.jpg)
707a issues for non-consumer case
Padilla was a Robles case also. I think Perlin is more helpful. In
re Perlin, 497 F.3d 364 (3rd Cir. August, 2007)
>
>
> Thanks. I think it was the recent Robles decision in Mitchell that
threw me off, but it appears that case only applies to consumer debt
cases (and isn't necessarily precedential).
>
> ______________________
> 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
> ___________
> 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 (or in any
attachment).
> ----- Original Message -----
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 707a issues for non-consumer case
>
>
> My recollection is that under pre-BAPCPA 9th Cir. law, Padilla,
there is no bad-faith dismissal of a chapter 7 case.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new
year.
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks. I think it was the recent Robles decision in Mitchell that threw me off, but it appears that case only applies to consumer debt cases (and isn't necessarily precedential).
______________________
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
___________
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 (or in any attachment).
----- Original Message -----
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 707a issues for non-consumer case
My recollection is that under pre-BAPCPA 9th Cir. law, Padilla, there is no bad-faith dismissal of a chapter 7 case.
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
For those of you with experience with 707(a) issues in non-consumer cases (and I realize this is somewhat off topic, so my apologies):
What is the criteria our courts look at when deciding whether surplus income is sufficient to dismiss a CH. 7 case with primarily non-consumer debt, and what expenses are allowed in the determination?
For example, debtors own a bunch of rental properties, in addition to their residence. They intend to surrender them. The cash flow on whole is negative, let's say by $3,000 per month after all debt service on the properties.
Debtor's I and J WITHOUT the rental property "business" income listed is showing a surplus of, let's say, $2,500 per month and total unsecured debt is $100,000.
If the business (rental) income and expenses are factored in, they would be showing a negative monthly budget.
How would the courts (and OUST) look at this? Does it make a difference if the rental properties are NOT being surrendered? Does it make a difference if the unsecured debt is $2 million instead of $100,000 (lower possible percentage payout over time)?
I'm getting 180 degree different answers from people I respect on this, so just wanted to open this up for discussion.
Thanks...
______________________
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
___________
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 (or in any attachment).
For those of you with experience with 707(a) issues
in non-consumer cases (and I realize this is somewhat off topic, so my
apologies):
What is the criteria our courts look at when
deciding whether surplus income is sufficient to dismiss a CH. 7 case withprimarily non-consumer debt, and what expenses are allowed in the
determination?
For example, debtors own a bunch of rentalproperties, in addition to their residence. They intend to surrenderthem. The cash flow on whole is negative, let's say by $3,000 per month
after all debt service on the properties.
Debtor's I and J WITHOUT the rental property
"business" income listed is showing a surplus of, let's say, $2,500 per month
and total unsecured debt is $100,000.
If the business (rental) income and expenses are
factored in, they would be showing a negative monthly budget.
How would the courts (and OUST) look at this?
Does it make a difference if the rental properties are NOT being
surrendered? Does it make a difference if the unsecured debt is $2
million instead of $100,000 (lower possible percentage payout over
time)?
I'm getting 180 degree different answers from
people I respect on this, so just wanted to open this up for
discussion.
Thanks...
______________________Mark J. MarkusLaw
Office of Mark J. Markus11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403Studio City, CA91604-2652(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)web: http://www.bklaw.com/This Firm is aQualified Federal Debt Relief Agency___________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 addresseeonly. 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 (or in any
attachment).
The post was migrated from Yahoo.