Thanks to Matt Resnik who essentially said look at 1304 and 704(a)(8). If
the debtor is considered to be engaged in business within the meaning of
1304, then the US Trustee and standing Trustee can cause a lot of problems
even if there may not be a technical requirement to file taxes.
I think that in general, Chapter 13 is so loose with their rules that if
it's not a tremendous benefit to your client, you should have him comply.
Last thing the bar would want is strict requirements which Riverside is
converging towards.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:12 AM, 'Mark J. Markus'
bklawr@yahoo.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I agree. However, to the best of my knowledge, estimated tax payments are
> essentially voluntary. The actual tax obligation does not arise until
> April 15 of the following year. You can be penalized for not having paid a
> sufficient amount of estimated taxes, depending on what your income for the
> year ends up being, but the taxes are not owed/due until April 15 of the
> following year. So while I can understand the argument the Trustee might
> be making, I would argue that the M2D is premature. It assumes the debtor
> is not going to be able to make the required post petition tax payment when
> it is due, and if that's the criteria, most Chapter 13 cases would never be
> confirmed (which would fit nicely in Riverside it seems).
>
>
>
> *************************
> 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)332-1180 (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 4/22/2015 9:55 AM, cdcbaa
cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> trying to be this strident with a chapter 13 trustee probably won't work.
> A debtor is required to make quarterly payments to the Irs, not by the bk
> code but by the irc. I reread through chapter 13 to see if anything was
> added in bacpa to require current taxes to be paid on a current basis, but,
> like Mike, found nothing. But, "Know they judge," is the operative phrase
> here. There are a few chapter 13 judges that would consider the operation
> of a chapter 13 estate, without paying current taxes, illegal. One of
> those might dismiss the case.
>
> Dennis
>
> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
> 310-328-1001-voice
> [image: cid:
part1.03050307.05030101@bklaw.com]
>
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Catherine Christiansen
>
christiansenlaw@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> File a motion to modify the plan to include the quarterly tax debt
> payments.
>
>
> Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
> Certified Specialist, Bankruptcy Law, The State Bar of California Board of
> Legal Specialization.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 10:01 PM, "Michael Avanesian
>
michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
>
> Keep in mind I have virtually no experience in Chapter 13 land and I
> only really looked at the code, not many cases.
>
> If you consider section 346, the tax isn't even owed by the Estate unless
> a proof of claim is filed. So what standing does the Chapter 13 Trustee
> have to raise this issue? None.
>
> In fact, Congress designed Chapter 13s to allow debtors to not pay these
> taxes. Otherwise, what purpose does 1305 serve?
>
> Also, Congress understood what it was doing when it decided not to
> bifurcate the debtor from the Estate with respect to taxes (as opposed to
> Chapter 11). This is evidenced by its enumeration of "cause" under the two
> Chapters. Congress purposefully put nonpayment of taxes as cause for
> dismissal under Chapter 11 and not under Chapter 13.
>
> As further evidence, Congress made filing of prepetition taxes a
> requirement of Chapter 13. 1307(e). They left postpetition taxes out of the
> equation for Chapter 13.
>
> Finally, the code specifically allows taxing authorities to request the
> case to be converted/dismissed for failure to *file* postpetition taxes.
> Notably, not even the U.S. Trustee let alone Chapter 13 Trustee can file
> such a motion. See 521. More notably, it says file, nothing about paying
> the taxes!
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
> Simon Resnik Hayes, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 250
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> Tel: 818.783.6251 | Cel: 818.817.1725
>
> *Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
> legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
> use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
> copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
> to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
> 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.
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Craig J Beauchamp
legallycraig@gmail.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Normally, the IRS requires self-employed individuals to file quarterly
> taxes if they are going to owe the IRS money each year. However, the IRS
> rarely enforces that provision. Note, however, owing the IRS each year is
> the equivalent of incurring new debt. If Debtor's Schedule J sets aside
> funds to be applied to those taxes, then Debtor would have an obligation to
> either escrow those funds for tax purposes. Paying quarterly would mean no
> debt on April 15th.
>
> I am not sure the TR can dismiss for failure to file, but this is what
> I've been told by one TR in the past is the rationale for the request for
> compliance.
>
>
>
> Craig J. Beauchamp, Esq.
> Of Counsel
> Law Offices of Victor W. Luke, APLC
> (714) 835-5091
> (714) 835-5763
>
> Craig J. Beauchamp, Esq.*
> Attorney at Law
> PO Box 25857
> Santa Ana, CA 92799
> (949) 689-9709
> (949) 269-6421 fax
>
Legallycraig@gmail.com
>
> * Licensed in CA
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:00 PM, R Grace Rodriguez
rgracelaw@gmail.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Anyone heard of this? Can they do this?
>
>
> R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
> Full service Real Estate Attorney
> California State Bar
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
> OFF: (818) 734-7223
> CEL: (818) 554-9922
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thanks to Matt Resnik who essentially said look at 1304 and 704(a)(8). If the debtor is considered to be engaged in business within the meaning of 1304, then the US Trustee and standing Trustee can cause a lot of problems even if there may not be a technical requirement to file taxes.I think that in general, Chapter 13 is so loose with their rules that if it's not a tremendous benefit to your client, you should have him comply. Last thing the bar would want is strict requirements which Riverside is converging towards.Sincerely,(818)332-1180 (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
The post was migrated from Yahoo.