re: the consolidation issue: I was recently considering how to deal
with a married gay couple (one of the few who were "legally" married in
California). Since the marriage isn't recognized under Federal Law
(Defense of Marriages Act, or whatever), we'd technically have to file
two separate cases which would result in one of the two passing the
means test and the other not. I was wondering if in that situation we
could file two separate cases, then move to SUBSTANTIVELY consolidate
the two.
*************************
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 2/7/2010 2:52 PM, David A. Tilem wrote:
>
>
> Joint cases are administratively consolidated, not substantively
> consolidated, so it is not unreasonable for each to have his, or her
> own set of exemptions. The fact that they are different is
> problematic only where there is a code section, like CCP, which says
> they cannot have two different sets. See if there is a similar
> statute in Idaho which says they cannot have 2 different sets.
> *David A. Tilem*
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist**^* **
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem (a debt relief agency)
> 206 N. Jackson Street, #201, Glendale, CA 91206
> Tel: 818-507-6000 Fax: 818-507-6800
> * Bankruptcy specialist cert. by State Bar of CA Bd of Legal
> Specialization.
> Business bankruptcy specialist cert. by Amer. Bd. of Certification
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *t_mannis
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 06, 2010 9:55 AM
> *To:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Exemption Question/Brainteaser
>
> Chapter 7, clients are husband and wife. They are separated, though
> not in the divorce sense (not yet, anyways). Originally from
> California, they move to Idaho five or six years ago. They have a
> house there, though it has no equity. A year and a half ago, husband
> moves back to California, because he gets a decent job offer.
> Therefore, he now lives here, and has for some time. So, venue not a
> problem. Nor is means test, because with separated couples, the state
> median income used is that of the spouse who earns more, which is him.
>
> So, exemptions. We know California doesn't work, because neither has
> been here for two years, and when we go back 180 days, its Idaho. Only
> one problem...he is no longer a resident of Idaho, according to Idaho
> code. OK, default to the federal exemptions, which is good, I'd rather
> be there anyway, given the wild card. Right? Well, wife IS a resident
> of Idaho. Idaho does not allow the use of the federal exemptions. So,
> unless I'm mistaken (which I would be almost be grateful for), it
> would appear as if he's stuck with feds, she's stuck with Idaho, which
> cannot be. Any ideas? LOL, supremacy clause perhaps?!
>
> Todd Mannis, Esq.
>
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.