.jpg)
past due DSO obligations not allowed on Schedule "J"?
I have never seen it before in the same time frame either. There is a
difference between dso's and student loans in the analysis though. Student
loans, of course, are not priority claims. I see an argument to make thedso arrears repayable over 60 months instead of over 50 that you attemptedbased on an analogy to the means test line 44, even if it is not a consumer
case. Regardless, since Congress counts payments towards the back due
priority amounts in the means test as expenses in the debtor's budget, I think
you have a solid argument that it belongs in schedule J. If you surrender
to the trustee's demand to amend you are giving up your client's
legitimate right to claim the back due dso as an expense. Sometimes you just have
to fight the trustee in providing vigorous representation to your client.
As for student loans, they are an actual expense in the debtor's budget. I include them every time in a Chapter 7 on Schedule J. Since they are
not an expense included in the Means Test, it is not usually a 707(b) issue.
If the trustee wants to pretend they are not an expense, in calculatingdisposable income in I minus J for bankruptcy purposes, fine. I sure am
not going to remove it from Schedule J just because the trustee says so and
take away any support for an argument it may provide the debtor that the
filing does not demonstrate abuse.
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 7/22/2013 11:40:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bklawr@yahoo.com writes:
I suspect the Trustee's argument is that these are like student loan
payments. Just because the debtor has a legal obligation to repay the debt and
it may be non-dischargeable, doesn't mean it's allowable as a budget item.I just find it odd that in doing this for over 20 years this is the firsttime a Trustee has taken this position on taxes or DSOs.
*************************
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/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board ofLegal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I would cite FRBP 1007(b) for the proposition that "the debtor shall file
the following schedules, statements, and other documents, *prepared as
prescribed by the appropriate Official Forms*, if any: ... (B) a schedule
of current income and expenses.' [Emphasis added].
Then I would refer the trustee to the top paragraph of official form 6J
(Schedule J), which says: "Complete this Schedule by *estimating the
average or projected monthly expenses* of the debtor and the debtor's
family at the time the case is filed." Thus, the Official Form 6J
prescribes a projection, not an exact recitation of the expenses actually
paid by the debtor in the month of filing.
Or you could just file the amendment the way the Trustee wants it, see if a
707(a) motion is filed and, if so, oppose the motion and argue there is no
abuse because there is nothing to pay to general unsecured creditors since
debtor will need to allocate his postpetition income toward repayment of
DSO debts.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
> **
>
>
> I find it curious that you assume it's one of the female trustees
> First of all, this is a Chapter 7 case, as I indicated, so this isn't a
> Plan issue (yet). I believe the Trustee is getting ready to file an
> objection, in this case under 707(a) (because not consumer debt case), due
> to the resulting apparent surplus on I&J. He has asked to stip to an
> extension of the deadline to file objections and essentially demanded I
> make these amendments.
>
>
> *************************
> 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/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
> at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/
> )
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
> On 7/22/2013 11:52 AM, Jason Wallach wrote:
>
> Curious, but why does it matter? Trustee is asking you to amend Schedule
> J, but isn't asking you not to provide for the payments, whether inside the
> plan or outside of the plan, is she?
> Jason
>
> Jason Wallach
> jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
>
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>
>
> I suspect the Trustee's argument is that these are like student loan
> payments. Just because the debtor has a legal obligation to repay the debt
> and it may be non-dischargeable, doesn't mean it's allowable as a budget
> item. I just find it odd that in doing this for over 20 years this is the
> first time a Trustee has taken this position on taxes or DSOs.
>
> *************************
> 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/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
> at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/
> )
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
> On 7/22/2013 10:21 AM, Mark Jessee wrote:
>
> Lets see: If he does not pay over the next 5 years he will be prosecuted
> by child support services and at the very least see wages garnished. If it
> were back taxes IRS or FTB would would levy and garnish. J is for
> expenses that must be paid moving forward. Stick to your guns!
>
> Mark Jessee
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 22, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
>
>
>
> I have a debtor in Chapter 7 who owed, on the filing date, $50,000 in
> unpaid alimony to his ex-spouse. I budgeted $1,000 per month on Schedule
> "J" for repayment of this unpaid alimony.
>
> The Trustee in the case said to amend Schedule "J" to remove that amount
> since it is not a "current or actual monthly expense" of the debtor. This
> would leave a significant surplus in the I/J budget.
>
> Does this sound right to anyone? I have always listed amounts for
> priority claims in Schedule "J" (such as taxes). Why wouldn't this be a
> budget item?
>
> *************************
> 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/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
> at
> http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/
> )
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Clifford Bordeaux
Bordeaux Law, P.C.
790 E. Colorado Boulevard, 9th Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
T: 626-405-2345 / F: 626-628-1820 E: cliff@bordeauxlaw.com
I would cite FRBP 1007(b) for the proposition that "the debtor shall file the following schedules, statements, and other documents, prepared as prescribed by the appropriate Official Forms, if any: ... (B) a schedule of current income and expenses.' [Emphasis added].
Then I would refer the trustee to the top paragraph of official form 6J (Schedule J), which says: "Complete this Schedule by estimating the average or projected monthly expenses of the debtor and the debtor's family at the time the case is filed." Thus, the Official Form 6J prescribes a projection, not an exact recitation of the expenses actually paid by the debtor in the month of filing.
Or you could just file the amendment the way the Trustee wants it, see if a 707(a) motion is filed and, if so, oppose the motion and argue there is no abuse because there is nothing to pay to general unsecured creditors since debtor will need to allocate his postpetition income toward repayment of DSO debts.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Mark J. Markus <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
I find it
curious that you assume it's one of the female trustees
First of all, this is a Chapter 7 case, as I indicated, so this
isn't a Plan issue (yet). I believe the Trustee is getting
ready to file an objection, in this case under 707(a) (because
not consumer debt case), due to the resulting apparent surplus
on I&J. He has asked to stip to an extension of the
deadline to file objections and essentially demanded I make these
amendments.
*************************
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/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of
California Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
this means at
http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
Curious, but why does it matter? Trustee is asking you to amend Schedule J, but isn't asking you not to provide for the payments, whether inside the plan or outside of the plan, is she?
Jason
Jason Wallach
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Jul 22, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
> I suspect the Trustee's argument is that these are like student loan payments. Just because the debtor has a legal obligation to repay the debt and it may be non-dischargeable, doesn't mean it's allowable as a budget item. I just find it odd that in doing this for over 20 years this is the first time a Trustee has taken this position on taxes or DSOs.
>
> *************************
> 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/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
> On 7/22/2013 10:21 AM, Mark Jessee wrote:
>> Lets see: If he does not pay over the next 5 years he will be prosecuted by child support services and at the very least see wages garnished. If it were back taxes IRS or FTB would would levy and garnish. J is for expenses that must be paid moving forward. Stick to your guns!
>>
>> Mark Jessee
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a debtor in Chapter 7 who owed, on the filing date, $50,000 in unpaid alimony to his ex-spouse. I budgeted $1,000 per month on Schedule "J" for repayment of this unpaid alimony.
>>>
>>> The Trustee in the case said to amend Schedule "J" to remove that amount since it is not a "current or actual monthly expense" of the debtor. This would leave a significant surplus in the I/J budget.
>>>
>>> Does this sound right to anyone? I have always listed amounts for priority claims in Schedule "J" (such as taxes). Why wouldn't this be a budget item?
>>>
>>> *************************
>>> 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/
>>> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
Curious, but why does it matter? Trustee is asking you to amend Schedule J, but isn't asking you not to provide for the payments, whether inside the plan or outside of the plan, is she?Jason
Jason Wallach
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Lets see: If he does not pay over the next 5 years he will be prosecuted by child support services and at the very least see wages garnished. If it were back taxes IRS or FTB would would levy and garnish. J is for expenses that must be paid moving forward. Stick to your guns!
Mark Jessee
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 22, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
> I have a debtor in Chapter 7 who owed, on the filing date, $50,000 in unpaid alimony to his ex-spouse. I budgeted $1,000 per month on Schedule "J" for repayment of this unpaid alimony.
>
> The Trustee in the case said to amend Schedule "J" to remove that amount since it is not a "current or actual monthly expense" of the debtor. This would leave a significant surplus in the I/J budget.
>
> Does this sound right to anyone? I have always listed amounts for priority claims in Schedule "J" (such as taxes). Why wouldn't this be a budget item?
>
> *************************
> 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/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
> ________________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.