.jpg)
Tax case with excess I and J
I've done cases where Sch I is $1,000 over Sch J, and they went by fine. I would not go much higher, however.
- John D. Faucher
818/889-8080
On Friday, February 20, 2015 3:00 PM, "'Steven B. Lever' sblever@leverlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
I agree Frank. Normally people spend higher than they say. We looked to increase it everywhere we could. Still couldnt find additional expenses. They do save about $1,000 a month.
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:58 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Tax case with excess I and J
I dont see a problem with it if that is the accurate number. But, does your client really save $1100/month? My experience is that my clients dont actually save this money but have higher expenses that sometimes are unreasonable. For example, a single debtor may spend $750 / month for food because she eats out a lot or $250 / month for entertainment. Typically, I would not include such numbers in an ordinary case because I know that there is a likelihood of an objection due to unreasonableness. In nonconsumer cases such as yours where 707(b) is not applicable, I normally include those type of expenses. You are fine in either case, but my point is dont shy away from listing actual expenses even if they may be unreasonable.
Frank X. Ruggier
Attorney at Law
15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 880
Encino, CA 91436
Tel: (818) 796-3529
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 1:41 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [cdcbaa] Tax case with excess I and J
I have a tax caseway more tax debt than consumer debt.
So no means test.
However, there is an excess of $1,100 in I/J net.
Since 11 U.S.C. 707 does not apply except in consumer cases, whether under the means test or the totality of circumstances test, Im thinking its OK to reveal this surplus.
Does anyone see a problem with that?
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.
Dear Steve,
It is true that 707(b) applies only to consumer cases, but that limitation is not part of 707(a), which permits dismissal "for cause." And while 707(a) lists three causes, the list is preceded by "including," which according to 102(3) is "not limiting." It is for this reason that high income Chapter 7 tax cases typically have a very small I, J difference. See, e.g., In re (Dionne) Warwick, 13-15875-MS (Bankr. N.J.).
Are there expenses your client hasn't thought of?
All the best,
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 Bar's Bankruptcy Law Advisory Committee
[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; 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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I dont see a problem with it if that is the accurate number. But, does
your client really save $1100/month? My experience is that my clients donactually save this money but have higher expenses that sometimes are
r
food because she eats out a lot or $250 / month for entertainment.
Typically, I would not include such numbers in an ordinary case because I
know that there is a likelihood of an objection due to unreasonableness. In
nonconsumer cases such as yours where 707(b) is not applicable, I normally
include those type of expenses. You are fine in either case, but my point
is dont shy away from listing actual expenses even if they may be
Frank X. Ruggier
Attorney at Law
15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 880
Encino, CA 91436
Tel: (818) 796-3529
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have a tax case-way more tax debt than consumer debt.
So no means test.
However, there is an excess of $1,100 in I/J net.
Since 11 U.S.C. 707 does not apply except in consumer cases, whether under the "means test" or the "totality of circumstances" test, I'm thinking it's OK to reveal this surplus.
Does anyone see a problem with that?
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.