are noncompensa-tory penalties, we look behind the statutory label (“penalty”) and examine the “actual effects” of the assessments. See id. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 2111. The Supreme Court summarized this functional analysis as follows: “ ‘A tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’ ” Id. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 2113 (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U.S. 568, 572, 51 S.Ct. 278, 280, 75 L.Ed. 551 (1931)); see id. (“if the concept of penalty means anything, it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission”). Although Washington describes the appropriate test, the State’s application of the test to the facts of this case (Bankr.W.D.Wash.1987) (<HOLDING>). In Cassidy, the Tenth Circuit concluded: The
holding that for purposes of former bankruptcy statute 11 usc  57j charge imposed on delinquent taxes is for interest and not penalty holding that accruing interest at the default interest rate was not a penalty but the addition of a 5 late charge on top of the default interest would have been unreasonable pursuant to  506b and would have therefore been a penalty recognizing a right to contribution holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact holding that state default charge of twentyfive percent imposed on debtor for failing to make timely contribution to state fund was penalty and not substitute for interest or compensation for actual loss and thus was not entitled to priority