Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Myproper writing pet peeves are "then" v. "than" and the possessives "Its" vs. "theirs".
I believe hyphenation is third in importance of these three.
It doesn't bother me when I see post-petition (especially when it keeps my spell checker from trying to correct it) versus postpetition.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310)
391-2462
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 3:02 PM, cdcbaa wrote:
Ok, then you consider this more important than hyphenation?
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
On Mar 14, 2014, at 12:13 PM, "Peter M. Lively" wrote:
>Watch the use of "then" versus "than", it is equally important as hyphenation.
>
>Peter M. Lively, J.D., M.B.A.
>Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
>11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
>Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
>
>
>
>On Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:00 AM, John Faucher wrote:
>
>
>A short update to the statute of limitations - California has 20 years to collect past-due income tax. (I believe the hyphen is correct, as "past-due" is a compound adjective.) https://www.ftb.ca.gov/professionals/ta ... e_12.shtml
>I am unfamiliar with the verb "to due" ("So what can the IRS due[?]"); does it mean "act on a debt that is due?"
>- John D. Faucher
>818/889-8080
>
>
>
>________________________________
>To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge
>
>
>
>
>Ok, these liens are fairly common. Prior to 1996, they were a much larger problem then they are now. The Federal Government put a statute of limitations on tax collections in 1996. The states, mostly have no such statute of limitations. California has no statute of limitations for collecting state taxes.
>
>
>Federal Taxes can only be collected for 10 years. When the IRS puts a levy on a pension, if the debtor is young, no problem, wait 10 years and it will be gone. If the debtor is older, then there can be a problem, but mostly we just tell people not to take funds from the pension for the 10 year period. Recall, that the debtor took the Patterson v. Schumate claim. That is a claim that the pension cannot be levied by creditors. So what can the IRS due, it can collect what comes out of the pension as the funds are disbursed to the debtor from the corpus remains protected by the antialienation provision (no hyphen after the prefix "anti")
>
>
>d
>
>Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
>
>On Mar 11, 2014, at 8:58 AM, wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>The 9th Circuit ruled that IRS could levy after discharge on a pension that was excluded under Patterson v. Shumate in the Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, rather than exempted. See attached.
>>
>>
>>Stella Havkin
>
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Ok, then you consider this more important than hyphenation?
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 12:13 PM, "Peter M. Lively" wrote:
>
> Watch the use of "then" versus "than", it is equally important as hyphenation.
>
> Peter M. Lively, J.D., M.B.A.
> Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
> 11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
> Telephone: (310) 391-2400 * Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
>
>
> On Thursday, March 13, 2014 8:00 AM, John Faucher wrote:
>
> A short update to the statute of limitations - California has 20 years to collect past-due income tax. (I believe the hyphen is correct, as "past-due" is a compound adjective.) https://www.ftb.ca.gov/professionals/ta ... e_12.shtml
> I am unfamiliar with the verb "to due" ("So what can the IRS due[?]"); does it mean "act on a debt that is due?"
> - John D. Faucher
> 818/889-8080
>
> To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge
>
>
> Ok, these liens are fairly common. Prior to 1996, they were a much larger problem then they are now. The Federal Government put a statute of limitations on tax collections in 1996. The states, mostly have no such statute of limitations. California has no statute of limitations for collecting state taxes.
>
> Federal Taxes can only be collected for 10 years. When the IRS puts a levy on a pension, if the debtor is young, no problem, wait 10 years and it will be gone. If the debtor is older, then there can be a problem, but mostly we just tell people not to take funds from the pension for the 10 year period. Recall, that the debtor took the Patterson v. Schumate claim. That is a claim that the pension cannot be levied by creditors. So what can the IRS due, it can collect what comes out of the pension as the funds are disbursed to the debtor from the corpus remains protected by the antialienation provision (no hyphen after the prefix "anti")
>
> d
>
> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
>
>
>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 8:58 AM, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The 9th Circuit ruled that IRS could levy after discharge on a pension that was excluded under Patterson v. Shumate in the Debtor's bankruptcy schedules, rather than exempted. See attached.
>>
>> Stella Havkin
>
>
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I've seen it for 33 years.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 3:20 PM, "Stella Havkin" wrote:
>
> I am just asking. I have not seen it but I believe you.
>
>
>
Steven B. Lever
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:02 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge
>
>
>
>
>
> All along. Ive seen it happen. Ask Neil Kakuske (sp?) at the IRS if you doubt it.
>
>
>
> Steven B. Lever
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Havkin Stella
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:10 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge
>
>
>
>
>
> Has the IRS been doing it all along or is this a new tactic ?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Mar 11, 2014 2:58 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge
>
> That was my point. The exemption is irrelevant as to the IRS. The lien
> would allow the IRS to go after the pension regardless of whether the
> pension is an asset of the estate or not.
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
>
> In a message dated 3/11/2014 2:46:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> sblever@leverlaw.com writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> The IRS as a United States agency does not have to give credence to state> law exemptions. IRS can always go after IRAs and pensions for
> nondischargeable debts or enforcement of tax liens.
> Steven B. Lever
>
>
> jesseelaw@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:35 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon
> post-discharge
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, but even if unambiguously exempted would not the net result be the
> same as the IRS holds a statutory lien? If the pension was part of the
> Chapter 7 estate, the exemption on Schedule C would not apply to the IRS> statutory lien. If the pension is subject to IRS levy and it was affirmatively
> included by the debtor (assuming the debtor can elect to make it so) as an
> asset of the bankruptcy estate would that waive the ERISA protection as to
> the Chapter 7 Trustee to administer it as an asset? Regardless, if the
> pension was not administered in the bankruptcy estate, the lien would still
> ride through the bankruptcy and the IRS could still pursue the lien.
>
>
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 3/11/2014 9:54:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> _havkinlaw@earthlink.net_ (mailto:havkinlaw@earthlink.net) writes:
>
>
>
> It sounds like the 9th circuit thought that might have worked.
>
>
> _[mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]_ (mailto:[mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]) On Behalf
> Of Kirk Brennan
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:44 AM
> To: Cdcbaa Yahoo Listserv
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon
> post-discharge
>
>
>
>
> Do you think the result would have been different if the pension had been> unequi vocally exempted on the Schedule C?
>
> On Mar 11, 2014 8:58 AM, (mailto:havkinlaw@earthlink.net) > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> [_Attachment(s)_ (mip://0cac8ba0/default.html#144b1ddfa6d023d3_TopText)
> from _havkinlaw@earthlink.net_ (mailto:havkinlaw@earthlink.net) included> below]
>
> The 9th Circuit ruled that IRS could levy after discharge on a pension
> that was excluded under Patterson v. Shumate in the Debtor's bankruptcy
> schedules, rather than exempted. See attached.
> Stella Havkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
jesseelaw@aol.com Sent: Mar 11, 2014 2:58 PM To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge That was my point. The exemption is irrelevant as to the IRS. The lien would allow the IRS to go after the pension regardless of whether the pension is an asset of the estate or not. Mark T. JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)In a message dated 3/11/2014 2:46:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, sblever@leverlaw.com writes:The IRS as a United States agency does not have to give credence to state law exemptions. IRS can always go after IRAs and pensions for nondischargeable dhref"mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com">cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I misstated the IRS ability. The IRS can attach what is disbursed from the pension, but cannot attack the corpus as it is protected by the antialienation provision.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 7:53 PM, cdcbaa wrote:
>
> attached.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Peter, et al.:
Note that the case was a pre BAPCPA case and although decided recently, it is in some respects inapplicable to current cases. BAPCPA seemingly mooted the issue of permissive exclusion found in Patterson. 541(b)(7), added by BAPCPA, excludes IRAs and ERISA plans from the estate. Of course BAPCPA, being the poorly drafted law that it is, also exempted those excluded plans in 522(b)(3)(C). So we have a statute that exempts and excludes, thus a ruckus is created.
So we are left with this question: Does the right to exempt an asset that is specifically excluded from the estate make inclusion permissible still?
Of course, tax liens still work their magic for the IRS.
I do not understand why the issue of state law was raised.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Exempt property leaves the estate and becomes property of the debtor, absent a successful objection. Owen v Owen (S Ct 1991).
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 6:44 AM, Havkin Stella wrote:
Thanks that is what I thought.
>Sent: Mar 11, 2014 6:20 PM
>To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge
>
>
>This isn't something new. SeeVance L. Wadleigh v. Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, CCH Dec. 58,243, 134 T.C. No. 14, (Jun. 15, 2010) (holding that6321 tax liens continue in effect against taxpayer's pension excluded from his chapter 7 bankruptcy estate).
>
>
>According to Patterson v. Shumate (S Ct 1992) excluding an ERISA qualified pension plan is permissive under 541(c)(2).
>
>
>By including the pensionin bankruptcy and exempting, the exempt property passes from the estateto the debtor free and clear of the unrecorded tax lien pursuant to 522(c)(2)(B).
>
>
>The exemption expressly refers totax liens and doesn't work if the lienwas a properly recorded (properly filed) notice oftax lien.perly filed.
>
>
>
>Peter M. Lively, J.D., M.B.A.
>Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
>11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
>Telephone: (310) 391-2400* Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
>
>
>
>On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:20 PM, Stella Havkin wrote:
>
>
>I am just asking. I have not seen it but I believe you.
>
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven B. Lever
>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:02 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge
>
>
>All along. Ive seen it happen. Ask Neil Kakuske (sp?) at the IRS if you doubt it.
>
>Steven B. Lever
>
>
>
>From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Havkin Stella
>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:10 PM
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge
>
>
>Has the IRS been doing it all along or is this a new tactic ?
>-----Original Message-----
>>Sent: Mar 11, 2014 2:58 PM
>>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon post-discharge
>>
>>That was my point. The exemption is irrelevant as to the IRS. The lien
>>would allow the IRS to go after the pension regardless of whether the
>>pension is an asset of the estate or not.
>>
>>Mark T. Jessee
>>Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>>"A Debt Relief Agency"
>>50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>>Thousand Oaks, CA
91360
>>(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>>
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 3/11/2014 2:46:50 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>>sblever@leverlaw.com writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>The IRS as a United States agency does not have to give credence to state>>law exemptions. IRS can always go after IRAs and pensions for
>>nondischargeable debts or enforcement of tax liens.
>>Steven B. Lever
>>
>>
>>jesseelaw@aol.com
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 11:35 AM
>>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon
>>post-discharge
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, but even if unambiguously exempted would not the net result be the
>>same as the IRS holds a statutory lien? If the pension was part of the
>>Chapter 7 estate, the exemption on Schedule C would not apply to the IRS>>statutory lien. If the pension is subject to IRS levy and it was affirmatively
>>included by the debtor (assuming the debtor can elect to make it so) as an
>>asset of the bankruptcy estate would that waive the ERISA protection as to
>>the Chapter 7 Trustee to administer it as an asset? Regardless, if the
>>pension was not administered in the bankruptcy estate, the
lien would still
>>ride through the bankruptcy and the IRS could still pursue the lien.
>>
>>
>>
>>Mark T. Jessee
>>Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
>>"A Debt Relief Agency"
>>50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
>>Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
>>(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>In a message dated 3/11/2014 9:54:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>>_havkinlaw@earthlink.net_ (mailto:havkinlaw@earthlink.net) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>It sounds like the 9th circuit thought that might have worked.
>>
>>
>>_[mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]_ (mailto:[mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]) On Behalf
>>Of Kirk Brennan
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 9:44 AM
>>To: Cdcbaa Yahoo Listserv
>>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 9th Circuit tax case - pension can be levied upon
>>post-discharge
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Do you think the result would have been different if the pension had been>>unequi vocally exempted on the Schedule C?
>>
>>On Mar 11, 2014 8:58 AM, >(mailto:havkinlaw@earthlink.net) > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[_Attachment(s)_ (mip://0cac8ba0/default.html#144b1ddfa6d023d3_TopText)
>>from _havkinlaw@earthlink.net_ (mailto:havkinlaw@earthlink.net) included>>below]
>>
>>The 9th Circuit ruled that IRS could levy after discharge on a pension
>>that was excluded under Patterson v. Shumate in the Debtor's bankruptcy
>>schedules, rather than exempted. See attached.
>>Stella Havkin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="UTF-8"
I am just asking. I have not seen it but I believe you.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="UTF-8"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="UTF-8"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="US-ASCII"
It sounds like the 9th circuit thought that might have worked.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.