delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented in this case is whether a superseding trustee in bankruptcy is liable for interest and penalties on federal taxes incurred by a debtor in possession during an arrangement proceeding under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. The facts are not in dispute.

On August 6, 1958, Beachcomber Motel, Inc., a Florida corporation operating a motel in Miami Beach, filed an original petition for an arrangement with its unsecured creditors under Chapter XI. Bankruptcy Act §322, 11 U. S. C. § 722 (1964 ed.). During the pend-ency of the arrangement proceeding, the corporation was permitted to operate its business as a debtor in possession under the authority of the bankruptcy court. In the course of its business operations, the corporation withheld federal income taxes1 and social security taxes2 from the wages paid to its employees and *680collected federal excise taxes on the receipts from its cabaret.3 Subsequently, the corporation was dispossessed of its property and the motel premises were closed.

Unable to proceed with a plan of arrangement with its creditors, the corporation filed a petition in bankruptcy on September 17, 1958, and was adjudged a bankrupt on the same date. Bankruptcy Act § 376 (2), 11 U. S. C. § 776 (2) (1964 ed.). On September 19, 1958, a trustee in bankruptcy, the petitioner in this case, was appointed. On October 31, 1958, the federal income taxes withheld, as well as the social security taxes and the cabaret taxes, were due to be paid. On January 31, 1959, the payroll tax imposed on employers by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act was due.4 The trustee in bankruptcy neither paid these, taxes nor filed any of the returns required with respect to them. On April 11, 1963, the United States submitted an administrative expense statement in the bankruptcy proceeding, claiming as administrative expenses the principal of the taxes due, penalties assessed for the trustee’s failure to file the returns for the taxes,5 *681and interest that had accumulated and would continue to accumulate on the taxes and penalties until they were paid.6

The referee in bankruptcy allowed the Government’s claim for the principal of the taxes but disallowed the claims for penalties and interest.7 The referee’s order was affirmed in all respects by the District Court. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment of the District Court and allowed the claims for penalties and interest on the taxes. 346 F. 2d 32. Shortly after that decision, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reached the opposite result with respect to a similar claim by the Government for interest on taxes incurred during a Chapter XI proceeding,8 and we granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 382 U. S. 971.

*682I.

It is a well-settled principle of American bankruptcy law that in cases of ordinary bankruptcy, the accumulation of interest on claims against a bankrupt estate is suspended as of the date the petition in bankruptcy is filed. Sexton v. Dreyfus, 219 U. S. 339.9 That rule, grounded in historical considerations of equity and administrative convenience, was specifically made applicable to the accumulation of interest on claims for taxes by the decision of this Court in New York v. Saper, 336 U. S. 328.10

*683The debts in Sexton, like the taxes in Saper, were incurred during the regular business operations of the taxpayer, prior to the invocation of any procedures under the Bankruptcy Act, whereas the taxes in the present case were incurred after a petition invoking Chapter XI of the Act had been filed. On the basis of that distinction, the Government contends that the taxes here in question were entitled to bear interest throughout the bankruptcy period. We draw no such conclusion from that distinction.

We believe that the decisions of this Court in Sexton and Saper reflect the broad equitable principle that creditors should not be disadvantaged vis-á-vis one another by legal delays attributable solely to the time-consuming procedures inherent in the administration of the bankruptcy laws.11 In the context of interest-bearing debts, the equitable principle enunciated in Sexton and Saper rests at bottom on an awareness of the inequity that would result if, through the continuing accumulation of interest in the course of subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, obligations bearing relatively high rates of interest were permitted to absorb the assets of a bankrupt estate *684whose funds were already inadequate to pay the principal of the debts owed by the estate.12

To be sure, the amount of interest that accumulates on a debt incurred during a Chapter XI arrangement depends upon the duration of a proceeding that takes place under the direction and authority of the bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy Act §§ 342, 343, 11 U. S. C. §§ 742, 743 (1964 ed.). But interest claimed on such a debt does not arise through a “delay” of the law in any meaningful sense. The underlying obligation of the debtor in possession is incurred as part of a judicial process of rehabilitation of the debtor that the pro*685cedures of Chapter XI are designed to facilitate. Interest on a current Chapter XI obligation is therefore different in kind from interest claimed during the arrangement period on a debt incurred before the Chapter XI petition was filed. From the vantage point of prearrangement creditors, the panorama of a Chapter XI proceeding is intimately bound up with the intrusion of the bankruptcy law into the previously untrammelled relationship between a debtor and his creditors. For these creditors, the filing of the Chapter XI petition may legitimately be regarded as introducing the very sort of legal delay that bankruptcy courts, in denying claims for interest, have traditionally characterized as inequitable. On the other hand, from the vantage point of the creditor whose credit relationship arose during the Chapter XI proceeding itself, it is the subsequent filing of a petition in bankruptcy that marks the intervention of meaningful legal delays. The equitable rationale underlying our decisions in Sexton and ¡Saper is therefore fully applicable to cases in which a Chapter XI proceeding is superseded by a liquidating bankruptcy.13

The principle that our past decisions thus establish is that the accumulation of interest on a debt must be suspended once an enterprise enters a period of bankruptcy administration beyond that in which the underlying interest-bearing obligation was incurred. In Saper, there *686were two relevant periods to be considered — the pre-petition period, before the petition in bankruptcy was filed, and the post-petition period, during the bankruptcy liquidation. The Court there upheld the accumulation of interest throughout the pre-petition period on taxes incurred during that period; it rejected only the claim for post-petition interest on the pre-petition taxes. By contrast, the circumstances of the present case commend a division into three periods — the pre-arrangement period, the arrangement period, and the liquidating bankruptcy period. A tax incurred within any one of these three periods would, we think, be entitled to bear interest against the bankrupt estate until, but not beyond, the close of the period in which it was incurred. Thus, in a case concerning taxes incurred during the first period— that is, before the filing of a petition for a Chapter XI arrangement — the Court has summarily affirmed a judgment holding that the accumulation of interest must be suspended as of the date the Chapter XI petition was filed.14 Where, as in the present case, the taxes have been incurred in the Chapter XI proceeding itself, application of the principle enunciated in Sexton and Saper permits interest to accrue throughout the arrangement proceeding; the principle requires only that the accumulation of interest be suspended once a petition in bankruptcy is filed.

*687The allowance of interest on Chapter XI debts until the filing of a petition in bankruptcy promotes the availability of capital to a debtor in possession and enhances the likelihood of achieving the goal of the proceeding, the ultimate rehabilitation of the debtor.15 Disallowance of interest on Chapter XI debts might seriously hinder the availability of such funds and might in many cases foreclose the prospect of the debtor’s recovery.16 No such significant detriment to the viability of a Chapter XI proceeding is imposed by the suspension of interest once the proceeding enters the liquidating bankruptcy period, since potential creditors can readily adjust their interest rates to accommodate their prognosis of the particular debtor’s chances of rehabilitation.

The division of the proceedings in the present case into three separate periods defining the permissible accumulation of interest is supported by the threefold hierarchy of priorities for tax claims under the Bankruptcy Act. Taxes incurred in the pre-arrangement period must be content with a fourth priority under § 64a (4) of the Bankruptcy Act.17 On the other hand, taxes incurred *688during the arrangement period are expenses of the Chapter XI proceedings and are therefore technically a part of the first priority under § 64a (1).18 The final sentence of that section, however, subordinates arrangement expenses within that priority to the expenses of the superseding bankruptcy administration. Tax claims incurred during Chapter XI proceedings are therefore in fact junior to claims for expenses incurred in subsequent bankruptcy proceedings. The suspension of interest on taxes incurred during the arrangement period as of the date a bankruptcy petition is filed thus corresponds to the suspension of interest on pre-arrangement taxes when a Chapter XI petition is filed. Moreover, the suspension of interest extricates the superseding trustee from a serious dilemma he would otherwise face, whether to pay subordinated Chapter XI tax claims prematurely in order to forestall the accrual of interest, or to increase the burden on the bankrupt estate by allowing the interest to accumulate.19

*689Aside from its basis in the equitable principle that creditors of a bankrupt estate should not be disadvantaged solely by means of the law’s delay, the confinement of the accrual of interest on Chapter XI obligations to the arrangement proceeding itself is also grounded in significant considerations of administrative convenience. As the Court recognized in Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green, 329 U. S. 156, 164, “Accrual of simple interest on unsecured claims in bankruptcy was prohibited in order that the administrative inconvenience of continuous recomputation of interest causing recompu-tation of claims could be avoided.” Thus, by accepting as a cut-off the date of filing of the petition in bankruptcy, the trustee avoids the potentially laborious procedure of recalculating the pro rata share to which each Chapter XI creditor is entitled whenever a distribution in the supervening bankruptcy is carried out.20

The application of the principle of our past decisions to the facts of the present case is straightforward. Since the taxes in question were incurred during the Chapter XI arrangement proceeding itself, the United States was entitled to interest on those taxes for the duration of that period. The actual arrangement proceeding in this case, however, terminated before the taxes became payable, and, therefore, no interest on the taxes accumulated before the petition in bankruptcy was filed by the debtor in possession. The entire amount of interest sought by the United States represents interest claimed for the liquidating bankruptcy period. Since we hold that the accumulation of interest on debts incurred during Chap*690ter XI proceedings is suspended on the date the petition in the superseding bankruptcy is filed, it is clear that the United States is not entitled to the interest that it seeks on the taxes in this case.

The result here is in no way inconsistent with the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 960, which states that persons conducting a business under the authority of a federal court shall be taxed as if they were conducting a private business.21 As an officer of the bankruptcy court, the debtor in possession was fully subject to taxes and interest incurred during his operation of the business in the Chapter XI arrangement. Nothing in the general language of 28 U. S. C. § 960, however, necessarily subjects the trustee in the superseding bankruptcy proceeding to an obligation to pay additional interest on those prior taxes once a petition in bankruptcy has been filed. United States v. Kalishman, 346 F. 2d 514; cf. New York v. Saper, 336 U. S. 328; United States v. General Engineering & Mfg. Co., 188 F. 2d 80 (C. A. 8th Cir.), aff’d, 342 U. S. 912. In the absence of explicit congressional direction, the considerations of equity and administrative convenience established by our decisions under the Bankruptcy Act clearly support this interpretation of the scope of this provision of the Judicial Code.

We find no merit in the Government’s alternative suggestion that the interest on two of the taxes here in question — those withheld from the wages of employees and those collected from the patrons of the cabaret — constitutes a trust fund over which the United States has an absolute priority under § 7501 (a) of the Internal Rev*691enue Code.22 We need not here determine whether, with regard to the principal of those taxes, the general language of § 7501 (a) overrides the strong policy of §64a(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, which establishes a sharply defined priority that places all expenses of administration on a parity, including claims for taxes.23 Cf. Guarantee Co. v. Title Guaranty Co., 224 U. S. 152; Davis v. Pringle, 268 U. S. 315; Missouri v. Ross, 299 U. S. 72. The second sentence of § 7501 (a) specifically provides that interest on such a trust fund is collectible in the same manner as the taxes from which the fund arose. Since we have already determined that no interest on any of the taxes here in question accrues beyond the period of the arrangement proceeding, no interest could accumulate on a trust fund composed of the withholding and cabaret taxes.24

*692We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals with regard to the liability of the trustee for the interest on the taxes.

II.

The validity of the claim by the United States against the trustee for penalties for failure to file the returns for the taxes in question presents a completely different issue. The result here is governed squarely by the rationale of our decision in Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U. S. 57, in which we sustained a penalty against a trustee in bankruptcy who failed to pay state automobile license taxes incurred while he was operating the business of the bankrupt estate' for the purpose of liquidation. We held in Boteler that Congress, under the predecessor of 28 U. S. C. § 960,25 had “with vigor and clarity declared that a trustee and other court appointees who operate businesses must do so subject to state taxes ‘the same as if such business [es] were conducted by an individual or corporation.’ ” 308 U. S., at 61. As we stated in Boteler, if the trustee were exempt from the penalty, a “State would thus be accorded the theoretical privilege of taxing businesses operated by trustees in bankruptcy on an equal footing with all other businesses, but would be denied the traditional and almost universal method of enforcing prompt payment.” Id., at 61.26

The same considerations are equally applicable to the present case. It is conceded that the trustee, in his status as representative of the bankrupt estate and successor in interest to the debtor in possession, is liable for the principal of the taxes incurred by the debtor in pos*693session, to the extent of the priority enjoyed by the taxes under § 64a (1) of the Bankruptcy Act.27 Once that liability is established, there can be no question that, under § 6011 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code, the trustee was under an obligation to file returns for these taxes, even though the taxes themselves were incurred by the debtor in possession during the pendency of the arrangement proceeding.28 It therefore follows under Boteler that, *694in the circumstances of the present case, where a Chapter XI arrangement has been superseded by a liquidating bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act, the United States is entitled to exact the penalties here in question as a legitimate means to enforce the prompt filing of the tax returns. Although the rule in Boteler may be open to some question as applied to the facts of that case, no such difficulty is presented here. In Boteler, the trustee was penalized for his failure actually to pay the license fees within the time period prescribed by the State, even *695though it could not have been clear at that date that the assets of the bankrupt estate would be sufficient to pay-all of the expenses of administration that were entitled to share equally with the taxes under the first priority of § 64a (1) of the Bankrupty Act in any distribution of assets from the estate. In the present case, on the other hand, the penalties were imposed solely because of the trustee’s failure to file timely returns for the taxes incurred during the Chapter XI arrangement period.29 No legitimate interest would be served by permitting the trustee to escape the unburdensome responsibility of merely filing the returns and thereby notifying the United States of the taxes that are due. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals with regard to the liability of the trustee for the penalties in question.30

*696For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Recognizing the case to be difficult, I would affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision to allow both the interest and the penalty as administration expenses. On both points, I think there are fair policy arguments which can be mustered to support either result. On balance, it seems to me that the entire period starting with the Chapter XI operation and carrying through the bankruptcy proceeding should be regarded as a continuum of court administration. See especially § 378 (2) of the Bankruptcy Act, II U. S. C. § 778 (2) (1964 ed.). From this I think it follows that interest should not be stopped when bankruptcy succeeds the Chapter XI period, and that the court-appointed trustee does fall heir to the responsibilities of the court-supervised debtor in possession to file returns.

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with all but Part II of the Court’s opinion and dissent as to that part.

The issue is whether a penalty for the trustee’s failure to file withholding, social security and cabaret tax returns is payable out of the assets of the estate. The Court holds that it is, even though the acts giving rise to tax liability occurred during the operation of the business by the debtor in possession prior to the trustee’s *697assumption of office. Although the Court concedes that the trustee is not obligated to pay the tax except at the time and within the limits provided by the Bankruptcy Act, he must nevertheless undertake the sometimes difficult task of assembling all the information necessary to file the tax returns that the debtor in possession would have had to file had bankruptcy not occurred. For several reasons I do not agree.

1. The bankruptcy laws do not favor saddling an estate with penalties. Section 57j states that “Debts owing to the United States or to any State or any subdivision thereof as a penalty or forfeiture shall not be allowed . . . ,” Bankruptcy Act, § 57j, as amended, 11 U. S. C. § 93 (j) (1964 ed.), and this Court has held the section applicable to a federal tax claim even where it is secured by a lien. Simonson v. Granquist, 369 U. S. 38. That case reaffirmed the “broad aim of the Act to provide for the conservation of the estates of insolvents to the end that there may be as equitable a distribution of assets as is consistent with the type of claims involved. . . . Enforcement of penalties against the estates of bankrupts, however, would serve not to punish the delinquent taxpayers, but rather their entirely innocent creditors.” Id., at 40-41. It is true that § 57j deals with penalties claimed against the debtor and here the penalty is claimed to arise from the trustee’s alleged default. But the general policy against diluting the claims of creditors by charging penalties against the estate — very similar to the policy against allowing interest during bankruptcy which the Court rightly makes much of in this case — requires at the very least weighty and persuasive reasons for imposing upon the estate and the other creditors a penalty for the trustee’s failure to file a return relating to the prebankruptcy operations of the business. If the tax return date in this case had fallen on the day before bankruptcy, § 57j would bar the penalty. I see little *698sense in a rule which would allow it if the return date is the day after bankruptcy.

2. The Court rests the trustee’s obligation to file a return solely on § 6011 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code — “any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall make a return . . . .” Section 6151, putting the matter the other way, imposes an obligation to pay the tax on those who file a return. The Court says it is conceded the trustee is liable to pay the taxes incurred by the debtor in possession and therefore the trustee must file a return. But the Court obviously does not mean the trustee is “liable” to pay in the sense that he must pay claims against the estate. For in the typical bankruptcy case where no Chapter XI proceeding has intervened — the failure of an individual proprietorship for example — the trustee is not obligated to, indeed is not authorized to, file the individual’s return even though federal taxes are entitled to a Class 4 priority. I. T. 3959, 1949-1 Cum. Bull. 90. The salient fact is that the trustee’s general obligation to pay claims, including tax claims, takes effect only when and if they are allowed and distribution is ordered. Any claimed liability to pay a tax at any earlier time gives way to the priority provisions of § 64a, and mere liability to pay claims is not the type of liability envisaged by § 6011 (a). If it were, the bankruptcy trustee in the ordinary proceeding not following an abortive Chapter XI arrangement could not escape the rule announced today.

Accordingly, the reliance of the Court is not on the trustee’s general liability to pay claims but on the supposed “crucial fact” that the taxes here in question were incurred during proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act with the trustee being successor in interest to the debtor in possession, who also acted as an officer of the court. But had the debtor in possession continued to operate *699the business, his liability to file a return and to pay the taxes here in question would have been clear under 28 U. S. C. § 960 (1964 ed.), and he could have been subjected to penalties for any default, Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U. S. 57. With respect to the trustee, however, the Court disclaims any holding that his liability arises under § 960, see ante, 693, n. 28, at 694, and it seems also to disavow any implication that the trustee could be penalized for failure to pay these taxes at the time required by the Code, as distinguished from failure to file the returns, ante, n. 29 and accompanying text. Such disclaimers are entirely appropriate. For the truth of the matter is that the successor liability of the trustee who succeeds a debtor in possession is no different from that of the trustee who succeeds the ordinary bankrupt, except that taxes accruing during the arrangement are distinguished from prearrangement taxes in that they are classified as administrative expenses and thus are escalated from a Class 4 to a Class 1 priority, although relegated to an inferior position within Class 1 and hence payable only if there are sufficient assets to pay prior expenses. In either instance the trustee’s duty to pay is regulated by § 64a and is a general obligation to pay claims and administrative expenses not constituting the kind of liability envisaged by § 6011 (a). In sum, there is no basis in law for treating the debtor in possession .and the trustee as one person, and the Court’s error is in merging together two distinct periods of the estate for purposes of assessing responsibility for filing returns when it quite carefully, and correctly, separated them for purposes of determining liability to pay interest.

3. There might be some grounds for rejecting the general policy against allowing penalties against bankrupt estates if the filing of the return by the trustee performed some critical function or was at least something more than an empty formality. Section 58e of the Bankruptcy *700Act, 11 U. S. C. § 94 (e) (1964 ed.), expressly provides for notice to the Internal Revenue Service of the first meeting of creditors in all bankruptcy proceedings and for notices to all scheduled creditors at important stages of the proceeding. See also 26 U. S. C. § 6036 (1964 ed.) (notice of qualification of trustee). There is, therefore, little chance that the Government would not have the opportunity, for lack of notice, to file its claim as it is required to do in an ordinary case. In the matter before us now, the tax claims were clearly scheduled, the United States had ample notice and it'had no trouble whatsoever in filing the statement of administrative expense to take advantage of the priority accorded administrative items arising in the prior Chapter XI proceeding.

4. Nor is it so clear that to impose on the trustee the obligation of filing returns which the debtor in possession would have filed had he not been adjudicated a bankrupt imposes only an insubstantial burden. Trustees are normally strangers to the estate, have not participated in making or filing the schedules of assets and liabilities and, although they may be creditors, at the outset know little or nothing about the affairs of the bankrupt. They normally do not employ accountants, many times do not have attorneys and more often than not do not forthwith undertake the work and effort necessary to file a tax return. Such a filing is a serious undertaking with possible repercussions and it is not something which an officer of the court can afford lightly to discharge. If the United States claims an amount different from that scheduled, the trustee or his attorney may well have to delve into the facts and give serious consideration to the matter. But I would not require a trustee at the very outset of his duties to determine at his peril whether there are tax returns of the debtor to be filed and to undertake to file them. It would, of course, be impossible to do so on short notice; and if the return *701date is within a few days after the trustee’s appointment, the court’s rule would have untoward results.* Absent some showing of a special function to be served by the filing of the return, the wooden application of § 6011 (a) needlessly proliferates the duties of the ordinary bankruptcy trustee.

5. Boteler v. Ingels, 308 U. S. 57, does not rule this case. There the Court found an obligation on the trustee to pay license taxes on vehicles used in his own liquidating operations. Given this obligation arising out of his own activities, his failure to pay justified the imposition of a penalty and its payment from the estate. Section 57j was limited to proscribing penalties arising from the bankrupt’s own defaults. That case, however, does not tell us whether the trustee was liable either to pay the tax or to file the return in the circumstancés of this case. It does not follow from the trustee’s obligation to pay license fees on vehicles used in his own operations that he is likewise obligated to pay a tax and file a return with respect to the debtor’s prior business operations. And even if one admits the obligation to file the return, which I do not, the fact that the return relates to prebank-ruptcy matters, not to the trustee’s operations, brings this case much closer to those in which § 57j was clearly intended to apply.