In Re: MICHAEL S. GEISLER d/b/a Michael S. Geisler, Attorney-at-Law v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE On Appeal from the United States District Court for the…

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 15-3828
____________________
In Re: MICHAEL S. GEISLER d/b/a Michael S. Geisler, Attorney-at-Law,
Debtor
MICHAEL S. GEISLER
Appellant
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
____________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2-15-cv-00154)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
____________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 11, 2016
Before: FUENTES, SHWARTZ, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
(Filed: August 10, 2016)
____________________
OPINION
 Honorable Julio M. Fuentes assumed senior status on July 18, 2016.
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
____________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Michael Geisler appeals the District Court’s order affirming the bankruptcy
court’s dismissal of his adversary complaint. He argues that the bankruptcy court should
have reduced his federal tax liens to the amount secured by his assets, since the Internal
Revenue Service (“IRS”) “admitted” in its proof of claim only one secured claim.
According to Geisler, the IRS should get no more than that amount. We disagree and
will affirm.
Geisler ended up in Chapter 7 bankruptcy after accumulating nearly $1 million in
tax liabilities. The IRS filed a proof of claim in Geisler’s bankruptcy case and identified
only one secured tax lien totaling $13,800. Geisler contends that, by doing so, the IRS
voluntarily limited the value of its claims to $13,800. Geisler’s argument relies on the
intersection of Sections 506(a) and 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. He seeks to apply
Section 506(a)(1)’s definition of “secured claim” to the term “allowed secured claim” in
Section 506(d) in order to separate the IRS’s liens into secured and unsecured claims and
void the latter. However, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S.
410, 419 (1992), precludes this tactic. The ultimate effect of Dewsnup is that a Chapter 7
debtor cannot reduce, or “strip down,” a federal tax lien to the value of the collateral
securing it, which is precisely what Geisler sought to do. To the extent some of Geisler’s
federal tax liens are unsupported by any equity, they nonetheless cannot be voided

-- 2 of 3 --

3
because Dewsnup also applies to junior liens that lack equity in the collateral. Bank of
Am., N.A. v. Caulkett, 135 S. Ct. 1995, 2000 (2015).
Because the District Court properly held that Dewsnup forecloses Geisler’s
argument, we will affirm for substantially the same grounds set forth in the District
Court’s thorough and persuasive opinion.

-- 3 of 3 --