Vieira v. Gaither (In re Gaither), 595 B.R. 201

Debtors (Cole and Anita Gaither) received a $1.3 million wrongful-death settlement; net recovery $830,183.67, which they disclaimed, causing one‑third interests to pass to their three children, who deposited funds in ZJB, LLC.
Debtors filed Chapter 7 on March 16, 2018; IRS filed an amended proof of claim asserting unsecured tax claims (claim went unobjected and thus allowed).
Trustee filed an adversary complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b), seeking to avoid the disclaimer transfer by stepping into the IRS’s position and invoking federal collection law (FDCPA/other federal statutes).
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing (a) Trustee cannot assert claims that belong uniquely to the IRS (no standing to "stand in IRS shoes"), and (b) the FDCPA is not "applicable law" under § 544(b).
The bankruptcy court focused on statutory construction of § 544(b) and whether (1) the IRS qualifies as an ‘‘unsecured creditor’’ for § 544(b) purposes and (2) the FDCPA is an ‘‘applicable law’’ the Trustee may invoke when stepping into the IRS’s shoes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Trustee may step into the IRS’s shoes under § 544(b)	Trustee: § 544(b) lets her avoid transfers voidable by any unsecured creditor (including IRS); she may assert IRS powers for the benefit of the estate.	Defs: Trustee may not assert rights reserved to the sovereign; IRS is not the type of "creditor" § 544(b) contemplates (relying on Schlossberg/§544(a) analysis).	Held: Trustee may step into the IRS’s shoes under § 544(b); plain statutory language permits using rights of an allowed unsecured creditor (IRS).
Whether the FDCPA is "applicable law" under § 544(b)	Trustee: FDCPA is one of the federal laws IRS could use to avoid fraudulent transfers; § 544(b) allows Trustee to invoke any law the creditor could use outside bankruptcy.	Defs: FDCPA does not apply to the IRS or, even if it does, Congress did not intend FDCPA to alter bankruptcy law or extend trustee powers (relying on In re Mirant).	Held: FDCPA is "applicable law" under § 544(b); majority of courts and statutory text support allowing Trustee to invoke FDCPA powers the IRS could use.

Moore v. Bay, 284 U.S. 4 (1931) (trustee may step into creditor's shoes to avoid transfers for estate benefit)
Drye v. United States, 528 U.S. 49 (1999) (disclaimer does not defeat federal tax lien)
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765 (4th Cir. 1991) (in Rule 12(b)(1) context court may consider evidence outside pleadings)
Schlossberg v. Barney, 380 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2004) (trustee under § 544(a) cannot use IRS powers to pierce tenancy by the entireties)
In re Mirant Corp., 675 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 2012) (FDCPA is not "applicable law" under § 544(b))
Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753 (1992) (interpreting "applicable nonbankruptcy law" broadly)
United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235 (1989) (statutory interpretation starts with plain language)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (further clarifying plausibility pleading standard)