the court said, was to enact a series of amendments to the Bankruptcy Act designed to pare the numbers and kinds of exactions that qualified for tax priority status. See id. In light of the trend the court found to be reflected in changes to the old § 64, the court thought it inappropriate to expand the category of preferred taxes by including in that category the surcharge then under consideration. B. Problems with the Lorber Test In practice, application of the Lorber test for classifying state-imposed exactions has yielded conflicting results with respect to categorizing the assessments and claims for reimbur that reimbursement claims qualified as “excise taxes”: In re Chateaugay, 1995 WL 656967 (S.D.N.Y. November 8, 1995) and In re Chateaugay, 177 B.R. 176, 183-84 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (<HOLDING>), rev’g in part, 153 B.R. 632
holding that michigan reimbursement claims were excise taxes under both lorber and suburban ii holding that ohios reimbursement claims met the lorber criteria but were not excise taxes because they were not universally applicable to similarly situated entities and in addition disadvantaged private creditors with like claims holding west virginias reimbursement claims were excise taxes under lorber suburban ii and the chateaugay district court decision holding that reimbursement claims were excise taxes under lorber holding reimbursement claims were excise taxes under the lorber test without addressing the bankruptcy codes central policy of equal distribution