the premiums or assessments have been held to be taxes, because there are no potential creditors with like claims. See, e.g., In re Metro Transp. Co., 117 B.R. 143, 154 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1990) (distinguishing Pennsylvania’s workers’ compensation statute from monopolistic schemes in other states, where “premium payments” were held to be “excise taxes,” and holding that premium payments to Pennsylvania’s workers’ compensation fund were not “excise taxes,” because the Pennsylvania statute allowed a self-insurance option). Characterizations by courts of reimbursement claims, on the other hand, have been mixed. The following courts, applying Lorber, (or at least accepting the elements of the Lorber test), have held that reimbursement claims were not “excise taxes”: In re Payne, 27 B.R. at 817 (<HOLDING>); In re Chateaugay Corp., 153 B.R. at 640-41
holding that kansas workers compensation reimbursement claims were not excise taxes because the nontax characteristics of the obligation outweighed the tax characteristics holding that claims for the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing against workers compensation insurance carrier did not  arise under the state workers compensation statutes but are at most related to those statutes and thus do not come within the ambit of the nonremovability provision of  1445c good faith and fair dealing claims were created by texas common law not by the compensation statute holding that under the doctrine the district court should have stayed the diversityjurisdiction case pending the state workers compensation commissions final decision on whether the defendant properly paid certain workers compensation claims holding that constitutional challenge to controlled substance excise tax must pursue administrative routes followed by appeal in tax court holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act