Here's a pretty good synopsis from someone I respect (of course we'll
wait for Jon Hayes' and others' analyses from our group)
It appears to me that the SCOTUS opinion rewrote the statute, but then
again somebody had to. Congress has been in no rush to fix the defects
in the law for more than 5 years.
The language used by the majority appears to create the following hybrid:
1. Determine the debtors' current monthly income as a starting point for
income. That is the base beginning.
2. Determine the debtors' expected income going forward. While many
refer to that as Schedule I income, that may or may not be accurate.
3. If the income that is really expected in the future is different than
the CMI, we will start with the expected future income.
4. Determine the expenses for above median income debtors based upon the
22C form.
5. Determine which of the allowed expenses will not be likely to occur
in the future -- such as mortgages for surrendered property, or payments
on secured claims liens relating to which will be voided.
6. Recalculate the 22C expenses taking into account these adjustment to
expenses.
7. Nothing in the opinion permits a trustee to ignore the allowances
themselves -- that may be resolved by /Ransom /next year, but for now,
if the IRS grants an allowance, the debtors get the allowance, even if
the debtors' actual payments for food (national expenses) or rent or car
payments (local expenses) are less than the allowances.
Call it a hybrid, if you like, but remember the Supreme Court is not
final because it is infallible. It is infallible because it is final.
Hank
Henry E. Hildebrand III
Chapter 13 Trustee
PO Box 190664
Nashville, TN 37219
hank13@ch13nsh.com
*************************
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 6/7/2010 10:32 AM, Paul Horn wrote:
>
>
> What does "forwarding looking" test mean?
>
> Thanks
> Paul Horn, ESQ., CPA
> Attorney at Law
> Certified Public Accountant
> 1045 E. Valley Blvd., Suite A215
> San Gabriel, CA 91770
> 626-695-7310
> 877-872-9997--fax
>
www.paulhornlawfirm.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* John Faucher
> *To:* "
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
> *Sent:* Mon, June 7, 2010 10:05:58 AM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Lanning Decision from Supremes [1 Attachment]
>
> Hello All -
> I attach the Supremes' decision in Lanning. They went with the
> "forward-looking" test, rather than the "mechanical" test for
> projected future income. Judge Scalia predictably and grimly hung
> onto the text of the statute, inveighing against the loosey-goosey
> results of second-guessing Congress.
>
> John D. Faucher
> Hurlbett & Faucher
> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 116
> Westlake Village, CA 91362
> (818) 889-8080
> Fax: (805) 367-4154
>
http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>
> 3324 State Street, Suite O
> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
> (805) 963-9111
>
>
> /This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential,
> contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual
> or entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John
> Faucher (at 805/963-9111 x103 or john@hf-bklaw. com) indicating that
> you received this message and then delete the message without delay.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> 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.
> //
> /
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.