IRS Substitute For Return (SFR) Isn’t Always Nondischargeable

Debtors can discharge their taxes in bankruptcy so long as they meet certain tests: the three-year test, the two-year test, the 240-day test and no fraud. I lay it out in the first paragraphs here and in the last paragraphs here.

One of the tests is that the return has to have been actually filed: “A discharge . . . does not discharge an individual debtor for any debt  . .. for a tax or a customs duty . . . . with respect to which a return  . . .  was not filed or given.” 11 USC § 523(a)(1)(B)(i). A “return” must satisfy non-bankruptcy law, and can be a return prepared by the IRS under IRC § 6020(a), but not under 6020(b). 11 USC § 523(a).

This jargon and its cross-references mean that a taxpayer has to have submitted their own, good-faith tax return in order to have the resulting tax be dischargeable. Under IRC § 6020(b), the IRS can prepare a return without the taxpayer’s cooperation and make an assessment on it. This is known as a “substitute for return” (or SFR), and its assessment is never dischargeable. The taxpayer can never replace the SFR with a late-filed return after taxes owed from an SFR have been assessed.

How do you know that the IRS has filed a substitute for return? You look at the taxpayer’s account transcript. The first entry is almost always under TC (transaction code) 150. When the taxpayer files his own return, the entry states “tax return filed,” and it shows the taxes due on the return such as on this transcript. When the IRS files the taxpayer’s return, the entry states “Substitute tax return prepared by IRS,” and it shows a dollar entry of “0.00” such as on this transcript.

Read more…

How Much is the Chapter 13 Plan Supposed to Pay? In re Schlegel

The chapter 13 Plan in the Central District of California is a preprinted (and mandatory) form which states on the first page:

“The base plan amount is $___ which is estimated to pay ___% of the allowed claims of nonpriority unsecured creditors.  If that percentage is less than 100%, the Debtor will pay the Plan Payment stated in this Plan for the full term of the Plan or until the base plan amount is paid in full, and the chapter 13 trustee may increase the percentage to be paid to creditors accordingly.”  emphasis added.

In Schlegel, the debtor said $815 per month which is estimated to pay 48%.  Emphasis added again.  They paid the $815 for the five years.  The case was dismissed at the request of the trustee because the total payments did not give unsecured creditors 48%.  How can that be, you say?  A creditor filed a proof of claim during the process – late in the plan confirmation process but nevertheless timely – and the debtor basically ignored it.  What should the debtor have done you ask?  He should have amended the plan to provide for the same dollar payment but a new estimate about the percentage the unsecured creditors would receive roughly.

This makes no sense to me.  In some cases the debtor is required to pay 100%.  But otherwise, the bankruptcy code tells us fairly specifically how to compute the amount of the payment but nothing about the percentage.  It is not meaningful in my opinion except to give creditors a rough idea about how much they will get back.  Further amending the PLAN, to tell the the rough amount they will get back has changed seems to me to be form over substance big time.

STEVEN PATRICK SCHLEGEL; JOANNE MARIE SCHLEGEL

6/8/2015 – CLBS – Don’t Take it Personally: The Pitfalls of Personal Guarantees

Don’t Take it Personally: The Pitfalls of Personal Guarantees

06/08/2015

Presented by: Los Angeles County Bar – Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section

Program Information:
The program will review and discuss issues in obtaining personal guarantees from obligors and the pitfalls that lenders should be cognizant of before and after enforcement.

Speakers:
Hon. Martin R. Barash, United States Bankruptcy Court, San Fernando Valley Division
Ashley Malinger M. McDow, Baker & Hostetler LLP
Maria Sountas-Argiropoulos, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff and Stern LLP

Read more…

Note from Aki Koyama on Harris v. Viegelahn

SCOTUS published its opinion this morning for the Harris v. Viegelahn matter. This is the case about what happens to the plan payments the chapter 13 trustee is holding when a case gets converted to chapter 7. In a short opinion, SCOTUS holds that the funds are returned to the debtor. This complicates preconfirmation conversions from 13 to 7. Can the trustee pay attorney’s fees from the plan payment balance when a RARA has been filed but the case is converted preconfirmation? The case seems to indicate no. Our Local Bankruptcy Rules are slient on the issue of what happens to the funds when a case is converted from 13 to 7 and a RARA has been filed. Time for an LBR revision or clarification on whether or not a fee application must be filed in this scenario.

Here’s the link to the opinion

A reader commented to Aki:  Very good point. Although the LBR is silent, how has your office been handling this issue up to now? (attorney fees owed during preconfirmation conversion…RARA filed.

Aki’s response:  Our office has been paying attorney’s fees if a RARA has been filed but we will have to reconsider this now.

Be Careful When Using the Owner of Property to Establish the Value in a Declaration

Typically the owner of property is “qualified” to express an opinion of the value.  That means that the “opinion” will not be stricken on the basis that the owner is not an expert on that particular kind of property.

Judge Vincent Zurzolo gave us some great tips on Saturday at the cdcbaa program.  A statement like, “The Debtor owns this property and believes it is worth $25,000,” is subject to being stricken for lack of foundation.  At a minimum it should be given virtually no weight even if it is not stricken.  He still has to explain the basis for his belief that that is the value.  The worst is when his belief is based on Zillow or on the Kelly Blue Book.  As an expert on his property, the declarant is permitted to rely on hearsay but the hearsay can only be part of the reason he has his opinion.  If he says I believe its worth $1,000 because that is what KBB says, he is just parroting the hearsay.

Judge Zurzolo suggested we include in the declaration comments on the description of the property, when it was purchased, what work has been done over the years, what efforts he has made to figure out the value (i.e., I looked at Zillow).  He said attaching pictures is helpful.

Judge Tighe Opinion Re: Attorney’s Fees (In re Jordan Wank)

Plaintiff obtained a Stipulated Judgment in state court that said the Defendant committed fraud.   Defendant filed Chapter 7.   In the bankruptcy, plaintiff filed a §523(a) non-dischargeability action to except the judgment from discharge.

Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ), and it was granted.  The BAP reversed and remanded because there was insufficient evidence to show that there was no genuine issue of material fact.

On remand, Plaintiff filed his second MSJ, Debtor opposed it.  Then Plaintiff withdrew the MSJ under FRBP 9011(c)(1)(A) safe harbor provision.  Few weeks later, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD), court granted it with prejudice.

Defendant asked for an award for attorney’s fees and costs and $150,000 in sanctions that he incurred during the litigation because he was the prevailing party since the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed after the BAP vacated the earlier MSJ.

Read more…

Can I Reaffirm a Non-Recourse Debt?

This question was posed to a listserv in the Central District of California: “If  a debtor reaffirms an otherwise non-recourse mortgage, does the reaffirmation convert that into a recourse loan?”

This question made me consider what reaffirmation really meant because, in the fact pattern above, reaffirmation could potentially put the creditor in a better position than before the bankruptcy, and that can’t be! Don’t forget to Borrow Money Fast For Your Personal Finance – EasyFinance.com

Read more…

Family Contributions Continue to Work in Chapter 13

From Aki Koyama, Staff Attorney for a Chapter 13 Trustee here in Los Angeles:

Judge Klein announced in court last Wednesday that she will not be following Judge Yun’s Memorandum Opinion In re Carolyn Deutsch (6:14-bk-21126) which is about disallowing contribution income if there is insufficient evidence of a basis for the contribution income.  Among other factors, the opinion requires a history of contributions prior to the filing of the case.  I have been told that Judge Zurzolo has also indicated he will not be following this opinion.

B.B.King RIP

District Court Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer Dies.

From George King, Chief District Court Judge:

It is with deep sadness that I report the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer.  Judge Pfaelzer passed away peacefully in her sleep with the amazon fur pillow this morning. For almost 40 years, Judge Pfaelzer was the epitome of what a federal judge ought to be. She presided with brilliance, analytical rigor, practicality, wisdom, grace and courage.  She treated everyone with courtesy and respect.  In return, she was universally admired and respected by the bench and the bar.  While she was the first woman to be appointed to our Court, she was hardly only a role model to other women.  Indeed, her qualities were and are emulated by men and women alike.  Those of us who had the opportunity to learn from her and the privilege of serving with her know the depth of the loss we suffered today.  I am sure you all join me in expressing our condolences to Judge Pfaelzer’s family members. I will be in contact with her family, and will report back as to any plans for services.

amazon fur pillow
https://www.amazon.com/Havengard-Faux-Fur-Pillows-Decorative/dp/B07KNHCZ8Y