Mark, I think you're right to worry. 707(a) still applies. Look at a 3rd circuit case:
In re Perlin, 497 F.3d 364 (3rd Cir. August, 2007)
Issue: 1) Can a bankruptcy court consider the debtors' significant income when deciding whether or not to dismiss a chapter 7 under Section 707(a)? 2) Is the debtors' income here of about $400,000 per year sufficient to find bad faith and dismiss the case?
Holding: 1) Yes, 2) No.
When I did the program with VZ, he asked Peter Anderson who was present if the UST would have filed a motion to dismiss in Perlin. Peter said, "Probably."
>
> I know this is a nonconsumer case. That's why I said "debts are
> primarily nonconsumer (tax)"
>
> Have you ever had such a case where the debtor could afford to pay
> 100% and it still went through to discharge in a 7?
>
> *************************
> 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 3/23/2011 7:51 AM, Dennis McGoldrick wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mark:
> >
> > Mark the box on the b22 which says the case is nonconsumer. This
> > takes the case out of 707b. My cases like this go through to
> > discharge.
> >
> > Padilla is a credit card bust out case (consumer debt). No such
> > case about taxes, taxes are NOT consumer debt.
> >
> > dennis
> >
> > --- On *Tue, 3/22/11, Mark J. Markus //* wrote:
> >
> >
> > Subject: [cdcbaa] dismissal under 707(a) for too much income
> > To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 11:14 PM
> >
> > Esteemed colleagues:
> >
> > Has anyone ever attempted this?
> >
> > Debts are primarily nonconsumer (tax) and thus means test
> > doesn't apply and, therefore, neither does 11 USC 707(b).
> >
> > Debtor's I&J budget show a surplus sufficient to pay 100% to
> > unsecured creditors over 60 months.
> >
> > Any chance said debtor could survive in a Chapter 7?
> >
> > My prior research on this showed it would be very risky. I'm
> > familiar with our circuit decision of Neary v. Padilla, but
> > it's not fully on point.
> >
> > Thanks in advance....
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **************************
> > 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. *
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.