.jpg)
U.S. Trustee Audits -- Just luck?
My concern was that your post appeared to contain a lawyer-client communication.
Eric
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
(310) 792-5864; 792-5866 (fax)
MitnickLaw@aol.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files.
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 11:43 am
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] U.S. Trustee Audits -- Just luck?
Eric:
There is no way that I cannot disclose the gift to the auditors, nor would I try. They will focus on this gift and we will fully disclose what they used the money for.
Steve
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Steve - While I am sympathetic to your cause, I am concerned about the level of detail that you provided in this nonprivileged and nonconfidential communication. Better to be safe than sorry.
Eric
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, California 90503
(310) 792-5864; 792-5866 (fax)
MitnickLaw@aol.com
Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
The information contained in this email message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, and delete the email message you received and all of the attached files.
To: cdcbaa
Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 11:04 am
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] U.S. Trustee Audits -- Just luck?
My prior one 2 years ago got the same coveted no material misstatements.
I hope for the same this time on both of them, however I just got off the phone with one of the debtors and there was a $20,000 deposit which was a gift from Debtors father during the CMI period. $9,000 was used for a short sale which the bank took and still foreclosed on them (in Washington state) and the other $11,000 was used for the kids tuition. I don have waited another month to file so as to not have any trouble.
Neve rtheless, I am adamant that gifts are not income but rather transfers of wealth. There is a reason gifts are not taxed as income. I know taxability is not considered under 100(10A) definition of CMI, but it still uses in subpart (A) the word income as opposed to the more generic money or funds. Also note, transfers of wealth can be taxable, just not as income. Wealth was earned as income at one point and became part of the estate of the earner. That person can hoard that money and it is never income again. However, if it is then transferred to someone who didnt earn it, it does not lose its character.
The very reason some people become our clients is that they never transition from merely earning an income to accru ing wealth. Knowing the difference between income and wealth is one the most fundamental economic distinctions we have to make to get out of the income earning hamster wheel, even if its just for retirement. While the distinction is metaphysical on some levels and therefore difficult to grasp and I understand the misunderstanding of itit is so fundamental that I find the matter somewhat frustrating. Economically we live in a spectrum from the insolvent to the very wealthy. Were so focused on the insolvency side of the spectrum that we cannot see the other end of it. Those who succeed at the economic game realize the game starts with merely earning income and graduates on the other side with wealth.
I highly suspect I will have disagreements on this with some of my colleagues here, and probably will with the UST if I get a material misstatement report. I have also analyzed 101(10A) subpart (B) which would make any gift that is given on a regular basis CMI, but this one was just a one time gift.
Since I thought audits were relatively rare I didnt exclude them from the flat fee. I am still reluctant to charge my clients the money for my time, but I am considering it after having 3 of them.
Steven B. Lever
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have never had one.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Steven B. Lever wrote:
> **
>
>
> Two of my clients have been selected for UST audits in the past 2 weeks.
> Prior to that Ive only had one audit, about 2 years ago.****
>
> ** **
>
> I cannot believe I have been audited twice. It says right in the
> documentation At least one out of every 1,000 individual Chapter 7 and 13
> cases will be *randomly* selected for audit. In addition, a case may be
> selected for an exception audit (audit of a case with income or
> expenditures above a statistical norm).****
>
> ** **
>
> Neither of the cases have high income or expenses, so am I (and my
> clients) just lucky?****
>
> ** **
>
> 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****
>
> >** **
>
> ** **
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
I have never had one.On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Steven B. Lever <sblever@leverlaw.com> wrote:
Two of my clients have been selected for UST audits in the past 2 weeks. Prior to that INeither of the cases have high income or expenses, so am I (and my clients) just lucky?
Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
>> Steven B. Lever
>( Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
>( Fax (562) 485-6886
>*
The post was migrated from Yahoo.