.jpg)
Prenuptial Agreements and the Means Test
Mark:
I will make some assumptions about the premarital agreement, but it could be
different.
Assuming that the prenup says there will be no community property (and
therefore the non-filing spouse's income in not community property), that
would change what would be property of the estate in the absence of the
agreement, but not the countable income for the means test. The means test
does not count a non-filing spouse's income based on whether it is or is not
community property. It is based on contribution to the HH, so I cannot see
how a prenup which agrees there will be no community property would make any
difference in the means test.
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.
707(b)(7)(B) says when a nonfiling (non is a prefix, not a pre-hyphen) spouse's income is not considered. A nonfiling spouse's income is excluded when the nonfiling spouse does not live with the filing spouse.
The means test considers "household income". What difference is there to the household income if there is a prenup? The test is trying to measure what is coming into the household, not what is coming in to the individual debtor.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Apr 23, 2014, at 9:49 PM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
>
> I have no idea...I haven't seen it yet. Is that dispositive on the question?
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> Mailing Address Only:
> 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
> ________________________________________________
> 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 4/23/2014 4:45 PM, Lim wrote:
>> Does the prenup directly speak to separation as well as divorce?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:30 PM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As we all know, when completing Form 22A or 22C for a married debtor, the non-filing spouse's income must be included (see e.g. section 707(b)(7)(B)).
>>>
>>> Presumably the marital adjustment then takes care of any non-community expenses the non-filing spouse is paying.
>>>
>>> But what happens when the couple has a valid prenuptial agreement? Does the non-filing spouse's income still need to be included?
>>>
>>>
>>> *************************
>>> Mark J. Markus
>>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>>> Mailing Address Only:
>>> 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
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> 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.
Does the prenup directly speak to separation as well as divorce?
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2014, at 3:30 PM, "Mark J. Markus" wrote:
> As we all know, when completing Form 22A or 22C for a married debtor, the non-filing spouse's income must be included (see e.g. section 707(b)(7)(B)).
>
> Presumably the marital adjustment then takes care of any non-community expenses the non-filing spouse is paying.
>
> But what happens when the couple has a valid prenuptial agreement? Does the non-filing spouse's income still need to be included?
>
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> Mailing Address Only:
> 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
> ________________________________________________
> 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.