Kenneth Wayne Fielder, Jr and Amanda Jean Fielder

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION - 1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before the Court are competing motions to modify a chapter 131 plan filed by
Kenneth and Amanda Fielder (the “Debtors”) and Kathleen McCallister (“McCallister”),
the chapter 13 trustee.2 At issue is whether Debtors’ confirmed chapter 13 plan
authorized payment of all allowed prepetition priority tax claims and whether Debtors’
plan payment should now be increased. The Court concludes that the confirmed plan
does permit payment of prepetition priority tax claims. The record, however, is
insufficient for the Court to rule on whether modification of the confirmed plan to
increase Debtors’ monthly payment is appropriate.
1 Unless specified otherwise, all chapter and section references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11
U.S.C. §§ 101–1532, all “Rule” references are to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and all
“Civil Rule” references are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2 As there have been two different chapter 13 trustees assigned to this case and both are
referenced in this decision, the Court refers to them by last name; no disrespect is intended.
IN RE
KENNETH WAYNE FIELDER, JR.
and AMANDA JEAN FIELDER,
Debtors.
Case No. 22-20119-NGH
Case 22-20119-NGH Doc 86 Filed 12/19/25 Entered 12/19/25 14:59:39 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION - 2
BACKGROUND
Debtors filed this chapter 13 bankruptcy on May 12, 2022. Doc. No. 1. Debtors
filed their chapter 13 plan that same day. Doc. No. 2 (the “Plan”). Section 2.1 of the
Plan required Debtors to pay $600 per month for 60 months. Section 4.1 of the Plan
provided that “all allowed priority claims . . . will be paid in full without post-petition
interest.” In § 4.4 of the Plan, Debtors indicated there were no priority tax claims. At the
time Debtors filed the Plan, that was true. However, on May 16, 2022, the Idaho State
Tax Commission (“Tax Commission”) filed a proof of claim for unpaid taxes, asserting a
priority claim in the amount of $5,318.69. Claim No. 1-1. That claim was later amended
to assert a priority claim in the amount of $6,444.42. Claim No. 1-3. Similarly, on June
6, 2022, the Internal Revenue Service filed a proof of claim for unpaid taxes, asserting a
priority claim in the amount of $8,490.92. Claim No. 4-1. That claim was later amended
to assert a priority claim in the amount of $499.58. Claim No. 4-2.
On August 8, 2022, the Tax Commission objected to confirmation of Debtors’
Plan arguing that Debtors had failed to file their 2018 and 2019 tax returns as required by
§ 1308(a) and that the Plan failed to pay the Tax Commission’s priority claim as required
by § 1322(a)(2). See Doc. No. 27. In response, Debtors filed the missing tax returns,
which prompted the Tax Commission to amend its proof of claim. At that time, C. Barry
Zimmerman (“Zimmerman”) was the chapter 13 trustee. Zimmerman initially opposed
confirmation of the Plan due to the unfiled tax returns. On December 1, 2022, after
Debtors filed the missing returns, Zimmerman filed an Amended Trustee’s
Recommendation Regarding Confirmation of Plan in which he recommended
Case 22-20119-NGH Doc 86 Filed 12/19/25 Entered 12/19/25 14:59:39 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION - 3
confirmation of the Plan, pending withdrawal of the Tax Commission’s objection. Doc.
No. 31. In the recommendation, Zimmerman estimated the Plan would pay priority
creditors $7,381.38, which was the combined allowed amount of the Tax Commission
and IRS priority claims, as of that date. Without opposition, the Court confirmed the
Plan on December 14, 2022. Doc. No. 34.
In the summer of 2023, Debtors filed an Amended Motion to Modify Debtor’s
Chapter 13 Plan, which proposed to reduce Debtors’ monthly payments to $360 per
month due to increased expenses. Doc. No. 45. The Court granted the modification on
September 20, 2023. Doc. No. 51.
On October 1, 2024, McCallister was appointed as the successor trustee in this
case due to Zimmerman’s retirement. Doc. No. 64. On June 2, 2025, McCallister filed a
Motion to Modify the Confirmed Plan seeking to increase plan payments to $2,232 per
month, with a step up to $2,299 per month after Debtors pay off a loan from a retirement
account. Doc. No. 68. Debtors opposed the motion to increase plan payments,
acknowledging that Debtors’ income had increased but asserting that so too had their
expenses. Doc. No. 69.
On September 18, 2025, McCallister filed an Amended Motion to Modify the
Confirmed Plan. Doc. No. 74 (“McCallister’s Motion”). In addition to seeking the
referenced increases in Debtors’ monthly plan payments, McCallister’s Motion takes the
position that the confirmed Plan does not provide for the payment of any priority claims.
McCallister contends Zimmerman had improperly made payments to the Tax
Commission and IRS on account of their prepetition priority claims. Thus, Trustee’s
Case 22-20119-NGH Doc 86 Filed 12/19/25 Entered 12/19/25 14:59:39 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION - 4
Motion requests authority to pay the priority claims from the increased plan payments
only. She contends that if the modified plan payments are not increased more than the
priority claim amounts and authority is not provided for her to pay the priority claims, she
will need to seek to recover payments made to the Tax Commission and the IRS. On
October 7, 2025, the Tax Commission filed a response to McCallister’s Motion. Doc.
No. 77. While the Tax Commission does not oppose modification of the Plan, the Tax
Commission objected to McCallister’s assertions that the confirmed Plan did not permit
Zimmerman to pay the prepetition priority tax claims and does not permit McCallister to
continue such payments.
At an October 14, 2025, hearing, the parties represented to the Court that they
were attempting to resolve the issues raised in McCallister’s Motion. Those efforts were
unsuccessful. On October 17, 2025, Debtors filed Debtors’ Voluntary Motion to Modify
which sought to modify the Plan by explicitly providing McCallister with the authority to
pay prepetition priority tax claims. Doc. No. 79 (“Debtors’ Motion”). Debtors’ Motion
did not increase Debtors’ monthly payments due under the Plan. McCallister opposes
Debtors’ Motion and argues that Debtors’ Motion should explicitly advise unsecured
creditors they will be negatively impacted by the modification because it will cause funds
to be paid to priority creditors that would otherwise be available for unsecured creditors.
See Doc. No. 83. Said differently, since McCallister takes the position that the confirmed
Plan did not provide for payment of the Tax Commission and IRS claims, modifying the
Plan to pay those claims now, without an equivalent increase in plan funding, will come
at the expense of unsecured creditors.
Case 22-20119-NGH Doc 86 Filed 12/19/25 Entered 12/19/25 14:59:39 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION - 5
At a November 10, 2025, hearing, Debtors sought to continue hearing on both
McCallister’s Motion and Debtors’ Motion to see if the parties could reach a stipulated
resolution. McCallister, on the other hand, asked the Court to rule on the motions.
Accordingly, the Court took the matters under advisement. This ruling addresses the
Plan’s treatment of the prepetition priority tax claims but leaves at issue any modification
to increase Debtors’ required monthly payments until after an evidentiary hearing.
ANALYSIS
A. 	Modification to Increase Plan Payments
Section 1329(a)(1) allows a confirmed plan to be modified to increase plan
payments. In re Fundin, No. 24-20189-NGH, 2025 WL 3259544, at *2 (Bankr. D. Idaho
Nov. 21, 2025). McCallister’s Motion would significantly increase Debtors’ monthly
payments.
Whether a modification should be approved is subject to the court’s discretion and
good judgment. In re Hall, 442 B.R. 754, 761 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2010) (citing Powers v.
Savage (In re Powers), 202 B.R. 618, 622 (9th Cir. BAP 1996)). Modification analysis
under § 1329 is equitable in nature and courts look to the totality of the circumstances.
See id. at 761 (citing Max Recovery, Inc. v. Than (In re Than), 215 B.R. 430, 438 (9th
Cir. BAP 1997)). A modification may be justified where a debtor’s income increases.
Berkley v. Burchard (In re Berkley), 613 B.R. 547, 552 (9th Cir. BAP 2020) (“It is well
accepted that § 1329 permits the trustee and creditors to modify the plan to capture
postconfirmation increases in the debtor’s income.”). In exercising their discretion,
courts may also “evaluate the reasonableness of debtors’ expenses and their ability to pay
Case 22-20119-NGH Doc 86 Filed 12/19/25 Entered 12/19/25 14:59:39 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION - 6
creditors more.” In re Pratt, No. 19-40401-JMM, 2023 WL 363511, at *2 (Bankr. D.
Idaho Jan. 23, 2023) (quoting In re Sayre, No. 8:11-BK-17184-RCT, 2017 WL
11569064, at *4 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. July 17, 2017)). Courts are required to “balance a
debtor’s expenses against what is fair to unsecured creditors.” Id.
The record has not been adequately developed to permit the Court to determine if
Debtors’ monthly payments should be increased. The Court has only conducted
preliminary hearings regarding McCallister’s Motion where the parties have provided
limited argument to the Court. “An objection to a proposed modification creates,
pursuant to Rule 3015’s language, a contested matter governed by Rule 9014.” In re
Alcaraz, No. 15-00091-TLM, 2017 WL 978982, at *2 (Bankr. D. Idaho Mar. 13, 2017).
Rule 9014 requires a bankruptcy court to resolve a contested matter containing disputed
factual issues through witness testimony in the same manner as an adversary proceeding.
See Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Locklin (In re Locklin), No. CC-14-1446, 2015
WL 8267995, at *5 (9th Cir. BAP Dec. 7, 2015) (citing Caviata Attached Homes, LLC v.
U.S. Bank, N.A. (In re Caviata Attached Homes, LLC), 481 B.R. 34, 44 (9th Cir. BAP
2012)). Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on McCallister’s Motion regarding the
proposed increase to Debtors’ monthly plan payments without an evidentiary hearing.
McCallister shall contact the Court’s courtroom deputy and obtain a hearing date for such
a hearing and provide notice of the same.
B. 	Authorization to Pay Priority Tax Claims
All the parties would like this case to proceed in a fashion that permits McCallister
to pay allowed prepetition priority tax claims. Debtors and the Tax Commission argue
Case 22-20119-NGH Doc 86 Filed 12/19/25 Entered 12/19/25 14:59:39 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION - 7
the confirmed Plan provided authority for Zimmerman to make such payments and
provides authority for McCallister to continue those payments. McCallister disagrees.
McCallister argues that § 4.1 of the Plan “advises how priority claims will be paid (i.e.,
without interest) and not that they will be paid, especially when [§ 4.4 of] the plan
specifically marks ‘None.’” See Doc. No. 83 at 2. Under McCallister’s reasoning,
without identifying specific priority claims in § 4.4, there is no authority to pay those
claims.
While McCallister is correct that Debtors checked the box labeled “None” in § 4.4
of the Plan when asked to identify priority claims, the Court does not conclude such
actions preclude the chapter 13 trustee from making payments on the allowed priority
claims filed in the case. Section 4.1 of the Plan generally provides that, “all allowed
priority claims . . . will be paid in full without post-petition interest.” Id. § 4.1 (emphasis
added). The plain language of § 4.1 does more than exclude interest payments; it
requires and authorizes priority claims to be paid in full, and it makes it clear that such
full payment will not include post-petition interest.3
Providing flexibility in a chapter 13 plan to account for priority claims is
important because chapter 13 plans are often filed before creditors file claims. Pursuant
to Rule 3015(b), a chapter 13 debtor is required to file a proposed plan within 14 days
after the petition is filed. Yet under Rule 3002(c)(1), governmental units have 180 days
3 This Court’s model plan mirrors many of the provisions of the national chapter 13 plan, Official
Form 113, including § 4.1. The committee notes associated with the national plan state that “[s]ection 4.1
provides that . . . all allowed priority claims . . . will be paid in full.” The committee notes do not focus
on the exclusion of post-petition interest, only the full payment of allowed priority claims.
Case 22-20119-NGH Doc 86 Filed 12/19/25 Entered 12/19/25 14:59:39 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION - 8
from the petition date to timely file a proof of claim. In addition, the Code requires a
confirmation hearing to be held well before the expiration of the time for government
units to file claims. See § 1324(b) (requiring confirmation hearings to be set “not earlier
than 20 days and not later than 45 days after the date of the meeting of creditors”). Thus,
under § 1322(a)(2), a chapter 13 plan must provide for the full payment of all claims
entitled to priority under § 507, including tax claims of government units entitled to
priority under § 507(a)(8); however, those tax claims may be filed well after a debtor files
a chapter 13 plan. As a result, it is quite common to hold a confirmation hearing before
governmental creditors have filed their claims and before their opportunity to do so has
passed.4
The solution to this problem is either to continue the confirmation hearing until
after the government claims bar date has expired and require the debtor to file an
amended plan that specifically addresses all allowed priority claims or to provide
language in the plan that generally addresses priority claims in accordance with the
requirements of § 1322(a)(2). Here, this Court’s model plan does the latter. Thus, the
confirmed Plan requires payment of the priority claims, in full, during the term of the
Plan, and the chapter 13 trustee was and is authorized to make distributions to those
creditors consistent with the Plan and the allowed claims.5
4 It is worth noting that this analysis discusses payment of prepetition tax claims of governmental
units required under § 1322(a)(2), not the allowance of certain postpetition tax claims of government units
under § 1305. See In re Fullmer, No. 21-20215-BPH, 2025 WL 3144687 (Bankr. D. Idaho Nov. 10,
2025).
5 The committee notes associated with the national form plan state that § 4.4 calls for estimated
priority claims but that if a contrary amount is listed on a creditor’s allowed proof of claim, the creditor’s
(Continued)
Case 22-20119-NGH Doc 86 Filed 12/19/25 Entered 12/19/25 14:59:39 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 9

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION - 9
The prepetition claims of the IRS and the Tax Commission at issue enjoy priority
treatment under § 507(a)(8). Those claims were timely filed, and no party in interest
objected. Thus, they are presumed allowed pursuant to § 502(a), and according to the
terms of Debtors’ confirmed Plan in § 4.1 and, consistent with § 1322(a)(2) of the Code,
they are entitled to full payment. Zimmerman, the chapter 13 trustee at the time of
confirmation, acknowledged when he recommended confirmation, that the Plan
contemplated paying priority creditors $7,381.38, which was the combined allowed
amount of the Tax Commission and IRS priority claims. See Doc. No. 31. The Court
agrees with Zimmerman; the Plan allows for payment to priority creditors.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court will deny Debtors’ Motion in full and deny McCallister’s
Motion in part to the extent the motions seek to modify the Plan to accomplish what the
Plan already provides, and the Court will require McCallister to schedule a final
evidentiary hearing on the remaining issue of whether Debtors’ monthly plan payment
should be increased—an issue that still appears to be contested by the parties. A separate
order will be entered.
DATED: December 19, 2025
_________________________
NOAH G. HILLEN
Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
proof of claim will control over the estimate in the plan. Thus, if a debtor lists an amount that is different
from a creditor’s proof of claim amount, presumably even an assertion of none, it follows that the allowed
priority claim controls the amount due and § 4.1 authorizes the full payment of that amount.
Case 22-20119-NGH Doc 86 Filed 12/19/25 Entered 12/19/25 14:59:39 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 9