Chapter 7

Subscribe to Chapter 7 via RSS

IV. The Constitutional Problem With A § 706(b) Motion

I thank Daniel Press, an attorney practicing in Virginia, Washington, DC, and Maryland, for giving me his notes, which served as an afflatus for some of today’s post.

A. Historical Background

 1. The Chapter 13 Context

When Chapter 13 was enacted in 1978, it provided that only an individual could be a Chapter 13 debtor (11 U.S.C. § 109(e)), imposed limitations on the amount of debt a Chapter 13 debtor could have (11 U.S.C. § 109(e)), and — most important for today’s discussion — included postpetition earnings in the bankruptcy estate (11 U.S.C. § 1306(a)(2)) from which the debtor made Chapter 13 plan payments (11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B)).

For a Chapter 13 Plan to succeed, the debtor must be a willing and active participant in the reorganization. Congress explicitly stated that an involuntary Chapter 13 would create a thirteenth amendment problem:
Continue Reading The Fight Against An Alarming Trend: Section 706(b) Motions – Part 4

III. Dealing With A Motion To Convert Pursuant To Section 706(b)

This post assumes familiarity with my last two posts (Part 1 and Part 2) of this multi-part series. Thus, while you can certainly read this post without reading those previous ones, you’ll get more out of it if you read those posts first.

A. Oppose Any Motion To Extend The Time To Enter A Discharge

If the Court has already granted a nonconsumer debtor a Chapter 7 discharge, the judge will probably not entertain a motion to convert the Chapter 7 case to one under Chapter 11, pursuant to § 706(b). Therefore, oppose any motion to extend the time for the Court to enter the discharge. Here’s the argument:
Continue Reading The Fight Against An Alarming Trend: Section 706(b) Motions – Part 3

In my last post I began to set the stage for a discussion of § 706(b) motions to convert a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to one under Chapter 11 by considering § 707 motions to dismiss. I noted that § 707(b)(2) only applies to individual cases in which the debtor’s debts are primarily consumer debts.

In today’s post I’ll focus on the question of what kinds of debts are nonconsumer debts because in determining whether a Chapter 7 case should be dismissed, there can be a battle over which debts are nonconsumer and which are consumer.
Continue Reading The Fight Against An Alarming Trend: Section 706(b) Motions – Part 2

There is an alarming trend facing us, and it is not the latest teen-age fashions. It is the filing of motions pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 706(b), to convert individual nonconsumer Chapter 7 cases to Chapter 11.

Because the topic of § 706(b) motions is a bit complicated, and requires some background information to understand it, my discussion will span a multi-part series of posts. In this first post I’ll set the stage by beginning with the more commonly seen terrain of 11 U.S.C. § 707 motions to dismiss.
Continue Reading The Fight Against An Alarming Trend: Section 706(b) Motions – Part 1

For those of you who have been living in a cave without access to any news of the day, I would bring you up to speed on the ever expanding sex abuse/sexual harassment scandal that implicates many famous Hollywood types, politicians, religious leaders, big business execs, . . . , and the list just keeps on growing; but if you’re still living in your cave, you probably won’t read this post.

For those of you who aren’t living in a cave, but haven’t been paying attention to the salacious details, here’s the classic comic book version.  Many famous and powerful people have recently been accused of sexual harassment.  The list of the accused includes both men and at least one woman.  As the list grows, the likelihood that at least one accuser (maybe many more) will file civil actions against the accused increases.  Since this is a bankruptcy blog, our question of the day is:

Question:  Can the accused discharge any financial liability associated with the (alleged) harassment in bankruptcy?

Leaving aside the fact that most, if not all, of the accused are multimillionaires who probably won’t seek bankruptcy protection, the question is still worth addressing because people who don’t occupy the rarified world of big ticket corruption can still face such accusations.
Continue Reading Harvey Weinstein, et al., and Bankruptcy

oh no We sold our house TT seized the moneyI have written several times about exempting assets in bankruptcy.  The gist is that in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor gets to keep all assets that are exempt using the appropriate exemption table, but the Chapter 7 Trustee assigned to the case is empowered to seize and liquidate the nonexempt assets for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors.  And in other chapters the value of the nonexempt assets is one of the factors that are used to determine how much the debtor must repay the general unsecured creditors through the plan.

I have also written about the six-month reinvestment requirement for a homestead exemption after a debtor receives the exempt proceeds from the sale of the debtor’s primary residence.  The idea here is that if the debtor has nonexempt equity in the primary residence, the Chapter 7 Trustee will sell the property for the benefit of the creditors, and write the debtor a check for the exemption amount; but the debtor must reinvest the proceeds in a new domicile within six months of receiving the check from the Trustee or else the Trustee can reclaim the money.

When the Trustee sells a nonexempt asset, the sale is, from the debtor’s perspective, an involuntary sale.

In this post I will discuss what happens to the homestead exemption when the debtor voluntarily sells the primary residence, either in bankruptcy, or outside of bankruptcy.
Continue Reading Voluntary Sales And The Homestead Exemption

Mortgage lien stripA very recent opinion from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (“BAP”) establishes the legitimacy of something I have been doing in Chapter 20 cases.  It’s nice to know I was right all along.  This post brings you up to speed on the good news for debtors in the BAP case.  A bit of background will help to put the case into its proper perspective.

If you are new to bankruptcy practice, and have given the Bankruptcy Code a cursory glance, you might think I am out of my mind referring to a Chapter 20 bankruptcy in the tile to this post.  After all, the Code doesn’t even have a Chapter 20.  (Whether or not I am out of my mind is best left to the many voices in my head to determine.  What did you say?  Are you calling my dog a liar?)  The term, “Chapter 20” is used by bankruptcy attorneys to refer to a Chapter 7 followed by a Chapter 13.  Since 7 + 13 = 20, Chapter 20 is used as a short hand.

I.  Reasons For Doing A Chapter 20

Since Chapter 7 discharges most debts without the debtor having to make any payments to creditors, why would anyone want to do a Chapter 20?  One reason lies in 11 U.S.C. § 109(e)’s debt ceilings (I have corrected the dollar amounts, which haven’t been updated at the linked site for quite some time.):

Only an individual with regular income that owes, on the date of the filing of the petition, noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts of less than $383,175 and noncontingent, liquidated, secured debts of less than $1,149,525, or an individual with regular income and such individual’s spouse, except a stockbroker or a commodity broker, that owe, on the date of the filing of the petition, noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts that aggregate less than $383,175 and noncontingent, liquidated, secured debts of less than $1,149,525 may be a debtor under chapter 13 of this title.

Based on this Code section, if a debtor has more than $383,175 in noncontingent (i.e., doesn’t depend on a triggering event for its validity), liquidated (i.e., the dollar amount of the debt is certain), unsecured (i.e., there is no collateral securing the debt) debt, then Chapter 13 is unavailable.

Since Chapter 7 has no debt ceilings (though it does have income ceilings, which can be made precise using 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)), the debtor can first do a Chapter 7 to get rid of as much unsecured debt as possible, and then do a Chapter 13 to deal with debts that weren’t discharged in the prior Chapter 7, or to catch up on a delinquent mortgage.
Continue Reading Lien Stripping In A Chapter 20 Bankruptcy

tax return with hundred dollar billsSome time ago I wrote about discharging income taxes in bankruptcy.  I subsequently wrote about discharging income taxes in bankruptcy for a tax year in which the debtor filed a return after the taxing authority ― for simplicity I will generically label the authority as the IRS, though the discussion applies to other taxing authorities ― filed a substitute for return and assessed the tax.

A fellow bankruptcy attorney of the highest caliber, who is also a good friend, read the substitution for return post ― Yippee!  I always love hearing that people are reading the blog ― and drew my attention to a brand new decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the “BAP”) in the appeal of one of the cases I discussed in substitute for return post.  He suggested that I write a follow up post.  Following the rule always to take requests from the audience (please try the veal piccata, and be sure to tip the wait staff), I offer the following update.

To set the stage for this post I will begin with a précis of the aforementioned (does anyone other than an attorney use the word “aforementioned”?) two previous posts.  If you want more detail, read those two posts.

I.  The Three-Part Tax Dischargeability Test

For a tax to be dischargeable in bankruptcy, it must satisfy three requirements:

1.  (The three-year rule) The tax return for the tax year in question must have been due (including extensions) – but not necessarily actually filed – at least three years before the filing of the bankruptcy papers,

2.  (The two-year rule) The debtor must have actually filed a legitimate, nonfraudulent tax return for that tax year at least two years before the filing of the bankruptcy papers, and

3.  (The 240-day rule) The taxing authority cannot have assessed the tax during the 240 days prior to filing the bankruptcy papers.

The second requirement, the so-called two-year rule, has been the subject of extensive litigation throughout the country, with a wide range of inconsistent outcomes.  It is the afflatus for this post.
Continue Reading Discharging Income Taxes In Bankruptcy After A Substitute For Return Is Filed: Part II

IRS From 1040Some time ago I wrote about discharging income taxes in bankruptcy.  I stated that there is a three-part test for determining their dischargeability, and started with the following executive summary:

For a tax to be dischargeable in bankruptcy, it must satisfy three requirements:

  1. (The three-year rule) The tax return for the tax year in question must have been due (including extensions) – but not necessarily actually filed – at least three years before the filing of the bankruptcy papers,
  2. (The two-year rule) The debtor must have actually filed a legitimate, nonfraudulent tax return for that tax year at least two years before the filing of the bankruptcy papers, and
  3. (The 240-day rule) The taxing authority cannot have assessed the tax during the 240 days prior to filing the bankruptcy papers.

The second requirement, the so-called two-year rule, has been the subject of extensive litigation throughout the country, with a wide range of inconsistent outcomes.  Therefore, I suspect that the Supremes will eventually be asked to consider the matter.

My focus today is on what happens if the taxing authority files something called a substitute for return on behalf of the debtor/taxpayer.  For linguistic simplicity, I will refer to the taxing authority as the IRS, though the discussion applies, mutatis mutandis, if the taxing authority is a state taxing authority such as California’s Franchise Tax Board.
Continue Reading Discharging Income Taxes In Bankruptcy After A Substitute For Return Is Filed