Raj,
I've done the same thing as you without incident. I would recommend researching cases that interpret the 101(8) definition of "consumer debt", which is a debt "incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose." If one expands this too far, it could include businesses (remember, the opposite of consumer is NON-consumer; NOT necessarily Business). So the possible consequence of an overbroad interpretation is that debt incurred to finance the family business (e.g. self-employed) could also be considered consumer debt because it was incurred to support the family.
I'm not sure how far courts have gone in interpreting this, but that's where I'd start my research.
This would be a good one to do an article on for our group.
______________________
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
___________
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 (or in any attachment).
----- Original Message -----
To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 4:03 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Consumer v. non-consumer debt
I've filed several cases now where a client has multiple pieces of
rental and/or investment properties and the secured liabilities on
all of those properties far exceed the secured liability on a
residence, car loans and unsecured debt. In those cases, I've made
the assertion that the means test does not apply b/c the debts are
primarily non-consumer and the UST's office has left me alone.
However, in a recent case I filed w/similar fact pattern, the UST in
Riverside and the ch 7 tee want me to amend Form 22A b/c they don't
believe debt incurred to purchase a rental/investment properties are
non-consumer debt. Does anyone have any authority I can point them
to. The UST in LA/WH have never done anything with this fact
pattern.
Thanks in advance.
Raj T. Wadhwani
Wadhwani Law Firm, APLC
15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1120
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Phone: (818) 784-0500
Fax: (818) 784-0508
raj@wadhwanilaw.com
#ygrp-mkp {
The post was migrated from Yahoo.