Bankruptcy Questions Answered

Supreme Court Issues Important Ruling About Chapter 13

On June 7, 2010, the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning.   The Supreme Court rarely hears argument in consumer bankruptcy cases so the Lanning decision is big news to consumer bankruptcy lawyers.

The issue in Lanning is one that has troubled bankruptcy lawyers since 2005, when the "means test" was added to the Bankruptcy Code.   The means test functions as a test – do you have the "means" or disposable income to fund a Chapter 13 repayment plan?  If the means test shows that you do not have sufficient disposable income to make a Chapter 13 work, then you qualify for Chapter 7.

As one of the assistant United States trustees once told me – the purpose of the means test is to disqualify as many people as possible from Chapter 7, and to force them into Chapter 13.

In practice, the means test does not work very well in predicting who can make a Chapter 13 work.  One of the biggest complaints has to do with the mechanical nature of means testing.   To run a means test, I have to gather pay stubs from the past 6 months.  I then create a monthly average, which represents available income.  Next I prepare a means test budget, but I do not use actual expense amounts.  Instead, the means test tells me how much my clients are allowed to spend for food, medicine, utilities, etc.  And where do these budget numbers come from?  Means test numbers are based on IRS budgets used in delinquent tax repayment plans.  In other words, the means test budget allocations are not especially generous.

This explanation of the means test is somewhat oversimplified, but you get the main idea – every bankruptcy debtor's income and expense numbers have to be run through the means test, and not surprisingly this somewhat mechanical test produces some absurd results.

The classic example of absurd results occurs when a debtor has received a Christmas bonus or a one time payment.  That bonus/one time payment has to be included in the monthly income numbers even if it is not guaranteed or likely to happen again.  In other situations a debtor may have earned a comfortable income but has now lost his job – under a strict reading of the means test, he earns too much money to file Chapter 7.  And he can't afford to file a Chapter 13 because he now has no income.

The Supreme Court has injected some common sense into this situation.  In the Lemming case, which was filed in Topeka, Kansas, the debtor's 6 month average was skewed by a one time payment arising from a buyout from her former employer.  The debtor filed a Chapter 13 plan that called for a payment that the debtor could afford based on her actual, current income.  The trustee objected on the grounds that the means test dictated a higher number (that the debtor clearly could not afford based on his actual income).

The Topeka bankruptcy judge agreed with the debtor and approved a plan that Ms. Lemming could afford.  The trustee appealed and lost in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The trustee appealed again and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and held that bankruptcy judges need not apply a "mechanical approach" to means testing in Chapter 13 cases.  Instead, judges should "take into account other known or virtually known certain information about the debtor's future income or expenses."  Rather than looking backwards, judges can take a forward looking approach and consider the realities of a debtor's income.   This forward looking approach should be considered in cases with unusual facts and the Lemming decision should not be construed as an invalidation of the means testing formula.

Despite the Supreme Court's warning that a "forward looking" approach should only be used in limited situations, I suspect that bankruptcy judges will use "Lemming arguments" mitigate some of the harsh results of Chapter 13 in general.   Bankruptcy judges recognize that Chapter 13 cases often do not work because means testing and aggressive trustee arguments force debtors to agree to plans that commit debtors to pay every last dime to the trustee.  Unfortunately, family emergencies and unexpected things happen over the course of a five year bankruptcy plan and many plans will fail – not because the debtor did anything wrong, but because there is no "give" in the plan.

I predict that judges will use the rationale of Lemming to reduce some of the harsh results of the means test and help debtors improve their chances at success in Chapter 13.

If you want to read the Lemming decision, click on the link.  I also found a nice summary of Lemming in attorney Jordan Bublick's fine South Florida bankruptcy blog.

Posted in 13, 2010, Chapter 13 issues, Debtors, Hamilton Chapter 13 trustee v. Lemming, Means Test issues, Trustee, Trustee objections in Chapter 13, affirmed, aggressive, and, argument, arguments, cases, certiorari the, chapter, chapter 13 plans, court, decision, facts, force, formula despite, granted, hamilton, hears, lanning   , lemming, means, means testing, rarely, read, released, states, supreme, testing, the, trustee objections to chapter 13, united, unusual, v, work | Comments Off

IRS May Soon be Out of the Business of Seizing Income Tax Refunds for Benefit of Chapter 13 Trustee

As you probably know, there are two types of consumer bankruptcy cases available to you – a Chapter 7 which wipes out debt, and a Chapter 13 which creates a five year payment plan in which you pay back some or all of your debt with your "disposable income."  When I prepare a Chapter 13 case, we work with you to create a liveable budget.  The money "left over" after you pay for housing, food, transportation, insurance, utilities and other necessities must be sent to the Chapter 13 trustee, who then disburses these funds to your creditors based on a plan of reorganization that we submit to the court.

What happens if you need to file a Chapter 13, you have not yet filed your tax return for last year, but you know that a refund will be coming your way.  The simple answer is that unless you are paying back your creditors at 100%, your Chapter 13 will demand that you turn over your tax refund check, and will use that money to pay your creditors.  If you know that a refund is headed your way, make sure to tell your lawyer before you file – there are some steps you can take to preserve some or all of your tax refund money.

Your Chapter 13 trustee will also want future refunds paid to the trustee.  This situation is easier to handle – you will want to adjust your payroll withholdings so that you do not have any refund coming.  As far as the Chapter 13 trustee is concerned, your tax refund is kind of like a savings account that artificially reduces your net pay amount.

All of the Chapter 13 trustees in the Northern District of Georgia require debtors who are paying less than 100% to creditors to include in their Chapter 13 plans a provision that authorizes the IRS to intercept any refund payable during the years that your plan is in effect and send this money to the Chapter 13 trustee.  And until now, the IRS has cooperated with the Chapter 13 trustees in redirecting refund money.

In January, 2010, however, a federal district court in Michigan has rules that the Chapter 13 trustee does not have the power to compel the IRS to serve as its collection agent.  In the case of United States v. Carroll, a judge in the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that there is no legal basis for the IRS to withhold money and deliver it to the trustee because Congress has not waived the IRS' "sovereign immunity" that would otherwise leave the IRS vulnerable to contempt actions and other enforcement actions by the trustee (in other words, if the IRS failed to withhold a debtor's refund, the trustee would not have the right to sue the IRS for damages or for remedial action).  The Michigan judge issued an order forbidding the bankruptcy courts there from confirming any Chapter 13 plan that has the income tax refund seizure language.

I would not be surprised if bankruptcy courts elsewhere in the nation begin to follow the path set by the Michigan judge.  We'll know soon enough, but I suspect that the trustees in the Northern District may discontinue their demand for an income tax provision involving the IRS in Chapter 13 plans.

I do not expect, however that Chapter 13 trustees here or elsewhere in the country will permit Chapter 13 debtors from keeping large tax refunds.  I suspect that trustees will still demand provisions that obligate debtors to tender their tax refunds but they will expect the debtors to send in the money, rather than having it withheld by the IRS.  I will continue to advise my clients to minimize their refunds to avoid the problem entirely.

Needless to say, losing this automatic tax refund payment mechanism will make enforcement of tax refund plan provisions much more difficult.  It will be interesting to what if anything Chapter 13 trustees do to address this potential administrative nightmare.

Posted in 2010, Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 issues, Chapter 13 plan calculations, Irs, Tax issues, a, an, automatic, chapter 13 plan, chapter 13 trustee, court, courts, district, enforcement, federal, forbidding, income, intercept, issued, january, judge, keeping, language i, large, losing, mechanism, michigan, money in, order, payable, payment, plan, provisions, redirecting, refund, refunds  , seizure, tax, tax refunds in chapter 13, the,   | Comments Off