.jpg)
Means test question
It doesnt sound like income for Means Test to me but I would have to
research the issue.
On Sep 2, 2017 8:54 PM, "Mark Jessee jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> I agree it is zero because she paid more for the car than she sold it
> for. I would disclose it but report it as zero Income.
>
> Mark Jessee
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 2, 2017, at 8:18 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Zero. Don't be afraid to duke it out. (I know you're not afraid. Just
> being tempestuous. I remember when the means test came along we were all
> so afraid of it and having to fight with the UST.)
>
>
>
It doesnt sound like income for Means Test to me but I would have to research the issue.On Sep 2, 2017 8:54 PM, "Mark Jessee jesseelaw@aol.com [cdcbaa]" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I agree it is zero because she paid more for the car than she sold it for. I would disclose it but report it as zero Income.Mark JesseeSent from my iPhoneOn Sep 2, 2017, at 8:18 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Zero. Don't be afraid to duke it out. (I know you're not afraid. Just being tempestuous. I remember when the means test came along we were all so afraid of it and having to fight with the UST.)
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I agree it is zero because she paid more for the car than she sold it for. I would disclose it but report it as zero Income.
Mark Jessee
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 2, 2017, at 8:18 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Zero. Don't be afraid to duke it out. (I know you're not afraid. Just being tempestuous. I remember when the means test came along we were all so afraid of it and having to fight with the UST.)
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In my opinion, it isnt income for the schedule I. It should be reported on
the SOFA.
On Sep 1, 2017 5:53 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> Dear cdcbaa Sages,
>
>
>
> *Background Facts:*
>
>
>
> Debtor bought a car for her daughter to use. The car and loan were in
> Debtors name. Debtor made the payments for a year and a half. Daughter
> married and wanted to take the car across country. Debtor didnt want the
> potential liability. Her solution was to sell the car to daughter> husband. The balance on the debt at the time of sale was $20,000, so
> daughters husband sent Debtor a check for $20,000. After depositing the
> check in her bank account, Debtor sent a check for $20,000 to the lender.
> At the time of sale the car was worth about $15,000.
>
>
>
> *Question:*
>
>
>
> How much, if any, of the $20,000 should be reported as income on the
> Chapter 7 means test?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your insight.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
>
> 15150 Hornell Street
>
> Whittier, CA 90604
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com
>
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
>
> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* We are a debt relief
> agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
>
>
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail
> info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
>
>
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you,
> and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
>
>
>
> *Privacy Warning: *The use of e-mail involves risk that the message may
> be intercepted by third parties (such as the government). Contacting me by
> email is your acknowledgment that you waive the risk of emails sent to me,
> and that you waive the risk of emails sent from me to you. Further,
> accessing websites carries the risk of detection of your access not only in
> real time, but also by discovery. If you have ANYTHING that is sensitive
> to convey to me, it should be given in a face-to-face meeting.
>
>
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: *In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> penalties under the Internal Revenue code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
>
In my opinion, it isnt income for the schedule I. It should be reported on the SOFA.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In my opinion, it isnt income for the schedule I. It should be reported on
the SOFA.
On Sep 1, 2017 5:53 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> Dear cdcbaa Sages,
>
>
>
> *Background Facts:*
>
>
>
> Debtor bought a car for her daughter to use. The car and loan were in
> Debtors name. Debtor made the payments for a year and a half. Daughter
> married and wanted to take the car across country. Debtor didnt want the
> potential liability. Her solution was to sell the car to daughter> husband. The balance on the debt at the time of sale was $20,000, so
> daughters husband sent Debtor a check for $20,000. After depositing the
> check in her bank account, Debtor sent a check for $20,000 to the lender.
> At the time of sale the car was worth about $15,000.
>
>
>
> *Question:*
>
>
>
> How much, if any, of the $20,000 should be reported as income on the
> Chapter 7 means test?
>
>
>
> Thanks for your insight.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> *Nicholas Gebelt*
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
>
>
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description:
> cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
>
> 15150 Hornell Street
>
> Whittier, CA 90604
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com
>
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
>
> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
>
>
>
> *Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528:* We are a debt relief
> agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
>
>
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail
> info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
>
>
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you,
> and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
>
>
>
> *Privacy Warning: *The use of e-mail involves risk that the message may
> be intercepted by third parties (such as the government). Contacting me by
> email is your acknowledgment that you waive the risk of emails sent to me,
> and that you waive the risk of emails sent from me to you. Further,
> accessing websites carries the risk of detection of your access not only in
> real time, but also by discovery. If you have ANYTHING that is sensitive
> to convey to me, it should be given in a face-to-face meeting.
>
>
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: *In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> penalties under the Internal Revenue code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
>
In my opinion, it isnt income for the schedule I. It should be reported on the SOFA.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
See 707(b)(2)(A)(iii)(I) & (II). While (I) does not reference maintaining debtor's primary residence, etc. ... necessary for support of debtor and dependents,(II) does.
I believe that Forms B22 treat non-residential real propertyas a CMI issue and exclude the secured debts from the CMI reductions. Otherwise, the Form's instructions to state income and operating expenses do not make sense. Further, this interpretation follows the rule in the Chapter 13 contextthatfunding negative cash flow rental properties in under 100% plans is taboo. Thus the number is capped at $0.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I think the confusing part of this is that it's not clear (or is it?) that mortgage payments on a rental property are automatically considered "operating expenses."
>
> Re-read line 5, it actuall state "Do not include any part of the operating expense on line b as a deduction in Part V."
>
> All rental property income and expenses go on 5 a & b and no rental property debt goes to Part V.
>
> --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Mark JM wrote:
>
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Means test question
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 11:12 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I just noticed something that I'm sure you all have figured out already, but what do you do on the means test Form 22A where the debtor has a rental property (which is rented out) and the debtor himself lives in an apartment?
>
> If you fill out the means test form the way it says, then the secured payments on the rental property will eat up the debtor's housing allowance.d debt payments get applied to the rental property and he still gets his housing allowance?
>
> Line 5 has a section for the rental income but says specifically NOT to deduct the secured debt payments from it.
>
> Anyone have this figured out?
>
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173
> (818)509-1460 (fax)
> e-mail: bklawr@bklaw. com
> web: http://www.bklaw. com/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
ahh...thank you. I was looking at my internal Best Case form and it hadn't been changed when they updated Form 22A.
----- Original Message -----
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Means test question
Re-read line 5, it actuall state "Do not include any part of the operating expense on line b as a deduction in Part V."
All rental property income and expenses go on 5 a & b and no rental property debt goes to Part V.
--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Mark JM wrote:
Subject: [cdcbaa] Means test question
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 11:12 AM
I just noticed something that I'm sure you all have figured out already, but what do you do on the means test Form 22A where the debtor has a rental property (which is rented out) and the debtor himself lives in an apartment?
If you fill out the means test form the way it says, then the secured payments on the rental property will eat up the debtor's housing allowance. Is there a correct way to complete the form so that the debtor's secured debt payments get applied to the rental property and he still gets his housing allowance?
Line 5 has a section for the rental income but says specifically NOT to deduct the secured debt payments from it.
Anyone have this figured out?
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173
(818)509-1460 (fax)
e-mail: bklawr@bklaw. com
web: http://www.bklaw. com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
.ygrp-photo-title {
CLEAR: both; FONT-SIZE: smaller; OVERFLOW: hidden; WIDTH: 75px; HEIGHT: 15px; TEXT-ALIGN: center
}
DIV.ygrp-photo {
BORDER-RIGHT: black 1px solid; BACKGROUND-POSITION: center 50%; BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: black 1px solid; WIDTH: 62px; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 1px solid; BACKGROUND-REPEAT: no-repeat; HEIGHT: 62px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: white
}
DIV.photo-title A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A:active {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A:hover {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.photo-title A:visited {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.attach-table DIV.attach-row {
CLEAR: both
}
DIV.attach-table DIV.attach-row DIV {
FLOAT: left
}
P {
CLEAR: both; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; OVERFLOW: hidden; PADDING-TOP: 15px
}
DIV.ygrp-file {
WIDTH: 30px; valign: middle
}
DIV.attach-table DIV.attach-row DIV DIV A {
TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.attach-table DIV.attach-row DIV DIV SPAN {
FONT-WEIGHT: normal
}
DIV.ygrp-file-title {
FONT-WEIGHT: bold
}
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Re-read line 5, it actuall state "Do not include any part of the operating expense on line b as a deduction in Part V."
All rental property income and expenses go on 5 a & b and no rental property debt goes to Part V.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I just noticed something that I'm sure you all have figured out already, but what do you do on the means test Form 22A where the debtor has a rental property (which is rented out) and the debtor himself lives in an apartment?
If you fill out the means test form the way it says, then the secured payments on the rental property will eat up the debtor's housing allowance. Is there a correct way to complete the form so that the debtor's secured debt payments get applied to the rental property and he still gets his housing allowance?
Line 5 has a section for the rental income but says specifically NOT to deduct the secured debt payments from it.
Anyone have this figured out?
***************************************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173
(818)509-1460 (fax)
e-mail: bklawr@bklaw.com
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Isn't there an argument that the retirment loan deduction can be included in line 26 as an involutary payroll expense in a Chapter 7, as they are not optional. The failure to make said payments accelerates the outstanding loan balanace of the debt to be deemed taxable income to the debtor. I think the alternate argument is to calculate the amount of state and federal tax (including the 10% penalty) due on the outstanding balance and assert that averaged monthly amount as being necessary for tax expense in line 25.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF
THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY
US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Fri Jan 23 11:28 , 'Raj Wadhwani' sent:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.