.jpg)
Lanning Decision from Supremes
I disagree. I think you prepare the means test as the code dictates
including the cmi period. Then you prepare your Schedule I. If Schedule
I makes more sense based on changed circumstances they you add an
attachment stating that your plan is based on Schedule I and J due to
the substantial change in the debtor's circumstances and that the means
test does not count. Best efforts takes over where the means test fails.
Does anyone feel the same way?
Nancy Clark
Borowitz & Clark, LLP
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver
this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message
and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately
if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages
of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this
message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To ensure compliance with Treasury
Department Regulations, we advise you that, unless otherwise expressly
indicated, any federal tax advice contained in this communication was
not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or
applicable state or local tax law provisions or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter
addressed herein.
________________________________
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Hello Paul -
The forward-looking test is the hybrid that the Court came up with, where
income and expenses are determined on the basis of what the debtor expects
in the future, rather than an average of the last six months income and
expenses (which is how the statute reads). For a better explanation, I
commend you to the other participants glosses here and to the case itself.
- John D. Faucher
On 6/7/10 10:32 AM, "Paul Horn" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> What does "forwarding looking" test mean?
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul Horn, ESQ., CPA
> Attorney at Law
> Certified Public Accountant
> 1045 E. Valley Blvd., Suite A215
> San Gabriel, CA 91770
> 626-695-7310
> 877-872-9997--fax
> www.paulhornlawfirm.com
>
>
>
> To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
> Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 10:05:58 AM
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Lanning Decision from Supremes [1 Attachment]
>
>
>
>
> Hello All -
> I attach the Supremes decision in Lanning. They went with the
> forward-looking test, rather than the mechanical test for projected future
> income. Judge Scalia predictably and grimly hung onto the text of the
> statute, inveighing against the loosey-goosey results of second-guessing
> Congress.
>
>>>>> John D. Faucher
>>>>> Hurlbett & Faucher
>>>>> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 116
>>>>> Westlake Village, CA 91362
>>>>> (818) 889-8080
>>>>> Fax: (805) 367-4154
>>>>> http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> 3324 State Street, Suite O
>>>>> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
>>>>> (805) 963-9111
>
>
> This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential, contain
> information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom
> it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at 805/963-9111 x103 or
> john@hf-bklaw. com) indicating that you received this message and then delete
> the message without delay. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
> advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
> purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or
> recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
>
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> - John D. Faucher
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Re: [cdcbaa] Lanning Decision from Supremes
Hello Paul -
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Here's a pretty good synopsis from someone I respect (of course we'll
wait for Jon Hayes' and others' analyses from our group)
It appears to me that the SCOTUS opinion rewrote the statute, but then
again somebody had to. Congress has been in no rush to fix the defects
in the law for more than 5 years.
The language used by the majority appears to create the following hybrid:
1. Determine the debtors' current monthly income as a starting point for
income. That is the base beginning.
2. Determine the debtors' expected income going forward. While many
refer to that as Schedule I income, that may or may not be accurate.
3. If the income that is really expected in the future is different than
the CMI, we will start with the expected future income.
4. Determine the expenses for above median income debtors based upon the
22C form.
5. Determine which of the allowed expenses will not be likely to occur
in the future -- such as mortgages for surrendered property, or payments
on secured claims liens relating to which will be voided.
6. Recalculate the 22C expenses taking into account these adjustment to
expenses.
7. Nothing in the opinion permits a trustee to ignore the allowances
themselves -- that may be resolved by /Ransom /next year, but for now,
if the IRS grants an allowance, the debtors get the allowance, even if
the debtors' actual payments for food (national expenses) or rent or car
payments (local expenses) are less than the allowances.
Call it a hybrid, if you like, but remember the Supreme Court is not
final because it is infallible. It is infallible because it is final.
Hank
Henry E. Hildebrand III
Chapter 13 Trustee
PO Box 190664
Nashville, TN 37219
hank13@ch13nsh.com
*************************
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)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... efinition/)
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication.
On 6/7/2010 10:32 AM, Paul Horn wrote:
>
>
> What does "forwarding looking" test mean?
>
> Thanks
> Paul Horn, ESQ., CPA
> Attorney at Law
> Certified Public Accountant
> 1045 E. Valley Blvd., Suite A215
> San Gabriel, CA 91770
> 626-695-7310
> 877-872-9997--fax
> www.paulhornlawfirm.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* John Faucher
> *To:* "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
> *Sent:* Mon, June 7, 2010 10:05:58 AM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Lanning Decision from Supremes [1 Attachment]
>
> Hello All -
> I attach the Supremes' decision in Lanning. They went with the
> "forward-looking" test, rather than the "mechanical" test for
> projected future income. Judge Scalia predictably and grimly hung
> onto the text of the statute, inveighing against the loosey-goosey
> results of second-guessing Congress.
>
> John D. Faucher
> Hurlbett & Faucher
> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 116
> Westlake Village, CA 91362
> (818) 889-8080
> Fax: (805) 367-4154
> http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>
> 3324 State Street, Suite O
> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
> (805) 963-9111
>
>
> /This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential,
> contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual
> or entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John
> Faucher (at 805/963-9111 x103 or john@hf-bklaw. com) indicating that
> you received this message and then delete the message without delay.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any
> tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments,
> for the purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or
> promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any particular
> transaction or matter.
> //
> /
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Hello All -
I attach the Supremes decision in Lanning. They went with the
cted
future income. Judge Scalia predictably and grimly hung onto the text of
the statute, inveighing against the loosey-goosey results of second-guessing
Congress.
>>>> John D. Faucher
>>>> Hurlbett & Faucher
>>>> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 116
>>>> Westlake Village, CA 91362
>>>> (818) 889-8080
>>>> Fax: (805) 367-4154
>>>> http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>>>>
>>>> 3324 State Street, Suite O
>>>> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
>>>> (805) 963-9111
This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential,
contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at
805/963-9111 x103 or john@hf-bklaw.com) indicating that you received this
message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Lanning Decision from Supremes
Hello All -
I attach the Supremes’ decision in Lanning. &
The post was migrated from Yahoo.