In re Savaria, 317 B.R. 395 (9th Cir. BAP 2004)
          “We conclude that 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(ii). . .applies to postpetition filing of a late return for prepetition taxes. Since the bankruptcy distribution priority created by 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(A)(iii) and the exception to discharge created by § 523(a)(1)(B) are mutually exclusive, it follows that the postpetition filing of a late income tax return does not promote the tax debt to priority status.”

In re George, 361 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2004)
          Claim by California Uninsured Employers Fund against employer who failed to purchase workers’ compensation insurance was not “excise tax” for purposes pf bankruptcy law.

In re Bliemeister, 296 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2002)
          Following DeRoche, where employee was injured in 1993 and bankruptcy not filed until 1998, transaction occurred more than three years before bankruptcy.

In re DeRoche, 287 F.3d 751 (9th Cir. 2002)
          A “transaction” under Arizona Special Fund is the act of employing a worker without carrying the required insurance when the worker is injured; the date of the transaction for purposes of determining the three-year period of nondischargeability under the bankruptcy code is the date on which the worker is injured.

In re Hatton, 220 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2000)
          Return filed by I.R.S. and agreed to by taxpayer did not satisfy statutory requirement for filing of return as prerequisite to dischargeability of tax debt.

In re Jackson, 184 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 1999)
          Filing a return with the IRS was tantamount to filing with the FTB.

In re Nunez, 232 B.R. 778 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1999)
          Tax Forms filed by debtor after IRS independently calculated debtor’s tax liability were “returns” for purposes of bankruptcy discharge statute.