OPINION
Dеbtor-Appellant Robin L. Johnston appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of her claim that her 1997 earned income tax credit (“EIC”) is exempt frоm inclusion in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
I.
On October 20, 1997, Robin L. Johnston filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chаpter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Johnston listed ip her petition for relief a 1997 EIC in the amount of $2,000 and claimed the entire amount as an exemption. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Trustee’s objeсtion to the exemption, rejecting Johnston’s argument that because she had no “legal or equitable interest” in the EIC at the time she filed her petition, the EIC cannot be defined as property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the disallowance of the exemption, holding that an EIC is property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541, even if the bankruptcy petition is filed prior to the end of the tax year in which the EIC is earned.
Johnston raises three assignments of error on appeal: (1) because she was not entitled to the EIC until the end of the tax year, she had neither a lеgal nor an equitable interest in the EIC at the time she filed her petition, and therefore, it was not part оf the bankruptcy estate; (2) the opt-out provision of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(1) is unconstitutional; and (3) public policy militates in favor of allowing her to keep the EIC in light of her limited earnings. Because she raises the latter two for the first time on appeal, we will not address them, 1 and will confine our review to Johnston’s first assignment of error.
II.
Whеther the EIC was properly included as property of the bankruptcy estate is purely an issue of law. We review a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo.
Nicholson v. Isaacman (In re Isaacman),
The overwhelming majority of courts сonfronted with this issue have rejected the argument that Johnston makes here.
2
In
Baer v. Montgomery (In re Montgomery),
The Bankruptcy Act was repealed in favor оf the modern Bankruptcy Code by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. Though the “fresh start” maxim rising from section 70a(5) of the Act may have been a fundamental consideration in the formation of the Code, we recognizе the maxim to be a limited, and no longer a completely unencumbered, guiding principle. Unlike the Act, thе Code requires that all property of the debtor, whether or not exempt, be included in the bankruptcy estate, mandating that an estate in bankruptcy comprise “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (1994). Legislative history indicatеs section 541 is intended to be given a broad definition to include “all kinds of property, including tangible or intangiblе property, causes of action ..., and all other forms of property specified in section 70a of the Bankruptcy Act.... [I]t includes as property of the estate all property of the debtor, even that needed for a fresh start.” H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, at 367 (1977). Any conclusion that EICs are necessary or mandatory for a “fresh start” may be reasonably inferred under the Act, but is incorrect in light of the Code.
Montgomery,
In the case before us here, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reviewed the reasoning and conclusions of
Montgomery
and concluded,
“Montgomery
also held that EICs are property of the estate under § 541, even when the bankruptcy petition is filed prior to the end of the tax year. ‘Congress intended EICs to be available to qualifying individuals at anytime during the tax year.’ We agree with
Montgomery.” Johnston v. Hazlett (In re Johnston),
We agree with the - Bankruptcy Appellate Panel that the reasoning of the Montgomery panel is correct. Accordingly, we hold that in the case bеfore us here, the bankruptcy court and appellate panel properly determined that Johnston’s EIC was property of the bankruptcy estate, despite the fact that Johnston filed her bankruрtcy petition prior to the end of the tax year in which the credit was earned.
CONCLUSION
The decision of thе Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirming the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Issues not raised before the trial court are generally considered waived.
See White v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.,
.
See, e.g., Baer v. Montgomery (In re Montgomery),