.jpg)
=?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5Bcdcbaa=5D_re=3A_Question_re=3A_11_U=2ES=2EC=2E_=C2=A7_523=28a=297_=2D?=
Sounds like it. It could also be argued that it is compensation for loss,
depending on the fact pattern.
On Jul 16, 2015 7:02 PM, "David S dshevitzulf@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> Dear Listmates,
>
> I have a question related to a possible client ("PC") to determine if a
> debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(7) owed to the USDA Forest
> Service.
>
> 11 U.S.C. 523(a)
>
> (7) to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable
> to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for
> actual pecuniary loss, other than a tax penalty
> (A) relating to a tax of a kind not specified in paragraph (1) of this
> subsection; or
> (B) imposed with respect to a transaction or event that occurred before
> three years before the date of the filing of the petition;
>
> Fact pattern is as follows: PC is shooting guns with some friends for
> target practice in the forest slightly less than three years ag). A fire
> breaks out. They cooperate with police. An investigation was ongoing.
> 30 days ago, they get a notice in the mail from the USDA forest Service
> indicating they oweda large sum of money because the USDA has determined
> they are at fault for starting the fire (negligence). There is no
> allegation that there was intent to start the fire.
> The 3 year mark from the date of the incident is in 30 days.
> Will this debt be dischargeable if the PC files BK after the 3 year window
> since the incident has passed?
> Any thoughts would be appreciate.
> Thanks,
>
> - David
>
>
> David S. Shevitz, Esq.
> Ure Law Firm
> 811 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1000
> Los Angeles, CA 90017
> Telephone: (213) 202-6070
> Facsimile: (213) 202-6075
> Email: david@urelawfirm.com
> Website: www.urelawfirm.com
>
>
Sounds like it. It could also be argued that it is compensation for loss, depending on the fact pattern.
On Jul 16, 2015 7:02 PM, "David S
The post was migrated from Yahoo.