.jpg)
Student Loan Payment on Schedule J in Ch7
charset="UTF-8"
Dear nath don rogerclim@gmail.com
1. Please use your name and contact info on your emails.
2. Please create a new subject line when posting a new or different topic. We now have one subject line with two different topics. Very confusing. If no one answers your original post, repost by adding second try to the original subject line. Some of us will then take a look to see if we can answer the question.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green, Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union St. Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: (626) 449-8433
Fax: (626) 449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I had an objection from Judge Kwan re student loans in an individual ch11 schedule J.
Best regards
Larry Webb
blslogo
California Board of Legal Specialization
Certified Specialist in Bankruptcy Law
State Bar of California 229344
Central District California
"A Debt Relief Agency"
Check out my Blog
Larry@webbklaw. com
Law Offices of Larry Webb
484 Mobil Ste 43
Camarillo Ca 93010
P 805.987.1400
F 805.987.2866
C 805.750.2150
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Above median debtors is what riled up the UST!
Christine A. Wilton,
Esq.
Law Office of Christine A.
Wilton
5011 Argosy Avenue, Suite 3
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Office: 714-533-9210
Fax: 714-489-8150
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have never had them object to putting student loans in schedule J. It
was including them in the MT that they objected to
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014, 'Gerald McNally' gm@mcesq.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I put student loan payments on Schedule J on the same rationale as past
> due taxes; if PC converts to Ch13, he still would have to make the
> payments. No holiday for student loans! There must have been other
> circumstances to rile up the UST.
>
>
>
> Gerry
>
>
>
> [image: McNally Bus Card Smaller]
>
>
>
> Gerald McNally
>
> McNally & Associates, P.C.
>
> 517 East Wilson Ave., Ste 104
>
> Glendale, CA 91206
>
> 818.507.5100
>
> Fax: 818.507.5001
>
>
>
> Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient
> of the transmission and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
> received this email in error, and review, use, dissemination, distribution
> or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us
> immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message and
> any and all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in
> advance for your cooperation.
>
>
>
> *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.*
>
>
>
>
>
Sent from Gmail Mobile
I have never had them object to putting student loansin schedule J. It was including them in the MT that they obj
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I put student loan payments on Schedule J on the same rationale as past due
taxes; if PC converts to Ch13, he still would have to make the payments. No
holiday for student loans! There must have been other circumstances to rile
up the UST.
Gerry
Gerald McNally
McNally & Associates, P.C.
517 East Wilson Ave., Ste 104
Glendale, CA 91206
818.507.5100
Fax: 818.507.5001
Notice to Recipient: This email is meant for only the intended recipient of
the transmission and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
received this email in error, and review, use, dissemination, distribution
or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us
immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message and
any and all duplicates of this message from your system. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.
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.
Presumably your Chapter 7 debtor's budget results in a zero or positive number which further presumes that their is sufficient net income to pay the expenses.
Also presuming you backed out SSI (and other non CMI sources) and using only net business income on Schedule I and no business expenses on Schedule J.
The UST objection would likely come at the point when the total Schedule J expenses (Student loan payments plus all other expenses) are about $3,060; given that the medial income for a one person household in LA is about $49,000 (or $4,085 per month) and income taxes are typically approximately 25% of gross.
Peter M. Lively, J.D., M.B.A.
Law Office of Peter M. Lively * Personal Financial Law Center I
11268 Washington Boulevard, Suite 203, Culver City, California 90230-4647
Telephone: (310) 391-2400 * Toll Free: (800) 307-3328 * Fax: (310) 391-2462
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:44 AM, "nath don rogerclim@gmail.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
No one took the bait on my question as I earlier posed it. I guess that I'll try rephrasing it using the statutory framework.
In the hypothetical that I yesterday posed -- i.e. above median debtor with large student loans -- is one more likely to have success arguing that student loans constitute a "special circumstance" under 707(b)(2)(B) since student loans cannot be discharged, or that student loans have been incurred for a business and not a household purpose following In re Kelly? Either approach would seem to accomplish the goal of discharging consumer debt, leaving debtor more able to manage her student loan burden.
Any comments are appreciated.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Shannon Doyle sdoyle@ebankruptcyassistants.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>Has anyone ever had the US Tee object to a student loan payment being listed on Schedule J in a Chapter 7? I have done it without issue in the past when the student loan payment was relatively low ($200) but I am wondering if there is a point where the Trustee will object on the grounds of abuse (i.e. if the student loan payment is $500 or higher).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I tried the Special circumstances argument. UST did not go for it at all
and threatened to file a motion. Clients decided to convert.
M. Erik Clark
[image: BCLogoSmall]
100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
West Covina, CA 91791
www.BorowitzClark.com
Office: (626) 332-8600
Fax: (626) 332-8644
Board Certified in Consumer Bankruptcy
American Board of Certification
*From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 21, 2014 10:44 AM
*To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
*Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Student Loan Payment on Schedule J in Ch7
No one took the bait on my question as I earlier posed it. I guess that
I'll try rephrasing it using the statutory framework.
In the hypothetical that I yesterday posed -- i.e. above median debtor with
large student loans -- is one more likely to have success arguing that
student loans constitute a "special circumstance" under 707(b)(2)(B) since
student loans cannot be discharged, or that student loans have been
incurred for a business and not a household purpose following In re Kelly?
Either approach would seem to accomplish the goal of discharging consumer
debt, leaving debtor more able to manage her student loan burden.
Any comments are appreciated.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Shannon Doyle
sdoyle@ebankruptcyassistants.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Has anyone ever had the US Tee object to a student loan payment being
listed on Schedule J in a Chapter 7? I have done it without issue in the
past when the student loan payment was relatively low ($200) but I am
wondering if there is a point where the Trustee will object on the grounds
of abuse (i.e. if the student loan payment is $500 or higher).
[image: Shannon Picture]
[image: Shannon A Doyle]
[image: phone/email/website]
[image: Email Signature]
[image: http://pcmweb.net/devglobal/emaildev/eB ... img/fb.png]
[image:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
No one took the bait on my question as I earlier posed it. I guess that
I'll try rephrasing it using the statutory framework.
In the hypothetical that I yesterday posed -- i.e. above median debtor with
large student loans -- is one more likely to have success arguing that
student loans constitute a "special circumstance" under 707(b)(2)(B) since
student loans cannot be discharged, or that student loans have been
incurred for a business and not a household purpose following In re Kelly?
Either approach would seem to accomplish the goal of discharging consumer
debt, leaving debtor more able to manage her student loan burden.
Any comments are appreciated.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Shannon Doyle
sdoyle@ebankruptcyassistants.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone ever had the US Tee object to a student loan payment being
> listed on Schedule J in a Chapter 7? I have done it without issue in the
> past when the student loan payment was relatively low ($200) but I am
> wondering if there is a point where the Trustee will object on the grounds
> of abuse (i.e. if the student loan payment is $500 or higher).
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Shannon Picture]
> [image: Shannon A Doyle]
> [image: phone/email/website]
> [image: Email Signature]
> [image: http://pcmweb.net/devglobal/emaildev/eB ... img/fb.png]
> [image:
> http://pcmweb.net/devglobal/emaildev/eB ... witter.png]
> [image:
> http://pcmweb.net/devglobal/emaildev/eB ... google.png]
> [image:
> http://pcmweb.net/devglobal/emaildev/eB ... nkedin.png]
> [image:
> http://pcmweb.net/devglobal/emaildev/eB ... /email.png]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
No one took the bait on my question as I earlier posed it. I guess that I'll try rephrasing it using the statutory framework.In the hypothetical that I yesterday posed -- i.e. above median debtor with large student loans -- is one more likely to have success arguing that student loans constitute a "special circumstance" under 707(b)(2)(B) since student loans cannot be discharged, or that student loans have been incurred for a business and not a household purpose following In re Kelly? Either approach would seem to accomplish the goal of discharging consumer debt, leaving debtor more able to manage her student loan burden.Any comments are appreciated.On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Shannon Doyle sdoyle@ebankruptcyassistants.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.