mean test amount when no mortgage payment required
Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 10:23 am
charsetNDOWS-1252;
formatowed;
delsps
Of course, look at the notes: even the military isn't likely to have
an unenforceable note (having a lien with no due date or terms of
default).
But in any event, it seems this may be confusing
(a)the means test (i.e. balloon payment amount contractually due
within 60 months, whether or not being paid currently, which gets you
past the means test calculation and presumption of abuse) and
(b)the old "substantial abuse" issue under 727 that could be
calculated from the Schedules I and J (in which not planning on making
any payments may be a problem).
Jason Wallach
On May 14, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
> I actually haven't seen the Notes yet, so my question may have been
> premature, but Dennis' point is also well taken that if the debtor
> hasn't been making the payments, it might be problematic to use a
> different amount over the 60 months. On the other hand, if they are
> "contractually due" during that period and the debtors start making
> the payments (despite the bank apparently allowing them to pay less)
> it may be appropriate. Similar to debtor who are paying interest-
> only on a loan, but they could (and probably SHOULD) be paying
> principal and interest.
>
> *************************
> 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 5/14/2011 6:08 PM, Gerald McNally wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> You presumably know what the loans are due, and the interest rate. >> Couldnt you amortize the loans over the period remaining before
>> theyre up? I would try for that in a Ch7 scenario.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This email was scanned by VIPRE version 4.0.4182 when it was sent,
>> using definitions version 9282
charsetNDOWS-1252
Of course, look at the notes: even the military isn't likely to have an unenforceable note (having a lien with no due date or terms of default).But in any event, it seems this may be confusing (a)the means test (i.e. balloon payment amount contractually due within 60 months, whether or not being paid currently, which gets you past the means test calculation and presumption of abuse) and (b)the old "substantial abuse" issue under 727 that could be calculated from the Schedules I and J (in which not planning on making any payments may be a problem).Jason Wallach On May 14, 2011, at 6:13 PM, Mark J. Markus wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.