Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

You are confusing in personum and in rem discharge. If the taxes are agedenough and otherwise qualified to be discharged under the code, they are dischargeable regardless of a tax lien's existence. A bankruptcy discharge
does not avoid the tax lien, but limits the lien to only those assets on
hand at the time the bankruptcy is filed. Later acquired assets are not
subject to the lien of a discharged debt.
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)
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENTOF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE
NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THISMESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
In a message dated 9/17/2013 1:26:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
legalsos4u@yahoo.com writes:
Dear List mates: If I understand correctly, a tax lien recorded previouslyto the Ch. 7 filing can't be discharged. Additionally, if there is an
offer and compromise in place before the filing may effect the assessment of
other taxes owed but not recorded as a tax lien. For example, is the IRS has
as lien for the years 2006-2009, these taxes can't be discharged. If in
2010 client owes tax money but no recorded lien they may be able to discharge
if filed after April 15 (if they filed on or before April 15 three years
prior. If they owe for 2011, they may not be able to discharge because less
than 3 years. Lastly, if assessment for 2010 done before offer and
compromise, would the offer and compromise prior to Ch. 7 filing still negate
ability to discharge taxes for this year?
Thanks,
Stephen Stern
Law Office of Stephen M. Stern, PC
(805) 543-5297
____________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Stipulation to discharge taxes
John:
I would try to agree, but require the IRS to reopen the adversary so
client can contest the irs "reliance." Both sides get what they want.
btw I would sue to determine "dischargeability", as opposed to
nondischargeability.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
310-328-1001-voice
On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "John D. Faucher" wrote:
Hello all:
My client is trying to discharge $600,000+ in taxes. I filed a suit for
declaration of nondischargeability, expecting to have IRS stipulate because
all conditions are met for dischargeability - 3-year, 2-year, 240-day
rules, no fraud on the return.
IRS agreed to stipulate, but wants this language:
"The United States reserves its right to rely upon 11 USC Sect.
523(a)(1)(C) if the IRS discovers evidence that the debtor has willfully attempted to
evade or defeat his tax liability."
I objected; IRS attorney said "fine, I'll answer, and then we'll do
discovery to make sure that he wasn't evading tax all along, even though we have
no evidence of it now. It's kind of stupid for you to not agree to this
language, because if you did, he'd probably never hear from us again, and now
you're opening up a whole can of worms."
Has anyone else seen this language? How did you deal with it? To me, it
seems to defeat the rationale for doing a declaratory judgment in the first
place.
John D. Faucher
Faucher & Associates
818/889-8080
You are confusing in personum and in rem discharge. If the taxes are
aged enough and otherwise qualified to be discharged under the code, they are
dischargeable regardless of a tax lien's existence. A bankruptcy
discharge does not avoid the tax lien, but limits the lien to only those
assets on hand at the time the bankruptcy is filed. Later acquired assets
are not subject to the lien of a discharged debt.

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)NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED
TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE,
DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE
THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In a message dated 9/17/2013 1:26:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
legalsos4u@yahoo.com writes:




Dear List mates: If I understand correctly, a tax lien
recorded previously to the Ch. 7 filing can't be discharged. Additionally, if
there is an offer and compromise in place before the filing may effect the
assessment of other taxes owed but not recorded as a tax lien. For example, is
the IRS has as lien for the years 2006-2009, these taxes can't be discharged.
If in 2010 client owes tax money but no recorded lien they may be able
to discharge if filed after April 15 (if they filed on or before April 15 three years prior. If they owe for 2011, they may not be able to discharge
because less than 3 years. Lastly, if assessment for 2010 done before offer
and compromise, would the offer and compromise prior to Ch. 7 filing still
negate ability to discharge taxes for this year?


Thanks,

Stephen Stern
Law Office of Stephen M. Stern, PC
(805) 543-5297





From:
cdcbaa <cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com>To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
<cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:04 PMSubject: Re: [cdcbaa]
Stipulation to discharge taxes




John:

I would try to agree, but require the IRS to reopen the adversary so client can contest the irs "reliance." Both sides get what they
want.

btw I would sue to determine "dischargeability", as opposed to nondischargeability.

d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
310-328-1001-voice

On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "John D. Faucher" <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Dear List mates: If I understand correctly, a tax lien recorded previously to the Ch. 7 filing can't be discharged. Additionally, if there is an offer and compromise in place before the filing may effect the assessment of other taxes owed but not recorded as a tax lien. For example, is the IRS has as lien for the years 2006-2009, these taxes can't be discharged. If in 2010 client owes tax money but no recorded lien they may be able to discharge if filed after April 15 (if they filed on or before April 15 three years prior. If they owe for 2011, they may not be able to discharge because less than 3 years. Lastly, if assessment for 2010 done before offer and compromise, would the offer and compromise prior to Ch. 7 filing still negate ability to discharge taxes for this year?
Thanks,
Stephen Stern
Law Office of Stephen M. Stern, PC
(805) 543-5297
________________________________
To: "cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Stipulation to discharge taxes
John:
I would try to agree, but require the IRS to reopen the adversary so client can contest the irs "reliance." Both sides get what they want.
btw I would sue to determine "dischargeability", as opposed to nondischargeability.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "John D. Faucher" wrote:
>Hello all:
>My client is trying to discharge $600,000+ in taxes. I filed a suit for declaration of nondischargeability, expecting to have IRS stipulate because all conditions are met for dischargeability - 3-year, 2-year, 240-day rules, no fraud on the return.
>IRS agreed to stipulate, but wants this language:
>"The United States reserves its right to rely upon 11 USC Sect. 523(a)(1)(C) if the IRS discovers evidence that the debtor has willfully attempted to evade or defeat his tax liability."
>I objected; IRS attorney said "fine, I'll answer, and then we'll do discovery to make sure that he wasn't evading tax all along, even though we have no evidence of it now. It's kind of stupid for you to not agree to this language, because if you did, he'd probably never hear from us again, and now you're opening up a whole can of worms."
>Has anyone else seen this language? How did you deal with it? To me, it seems to defeat the rationale for doing a declaratory judgment in the first place.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>John D. Faucher
>Faucher & Associates
>818/889-8080

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Dennis, this sounds like a great idea. I'll suggest that to both client
and IRS.
You're also right about dischargeability. I was so giddy at getting the
hyphen-thingy correct that I overlooked the actual meaning of the word.
John D. Faucher
Faucher & Associates
*818/889-8080*
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 8:04 PM, cdcbaa wrote:
> **
>
>
> John:
>
> I would try to agree, but require the IRS to reopen the adversary so
> client can contest the irs "reliance." Both sides get what they want.
>
> btw I would sue to determine "dischargeability", as opposed to
> nondischargeability.
>
> d
>
> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
> 310-328-1001-voice
> [image: cid:part1.03050307.05030101@bklaw.com]
>
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "John D. Faucher"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello all:
> My client is trying to discharge $600,000+ in taxes. I filed a suit for
> declaration of nondischargeability, expecting to have IRS stipulate because
> all conditions are met for dischargeability - 3-year, 2-year, 240-day
> rules, no fraud on the return.
> IRS agreed to stipulate, but wants this language:
> "The United States reserves its right to rely upon 11 USC Sect.
> 523(a)(1)(C) if the IRS discovers evidence that the debtor has willfully
> attempted to evade or defeat his tax liability."
> I objected; IRS attorney said "fine, I'll answer, and then we'll do
> discovery to make sure that he wasn't evading tax all along, even though we
> have no evidence of it now. It's kind of stupid for you to not agree to
> this language, because if you did, he'd probably never hear from us again,
> and now you're opening up a whole can of worms."
> Has anyone else seen this language? How did you deal with it? To me, it
> seems to defeat the rationale for doing a declaratory judgment in the first
> place.
>
>
>
>
> John D. Faucher
> Faucher & Associates
> *818/889-8080*
>
>
>
Dennis, this sounds like a great idea. I'll suggest that to both client and IRS.
You're also right about dischargeability. I was so giddy at getting the hyphen-thingy correct that I overlooked the actual meaning of the word.
John D. Faucher
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

John:
I would try to agree, but require the IRS to reopen the adversary so client can contest the irs "reliance." Both sides get what they want.
btw I would sue to determine "dischargeability", as opposed to nondischargeability.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
On Aug 19, 2013, at 4:52 PM, "John D. Faucher" wrote:
> Hello all:
> My client is trying to discharge $600,000+ in taxes. I filed a suit for declaration of nondischargeability, expecting to have IRS stipulate because all conditions are met for dischargeability - 3-year, 2-year, 240-day rules, no fraud on the return.
> IRS agreed to stipulate, but wants this language:
> "The United States reserves its right to rely upon 11 USC Sect. 523(a)(1)(C) if the IRS discovers evidence that the debtor has willfully attempted to evade or defeat his tax liability."
> I objected; IRS attorney said "fine, I'll answer, and then we'll do discovery to make sure that he wasn't evading tax all along, even though we have no evidence of it now. It's kind of stupid for you to not agree to this language, because if you did, he'd probably never hear from us again, and now you're opening up a whole can of worms."
> Has anyone else seen this language? How did you deal with it? To me, it seems to defeat the rationale for doing a declaratory judgment in the first place.
>
>
>
>
> John D. Faucher
> Faucher & Associates
> 818/889-8080
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

If they don't want to spend any money, then perhaps you want to call their bluff. Client decision.
David A. Tilem
Law Offices of David A. Tilem
206 N. Jackson St., #201
Glendale, CA 91206
Tel: 818-507-6000 * Fax: 818-507-6800
www.TilemLaw.com
[http://www.tilemlaw.com/images/cblsLogo.gif]

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

This is a whole new thing they are doing. They are under instruction from
Washington not to spend any money and not to stipulate because of a Michigan
decision they got a little earlier in the year.
Stella Havkin

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hello all:
My client is trying to discharge $600,000+ in taxes. I filed a suit for
declaration of nondischargeability, expecting to have IRS stipulate because
all conditions are met for dischargeability - 3-year, 2-year, 240-day
rules, no fraud on the return.
IRS agreed to stipulate, but wants this language:
"The United States reserves its right to rely upon 11 USC Sect.
523(a)(1)(C) if the IRS discovers evidence that the debtor has willfully
attempted to evade or defeat his tax liability."
I objected; IRS attorney said "fine, I'll answer, and then we'll do
discovery to make sure that he wasn't evading tax all along, even though we
have no evidence of it now. It's kind of stupid for you to not agree to
this language, because if you did, he'd probably never hear from us again,
and now you're opening up a whole can of worms."
Has anyone else seen this language? How did you deal with it? To me, it
seems to defeat the rationale for doing a declaratory judgment in the first
place.
John D. Faucher
Faucher & Associates
*818/889-8080*
Hello all:My client is trying to discharge $600,000+ in taxes. I filed a suit for declaration of nondischargeability, expecting to have IRS stipulate because all conditions are met for dischargeability - 3-year, 2-year, 240-day rules, no fraud on the return.
IRS agreed to stipulate, but wants this language:
"The United States reserves its right to rely upon 11 USC Sect. 523(a)(1)(C) if the IRS discovers evidence that the debtor has willfully attempted to evade or defeat his tax liability."

The post was migrated from Yahoo.