.jpg)
Reply-To: Gaurav Datta
X-Original-Return-Path: Gaurav Datta
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
Did the prior bankruptcies show up on the tax transcript? I'm assuming you reviewed the transcripts prior to issuing your opinion letter.
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 5:48 PM, 'Steven B. Lever' sblever@leverlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I now realize Im kind of in trouble with a case Im supposed to file next week with assessing tax dischargeability.
>
>
>
> I got the analysis below that the tolling only affects the 240 day rule based upon Subsection 507(a)(8)(A)(ii)(II)not the 3 or 2 year rules.
>
>
>
> However, John Faucher in a separate thread I started today pointed out 507a8G. Its kind of a hanging paragraph below where it discusses penalties, but seems to apply to the whole paragraph of 523(8)
>
>
>
> The language there states: An otherwise applicable time period specified in this paragraph shall be suspended for any period during which a governmental unit is prohibited under applicable nonbankruptcy law from collecting a tax as a result of a request by the debtor for a hearing and an appeal of any collection action taken or proposed against the debtor, plus 90 days; plus any time during which the stay of proceedings was in effect in a prior case under this title or during which collection was precluded by the existence of 1 or more confirmed plans under this title, plus 90 days.
>
>
>
> The Debtors in this case filed 2 prior Chapter 13 bankruptcies (with another attorney) spanning from 2012 to early 2015.
>
>
>
> This would seem to mean that taxes owed for even 2009, to the extent the bankruptcy was pending during the time before they were dischargeable in 2012, are nondischargeable because it stopped the applicable time periods from running, plus 90 days.
>
>
>
> Which part of the statute controls? It seems that 507(a)(8)(A)(ii)(II) is redundant if the same tolling applies in 507(a)(8)(G) to every single subpart of 507 above.
>
>
>
> Any input would be greatly appreciated. Im not sure I did the analysis right, and need to inform the clients if that is the case.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
>
>
>
> Steven B. Lever
>
> ( Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
>
> ( Fax (562) 485-6886
>
> * sblever@leverlaw.com
>
> www.leverlaw.com
>
> ******************************************************
>
> This Internet e-mail contains confidential information
>
> which is intended only for the addressee and which may
>
> be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy
>
> or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you
>
> have received this message in error, please notify the
>
> sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
>
> ******************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ps.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 7:29 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] RE: Tax Dischargeability Tolling with prior Chapter 13s
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Steven,
>
>
>
> The tolling only affects the 240-day rule. It does not affect the 3-year or 2-year rules.
>
>
>
> Subsection 507(a)(8)(A)(ii)(II) has the following language: any time during which a stay of proceedings against collections was in effect in a prior case under this title during that 240-day period, plus 90 days. Thus, once the automatic stay terminates, the 240-day clock resumes its ticking.
>
>
>
> Subsection 362(c) provides:
>
>
>
> Except as provided in subsections (d), (e), (f), and (h) of this section
>
> (1) the stay of an act against property of the estate under subsection (a) of this section continues until such property is no longer property of the estate;
>
> (2) the stay of any other act under subsection (a) of this section continues until the earliest of
>
> (A) the time the case is closed;
>
> (B) the time the case is dismissed; or
>
> (C) if the case is a case under chapter 7 of this title concerning an individual or a case under chapter 9, 11, 12, or 13 of this title, the time a discharge is granted or denied.
>
>
>
> Therefore, your three-month concern shouldnt be an issue.
>
>
>
> Good luck.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt
>
>
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
> Commissioner, California State Bars Bankruptcy Law Advisory Committee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
>
> 15150 Hornell Street
>
> Whittier, CA 90604
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
m [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 7:11 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Tax Dischargeability Tolling with prior Chapter 13s
>
>
>
>
>
> I have clients who have been in 2 separate Chapter 13 cases between September 2012 and June of this year.
>
>
>
> They have substantial taxes going back many years.
>
>
>
> Im trying to determine the effect of tolling on some of these tax years. The general rule is that all the dischargeability rules are tolled while in bankruptcy plus 90 days.
>
>
>
> I have 2 questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Does the tolling stop when the Debtors case is dismissed, or when it is ordered closed? There is a 3 month difference. It would seem to me the earlier date since 11 U.S.C. 362(c) makes it the earlier date, but I havent read a treatise, or any case law.
>
> 2. Does the Tax Determinator Service dependably calculate thisor is there a better service?
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
>
>
>
> Steven B. Lever
>
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
FW: Tax Dischargeability Tolling with prior Chapter 13s
I now realize I'm kind of in trouble with a case I'm supposed to file next week with assessing tax dischargeability.
I got the analysis below that the tolling only affects the 240 day rule based upon Subsection 507(a)(8)(A)(ii)(II)-not the 3 or 2 year rules.
However, John Faucher in a separate thread I started today pointed out 507a8G. It's kind of a hanging paragraph below where it discusses penalties, but seems to apply to the whole "paragraph" of 523(8)
The language there states: An otherwise applicable time period specified in this paragraph shall be suspended for any period during which a governmental unit is prohibited under applicable nonbankruptcy law from collecting a tax as a result of a request by the debtor for a hearing and an appeal of any collection action taken or proposed against the debtor, plus 90 days; plus any time during which the stay of proceedings was in effect in a prior case under this title or during which collection was precluded by the existence of 1 or more confirmed plans under this title, plus 90 days.
The Debtors in this case filed 2 prior Chapter 13 bankruptcies (with another attorney) spanning from 2012 to early 2015.
This would seem to mean that taxes owed for even 2009, to the extent the bankruptcy was pending during the time before they were dischargeable in 2012, are nondischargeable because it stopped the "applicable time periods" from running, plus 90 days.
Which part of the statute controls? It seems that 507(a)(8)(A)(ii)(II) is redundant if the same tolling applies in 507(a)(8)(G) to every single subpart of 507 above.
Any input would be greatly appreciated. I'm not sure I did the analysis right, and need to inform the clients if that is the case.
Steve
Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
Steven B. Lever
* Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
* Fax (562) 485-6886
* sblever@leverlaw.com
www.leverlaw.com
******************************************************
This Internet e-mail contains confidential information
which is intended only for the addressee and which may
be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy
or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
******************************************************
The post was migrated from Yahoo.