with the court other than a formal proof of claim are sufficient to constitute an "informal proof of claim,” which then can be allowed. See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 501.01[3][e], Even if this exception were applicable under § 521(a)(6), which this Court seriously doubts, there has been no identification by Bank of any filing consisting of such an informal proof of claim. 24 . United States v. Ron Pair Enter., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 at 242, 109 S.Ct. 1026, quoting Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571, 102 S.Ct. 3245, 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982) (citations omitted). 25 . Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, to Accompany S. 256, H.R.Rep. No. 109-31, Pt.l, at 70-71 (2005). 26 .See Waugh v. Internal Revenue Service, 109 F.3d 489, 493 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 27 . K.S.A.2005 Supp. 84-9-101, et seq. 28 .
recognizing that  108c is a savings feature for statutes of limitations that have not expired before the filing of the petition holding that properly filed application for statecourt discretionary review tolls aedpa limitations period holding that suit filed within six years of assessment tolls the limitation period indefinitely holding that although  108c states that it tolls priority periods only in nonbankruptcy cases congress intended  108c and 26 usc  6503b and h to toll the threeyear period of  507a8ai holding that the ica threeyear limitations period governs and unequivocally  supersedes the six year limitations period in 28 usc  2501 in cases involving claims for transportation charges