.jpg)
IRS debts in ch 11
charset="ISO-8859-1"
If you can get the IRS to agree to a payoff of longer than five years, you
need to increase your hourly rate, whatever it is.
John D. Faucher
Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
On 1/14/12 11:35 AM, "P L" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> holder of claim can agree to longer than 5 years. 1129(a)(9)
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
> The Personal Financial Law Center
> A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
> Culver City (310) 391-2400
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] IRS debts in ch 11
>
>
>
>
> Yes, within 5 years of the date of assessment (don't have my code handy at
> the moment)
>
>
> *************************
> 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/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at
> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... 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 1/13/2012 7:19 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>> Do IRS debts have to be pain in full through a ch 11 plan as they do in ch
>> 13?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>> California Law Office, P.C.
>> calibankrutpcysite.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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
charset="ISO-8859-1"
If you can get the IRS to agree to a payoff of longer than five years, you need to increase your hourly rate, whatever it is. John D. FaucherHurlbett & Faucher, LLPDisclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.On 1/14/12 11:35 AM, "P L" <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Hello Giovanni:
When I was at IRS, it was pretty well understood that you couldn't agree to
this treatment. A quick explanation of the bureaucracy is in order here:
Most attorneys representing the IRS in bankruptcy court are from IRS
Counsel: they work for the Department of the Treasury. However, an
executive order dating to Roosevelt says that only attorneys from the
Justice Department may represent the IRS in federal courts except for Tax
Court. The government gets around this by deputizing IRS Counsel attorneys
as "Special Assistant US Attorneys," (or SAUSAs) who report to Justice on
those particular cases. SAUSAs generally spend about a quarter to half
their time in bankruptcy court, the rest in Tax Court.
To get special treatment on a chapter 11 payoff, then, you need to approach
the SAUSA. That person needs to clear everything with a contact at the US
Attorney's Office (I used to have Bob Kwan review everything before he
became a judge). The US Attorney's Office supervisor doesn't have authority
to agree to a longer payoff. He has to go to a chapter 11 contact at the
Justice Department in Washington DC, with whom he may have absolutely no
relationship (people change desks there frequently, and the local assistant
US Attorneys do a lot more than deal with chapter 11 bankruptcies). So the
local AUSA won't bring the longer payoff scenario to Justice unless there is
a good reason that enhances tax enforcement (and not tax collections).
The argument that a longer payoff will result in more taxes paid because the
company will stay alive to pay them, rather than going under and paying
nothing, gets nowhere. IRS personnel see their job as law enforcement
first, and collections second. No one keeps score of the amount of money
collected.
The Justice Department attorney works in an ivory tower surrounded by
other attorneys who are convinced that the vast majority of American
citizens are not tax cheats only because of Justice's assiduous efforts; my
contacts with Justice attorneys convinced me that they were much more
hard-nosed about tax collection than the average IRS attorney.
In short, don't be down on your negotiating skills if you've never gotten
this special treatment. The bar here is awfully high.
John D. Faucher
Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
On 1/14/12 11:46 AM, "Giovanni Orantes" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Has anybody succeeded in getting the IRS to agree to a term longer than 5
> years from petition date? I'd like to speak with that person to enhance my
> negotiating skills as I haven't been able to get the IRS to budge.
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
>
>
>
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Hello Giovanni:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Has anybody succeeded in getting the IRS to agree to a term longer than 5
years from petition date? I'd like to speak with that person to enhance my
negotiating skills as I haven't been able to get the IRS to budge.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
Has anybody succeeded in getting the IRS to agree toa term longer than 5 years from petition date? I'd like to speak with that person to enhance my negotiating skills as I haven't been able to get the IRStobudge.
-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
holder of claim can agree to longer than 5 years. 1129(a)(9)
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Culver City (310) 391-2400
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] IRS debts in ch 11
Yes, within 5 years of the date of assessment (don't have my code handy at the moment)
*************************
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/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
this means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Ahh...my rust is showing.
On 1/13/2012 9:05 PM, Dennis wrote:
>
>
> Mark, that is the old rule. 2005 change 5 years from date of
> filing of the Bk case.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 7:41 PM, "Mark J. Markus" > wrote:
>
>> Yes, within 5 years of the date of assessment (don't have my code
>> handy at the moment)
>>
>>
>> *************************
>> 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/
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
>> this means at
>> http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... 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 1/13/2012 7:19 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>>> Do IRS debts have to be pain in full through a ch 11 plan as
>>> they do in ch 13?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>>> California Law Office, P.C.
>>> calibankrutpcysite.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.
>>>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Mark, that is the old rule. 2005 change 5 years from date of filing of the Bk case.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 13, 2012, at 7:41 PM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
> Yes, within 5 years of the date of assessment (don't have my code handy at the moment)
>
> *************************
> 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/
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means at http://bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/2008/0 ... 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 1/13/2012 7:19 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>>
>> Do IRS debts have to be pain in full through a ch 11 plan as they do in ch 13?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>> California Law Office, P.C.
>> calibankrutpcysite.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.
>>
>
>
Mark, that is the old rule. 2005 change 5 years from date of filing of the Bk case. Sent from my iPhoneOn Jan 13, 2012, at 7:41 PM, "Mark J. Markus" <bklawr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, within 5 years of the date of
assessment (don't have my code handy at the moment)
*************************
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/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what
this means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Yes, within 5 years of the date of assessment (don't have my code
handy at the moment)
*************************
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/
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this
means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Dear Kirk,
Your misspelling of "paid" produced an unexpected chuckle. Yes, IRS debts are indeed a pain, regardless of which chapter.
Thanks,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCD22A.A19C82B0]
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended 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 herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Do IRS debts have to be pain in full through a ch 11 plan as they do in ch
13?
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
calibankrutpcysite.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.
Do IRS debts have to be pain in full through a ch 11 plan as they do in ch 13?-- Kirk Brennan, esq.California Law Office, P.C.calibankrutpcysite.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.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.