is nondis-chargeable under §§ 523(a)(1)(A) and 507(a)(l)(A)(ii). The decision of the bankruptcy court is reversed and judgment is rendered in favor of the LDR. . REVERSED and RENDERED. 1 . See La.Rev.Stat. § 47:103 C. 2 . See Matter of Kennard, 970 F.2d 1455, 1457-58 (5th Cir.1992) (questions of law in bankruptcy appeals are reviewed de novo). 3 . See 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). 4 . Prior to trial, the LDR withdrew its argument that the amended returns Lewis filed on August 22, 1995 are returns filed within two years prior to the filing of Lewis’s bankruptcy petition. This rendered inapplicable the exception to discharge codified at 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B). 5 . See In re Garfinckels, Inc., 203 B.R. 814, 817 (Bankr.D.D.C.1996) (<HOLDING>); King v. Franchise Tax Board (In re King), 961
holding that the definition of assessed is a federal question not a state law question while maryland law establishes certain events with respect to the imposition of a tax federal law determines whether those events constitute an assessment holding for  1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes holding that federal law determines definition of executory contract but that state law determines whether a material breach of the contract could occur holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action