of the two code sections are identical and because no indication exists that Congress intended different meanings for the analogous phrases in the different codes, they should be interpreted the same. Debtor argues that the holding in this case should be adopted. Debtor contends that if Congress had intended to include taxes which a debtor prevented the IRS from collecting in this section, it would have included the words “or payment thereof.” This Court fails to find the above reasoning persuasive. Rather, the Court believes that the better reasoned opinions are those that adopt the view that section 523(a)(1)(C) also excepts from discharge those taxes which the taxpayer prevented the IRS from collecting. See, e.g., United States v. Toti, 149 B.R. 829, 834 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1993) (<HOLDING>); Berzon v. United States, 145 B.R. 247, 250
holding that the modifying phrase in any manner is sufficiently broad to include attempts to evade taxes by concealing assets to protect them from execution or attachment holding that because the purpose of the bankruptcy code is to give honest debtors a fresh start the language of section 523a1c includes attempts by a debtor to evade payment of taxes holding that the question of whether an interest is a claim for bankruptcy purposes is to be resolved by reference to the text history and purpose of the bankruptcy code holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code holding that the fresh start was a legitimate interest to discriminate in a plan whereby the debtor proposed to pay the student loan in full while paying 15 of the other unsecured claims