Tom Scott Law Indy

Bankruptcy Attorneys in Indianapolis Since 1980

IRS

Car Loan Payments in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

by

If you will be filing for bankruptcy protection, you have a few options regarding the best way to pay off a car loan or to buy a new vehicle before or during the period of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

How Much?
    FEES    

Our Locations?
3 INDY OFFICES

Need Help?
CONTACT US

Key Points of This Article:

  • If your vehicle loan is over two-and-a-half years old and the remaining loan balance is greater than the car or truck’s current value, Chapter 13 could provide an opportunity to lower the remaining loan amount and interest rate, and then pay the loan off as part of your approved bankruptcy plan monthly payment. The amount you ultimately pay for your vehicle could then be significantly less than your current total loan amount—and you would own the car or truck outright when the case is successfully discharged.
  • If your vehicle loan is less than two-and-a-half years old and the interest rate is already 5% or less, to keep the car or truck you would need to continue to pay off the loan on your vehicle outside of a bankruptcy plan.
  • A sudden need to acquire a new vehicle during an approved bankruptcy plan presents a potential need to submit a request to modify the plan. The trustee of the plan would need to approve that new additional debt as part of your monthly plan payments.
  • A bankruptcy plan trustee’s job is to retrieve money for creditors, so they may consider a monthly vehicle loan payment above a certain amount inappropriate as part of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. If you file for bankruptcy, you may need to switch from an expensive luxury vehicle to a model with lower monthly payments.
  • In addition to your transportation costs, a Chapter 13 trustee will use established federal standards to determine what they consider as your reasonable monthly “cost of living” expenses, including housing, utilities, food, clothing, and out-of-pocket health care expenses.

We recently discussed some aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion covered several topics, including the affect of paying off a car loan during a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, buying a new vehicle before or during a bankruptcy, what is a “cram-down,” modifying a bankruptcy payment plan, and means testing. Below is the transcript of that conversation.

 

Q: Does the fact that a debtor who is planning on filing for bankruptcy protection is currently making car loan payments, but the loan will be paid off within a year or two, affect the plan you propose to the bankruptcy court?
Chris Holmes: When I meet with clients in that situation, in a Chapter 13 case where the plan life is anywhere from 3 to 5 years, we weigh the pros and the cons of them either paying for the car directly outside the bankruptcy court versus throwing it into the plan and paying for it over the life of the plan. What we’ll look at is how old is the vehicle loan. If a car loan is more than two-and-a-half years old on the day of filing, and if the payoff on that loan exceeds the fair-market value of the vehicle by a significant amount, then we do this thing we call a “cram-down.” We take the higher payoff and reduce it—cram it down—to what the vehicle is worth. The debtor pays that amount, saving all of that extra principal. Often times, these loans have a very high rate of interest, so we can effectively cram that interest rate down, within the plan, from the high rate to the prime rate plus 1.5%.
As an example, if someone owes $20,000 on a car only worth $15,000, and that loan is supposed to be paid at 21% interest, what we say to the car creditor is that we’re only going to pay the value, $15,000, at perhaps 5% interest through the plan, saving the extra principal and extra interest on that loan. That’s a clear win for the debtor.
If the car loan is less than two-and-a-half years old. we can’t cram the payoff down in value. In that situation, the only thing we can do is reduce the interest rate, so a debtor would payoff the loan through the plan at perhaps 5% interest, to save a considerable amount of interest.
If the loan is less than two-and-a-half years old and the interest rate is already 5% or less, there’s no real advantage to paying it off through the plan, so then we would make arrangements for that debtor to continue to pay on that vehicle outside of the bankruptcy court.
If the bankruptcy plan life is 60 months, but the car loan is going to be paid off in, for example, 36 months, that scenario creates a potential problem. Previously, we would tell the trustee that, when the car was paid in full, the car loan payment would be used to purchase a replacement for that car or maybe a second car for the debtors. The trustees used to accept that at face value, but evidently they have recently learned of too many circumstances, after the car loan was paid in full, in which debtors weren’t using that monthly car payment for the purchase of a replacement or second vehicle. Now trustees don’t trust debtors anymore, so we’re compelled to sign agreements whereby the monthly bankruptcy plan payments increase, for the remaining months of the plan, by the amount that was being paid monthly for the car loan.
In those types of cases, we will go back to the bankruptcy court and ask the judge to allow the debtor to renege on that pledge when the debtor presents to the judge a tentative car loan for a replacement or needed second vehicle. We have the burden to go back into court to request permission to modify the plan back to what we intended, so we can use that extra money for the purchase of another vehicle.
Q: What happens to an individual who has (1) already filed bankruptcy, (2) set-up a plan, (3) their income is such that they are just able to take care of their current bills and monthly payment to the trustee, (4) they haven’t had a car payment during the plan, and then (5) all of a sudden their car breaks down beyond repair and they need to buy a replacement vehicle? Can you modify their bankruptcy plan mid-stream to account for their need to take on a new monthly car payment they did not have before the plan started?
CH: That creates another dilemma, because when we filed the case we submitted a budget that showed all of the debtor’s different monthly living expenses. If the debtor doesn’t have any money allocated for a regular monthly car payment at the start of the plan, the trustee will not approve a loan for that car unless we amend their budget to show the debtor now has the money available for the vehicle loan payment.
What we might have to do is go through the other budgetary items to determine if possibly the debtor is no longer paying so much for child care or perhaps their rent went down. We try to find cuts in their budget. Sometimes, if we don’t find cuts in their monthly budget that equal the amount of the proposed monthly vehicle loan payment, we’ll look at their paycheck to see if they’ve received a cost-of-living adjustment or maybe the withholding for medical insurance has gone down a little bit.
Between a little more disposable monthly income and a few less monthly expenses we night find the extra income needed to pay for the car loan. We’ll then put that amount in an amended budget, submit that to the court along with a copy to the trustee. Then, when the debtor goes to the trustee for permission to the car, the trustee can look at the amended schedule, see that the necessary funds are available each month to pay for the vehicle, and approve the loan.
Q: Would it be in the best interest of someone who was planning on filing for bankruptcy to buy a new car or reliable used car before filing.
Jess Smith III: The bankruptcy code states that we cannot counsel a client to incur new debt on the eve of bankruptcy.
Q: What period of time constitutes “the eve of bankruptcy?” In other words, how much time does someone need to wait between buying a new vehicle and filing for bankruptcy?
CH: I don’t advise clients about that type of activity. What I tell people is that I’ll put $350 in the monthly budget, even though they’re not currently spending that for a car loan, but that they’ll have to go out immediately after filing the case and start shopping around for a vehicle. If the trustee doesn’t receive that request he or she is going to want that $350 each month to give to the creditors.
JS: I told a client to dump his big fancy truck and its $750-a-month payment, which the trustee would think is excessive, and to go get a $350-per-month replacement. The trustee is now demanding proof of that $350 monthly payment, otherwise he is going to want that money for the creditors. We recently met with the creditors, who asked if my client had bought the replacement truck yet. The client said, “No, I need to save my previous monthly payments to accumulate enough money for a down-payment on a replacement.” The creditors stated that unless he does that by the claim bar date, they’re going to ask for that money to go into the plan.
CH: The trustee’s job is to squeeze as much money out of a debtor as possible for the benefit of the creditors.  That’s why they look at projected income and projected expenses. Sometimes they will scrutinize the budget and find there’s some “fat” in it. Maybe we put too much money in there for food or clothes or some other expense—and the trustee will say that’s excessive. We then have to reduce that number to free up some money for the plan payment, which will increase by the amount of “fat” we cut out.
Q: Is there a schedule or chart published by the State of Indiana that shows the average household expenses for a single person, a married couple, and families of different sizes?
JS: There are federal standards (Dept. of Justice Means Testing) that are loosely based on if the IRS is considering going into an installment arrangement with you to pay federal taxes. The IRS publishes amounts they consider to be reasonable for the cost of housing, utilities, transportation, food, clothing, and out-of-pocket health care expenses. The trustees have adopted those figures, but on occasion they’ll take a harder line on a case-by-case basis.
CH: The computer program we use to determine a client’s budget has those regular monthly living expenses built right into it.
Q: Is the IRS standard different for each state?
JS: There are housing allowances listed for each county in every state. For median incomes, the allowances are listed state-by-state, and there are national allowances for food, clothing, transportation, etc.

 

Means Test Helps Determine Filing For Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

by

The bankruptcy means test was established by congress as a standard method of calculating the disposable monthly income of a debtor, to help determine the amount paid to the trustee of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.

We recently discussed several aspects of bankruptcy with Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. The discussion covered several topics, including the means test, the differences between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, how divorce and child support can affect bankruptcy, and the discharge process. Below is Part 1 of 4 of the transcript of that conversation.

Q: In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, how is a debtor’s monthly plan payment amount determined?

Chris Holmes: In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, the general rule would be that the debtor must pay to the Chapter 13 trustee all of their disposable monthly income. So, we craft their budget to show how much their projected monthly income will be—gross income minus taxes—and then we calculate what they pay for rent, utilities, food, clothing and all of their living expenses. So, income minus expenses, whatever that difference is, that’s the primary way of determining the monthly plan payment. The bankruptcy code says a debtor must turn over all of their disposable income to the Chapter 13 trustee for the benefit of their creditors. And then, as long as they’re not already paying off 100 cents on the dollar, that’s what they have to pay.

Q: How do factors such as everyday expenses figure into determining what a debtor’s disposable income ends up being?

CH: Whatever their real expenses are or there are some IRS standards that we use on occasion. Obviously, a family of eight has expenses that are greater than a family of three. Jess and I have been doing this for so long, we understand, after putting thousands of budgets together, how far you can push the envelope on a food budget, for example, for a family of four. We know that if we go beyond a certain amount—a sort of comfort zone—that the trustee gives us some pushback and says, “Wait a minute. $1200 a month for two people?” So, for example, they can’t be going out to St. Elmo’s Steakhouse every night for dinner. They have to be reasonable in their budget. We’ve learned over time what a reasonable budget is, based on the household size.

The general rule of whatever is left over goes to the trustee was thrown out the window in a recent case we handled, because the husband had a job and the wife was disabled. She received Social Security benefits. Their combined income, including those Social Security disability benefits, exceeded their living expenses by $660 per month. Before the bankruptcy code changed back in 2005, and really up until just recently, their plan payment would have been $660 a month. However, in this case, our associate attorney Andrew DeYoung said we are only going to offer $250 per month. The concern was that the trustee would ask, “What about the other $410?” However, Andrew understood that there is an area of the law developing where judges have decided that because Social Security benefits are exempt—off limits to creditors—and that they don’t count in the means test that determines household income.

Q: So, Andrew was subtracting the disability payments from the means test equation?

CH: The wife collected about $1600 a month in Social Security benefits. Andrew was just arguing that not all of the couple’s disposable income should be turned over to the trustee, because the disability benefits are intended to provide the wife with a safety net, in case her health deteriorates or an unexpected medical situation arises.

Q: In this case, had both the husband and wife declared bankruptcy?

CH: Yes, it was a joint case. When the trustee asked why I only offered a $250 monthly payment, I stated there is some existing case law that suggests creditors cannot claim bad faith or abuse when debtors do not turn over all of their disposal income, because some of it—not all of it; just the disability benefits—is exempt from creditors. The trustee stated she was also familiar with that case law, so she dropped that disability income from the plan and, to our clients’ pleasure, accepted the $250 per month offered. I asked her if any Indiana judges had ruled on this type of situation or if there are any related 7th Circuit Court of Appeals cases. She stated not to her knowledge. The precedent for this is from some other jurisdiction where crafty bankruptcy lawyers have made this argument and evidently those judges have agreed, so she’s basically taken a position that maybe it isn’t money that she can demand from the debtors.

Q: You mentioned a family of four, which obviously includes children, and a related comfort zone of credible monthly expenses. Is there any entertainment budget that you can justify as not part of that family’s disposable income?

CH: There’s two things. There’s the means test, which looks at average monthly income over the past six months before filing. There’s also certain IRS standards for housing and food and whatever. If I refer to the computer program we use, I can look at how much is deemed to be reasonable for a four-person household. So sometimes when my clients don’t do a really good job on their budget, I’ll go to the means test and use the IRS standards to fill in a blank. Also, if a debtor shows too much money left over, and I know they really don’t have it, I’m going to find some place to use up that money, so they’re not too rich for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. There are standards for what you can put into the different slots within a monthly household budget.

Q: Where do you find the means test you mentioned?

CH: It’s something that congress established, but our computer program provides all of this information, which is periodically updated. In Indiana, there’s currently a medium income for a one-person household of $43,422.

Jess Smith, III: The medium income varies from state to state.

CH: That’s the starting point. So if I have a family of four and their household gross income per year was less than $74,584, they immediately pass this test. The test is designed to determine if someone has an ability to pay back a significant percentage of their debt through a Chapter 13 plan.

Q: What happens if they fail the test?

CH: They’re ineligible perhaps for a Chapter 7, so we tell them that if they want relief from the bankruptcy code, they’ve got to file a Chapter 13 and offer this disposable income to their creditors.

Q: What happens if that disposable income figure turns out to be zero or just a couple of dollars?

CH: They really wouldn’t flunk the means test in that case. There’s an algorithm in the computer program that looks at what’s left over at the end of the month and what their debt is, and it figures out if you have an ability to pay back a certain percentage of that debt. The program indicates whether they’ve flunked or passed the test; it shows if you’re eligible for a Chapter 7. Sometime you can get around that, because we’re looking at income over the past six months. If the debtor has just lost a job and no longer has that income, we can override the test in a way, or at least show this special circumstance—they’re now destitute and don’t have any money—they’re not required to pay back some of this debt when clearly they don’t have an ability to do that.

Q: So that inability to pay back the debt determines whether you file for Chapter 7 or Chapter 13?

CH: Right. Most people will file for Chapter 7, wipe the slate clean, not make any monthly payments, and be done in three to four months. In Chapter 13, it’s three to five years where they’re making this monthly payment to a Chapter 13 trustee who then divvies up the money amongst the creditors in a certain way. Some people do Chapter 13 because they need it to save a house, to pay taxes, or do some other creative things, but there’s a small percentage of people who are required to file Chapter 13 because they are too rich to just wipe the slate clean. It’s not fair; it’s consider an abuse of the bankruptcy code for somebody who makes $100,000 to just get rid of all their debt.

Q: So that medium income is the number that determines whether you makes too much money?

CH: Right. It’s a starting point. If they’re below that number, they pass automatically. If they’re above that number, then we have to do this more-comprehensive test that looks at not just gross income, but where all of that money goes. Taxes, insurance, rent, food, utilities, car payments, student loans—all of those things. Then, after you plug in all of these numbers, the program shows a green happy face if you pass or a yellow unhappy face if you fail.

Bankruptcy Means Test

There’s a case we filed in which we received the green happy face. We filled in the debtor’s average monthly income and then on the next page it totals it up to $62,580. The median income for a family of this size is $62,431. So, because their combined income was a little bit above the median income, I had to go through the program and fill in additional fields, for example car payments and mortgage payments. There are certain standards, for example for a two-person household with two cars it’s $424 per month for gas, oil, and routine maintenance on a vehicle. At the very bottom of this test, in this particular case, we come up with this number for Disposable Monthly Income, which we call “DMI” and here it’s “minus $371.” So, clearly in this case they don’t have any money left over. That’s why the program gives us the green happy face, because it concluded that even though their income is above median income, because of all of their expenses, there is no money left over for the creditors. So they qualify for Chapter 7. Now if this had been a yellow unhappy face, and the DMI had been a significant positive number, then we would have to say to the debtor that the case would get thrown out or threatened with dismissal, so we just know that we have to file as a Chapter 13. Then they’re in this plan for 60 months, five years, to pay back as much of their debt as possible.

JS: And there are certain things that are not deductible on a Chapter 7 means test that are deductible on a Chapter 13 means test.

Q: Such as?

JS: Such as retirement account contributions or 401(k) loan repayments. Going back to the Social Security issue, the code says that, if you have a habit of making retirement contributions, you’re supposed to be able to continue those under this means test. Then you put your budget together going forward. Our associate Andrew DeYoung had a case where he tried to schedule the ongoing contributions, because she had done them within the six months. But he received a creditor objection and Judge Graham said, “I’m not going to allow you to keep socking away this kind of money while paying very little on your debt.

CH: Even though they’re in a Chapter 13, they get credit for it.

JS: Correct. She had a very low Disposable Monthly Income number under the means test, but when it came before the judge, the judge said this doesn’t pass the smell test. If the client were to appeal, maybe the client would have won, but the client didn’t have the resources to appeal.

Q: Was it because the IRA contribution was too high?

JS: It was substantial. Plus, evidence came out that the debtor worked for a university. If she contributed some phenomenal amount of money, her employer would match it with about 20% of the contribution. So this woman was trying to put away $9000 to $10,000 a year, hoping to get another $3000 to $4000 match. It was not the trustee who objected, it was an individual creditor who had loaned the debtor money and who spent enormous resources objecting to the proposed plan. I don’t know that every judge would have sided with the creditor, but this particular one did.

Q: So the judge threw out the IRA contribution entirely or forced her to lower the payment?

JS: She was in a Chapter 13, so the plan Andrew offered met the means test. But the creditor started objecting with old law—pre-2005 case law—and Andrew and I did not believe the creditor could win because it was such old case law.

CH: But it was an extraordinary amount of her income that she was contributing.

JS: Yes, it was about 15%, so a substantial portion of her income was being deferred.

CH: I’ve told people that if their contribution is 4%, or 6%, or even 8%, that no one is going to squawk. But if it’s 10% or more, that’s probably where it wouldn’t pass the smell test.

JS: In this case, the debtor was trying to only pay about $7000 on over $100,000 debt, so the judge said, “You’re not going to walk out of here with a fat 401(k).”

CH: This case illustrates the situation where you go to law school and think the law is black and white. You’re going to learn how to solve problems and there are definite rules. But the law is actually shades of gray. It’s almost never black and white. One judge might say, “That seems reasonable,” and another judge might say “It’s unreasonable.” It’s unpredictable, especially in state court law, where you go to one county and have one judge rule one way, then you go to another county, with the exact same facts, and another judge might rule a different way. Clients always ask, “Can you predict the results?” But that’s next to impossible, because you just don’t know how that judge on that day is going to interpret those facts in light of the law. Sometimes I’ve had judges where it was not what they knew that I was afraid of, it was what they knew that just wasn’t so. They thought that they knew the law, but they didn’t and they interpreted the law improperly. But you can’t go to the judge and imply they’re wrong. The only way you can do that is to appeal and most people we represent don’t have the financial ability or resources to appeal a decision, because that’s really expensive and time-consuming. The case mentioned earlier is a good example of the gray shades of the law and it’s fluidity, because by offering a plan with only a $250 monthly payment, instead of $660 a month, Andrew saved our client $24,600 over the life of the five-year plan.

Part 2 of Conversation: Differences Between Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

Part 3 of Conversation: Divorce and Child Support Can Impact a Bankruptcy

Part 4 of Conversation: Being Discharged From Bankruptcy

Accruing Post-Petition Interest on Unpaid Federal Taxes (Interview Part 3 of 3)

by

Penalties for unpaid federal taxes are still dischargeable when filing for bankruptcy, but they will accrue post-petition interest that is owed to the IRS. Debt limit amounts have changed for Chapter 13 cases, as of April 1, 2016.

Editor: We recently discussed the changes in the bankruptcy laws with Christopher Holmes, Jess M. Smith, III, partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C., along with associate attorney Andrew DeYoung. Below is Part 3 of 3 of the transcript of the conversation.

Q. What else is new in bankruptcy law?

Chris Holmes: Some of our clients have received letters from the IRS. We thought certain taxes or certain penalties or certain interest on taxes were going to go away, upon discharge. But now the IRS is coming after people—after discharge—for non-dischargeable penalties and interest on taxes that were fully paid through the Chapter 13 plan. In the good old days we would tell people that once you’re done with that Chapter 13 plan, you’re done with the IRS; you’re done with the Indiana Department of Revenue; you have no more tax worries. Now we’re finding out that is not always true, depending upon when the tax returns were filed. So, in affect, the IRS is punishing people for not filing their tax returns in a timely fashion. So, if tax returns are not timely filed and they’re filed within two years of the filing of a bankruptcy case, those taxes are not dischargeable nor are the penalties and interest thereon. Previously, you would throw those taxes in the plan, pay them in full, and then the penalties and interest would be discharged.

Jess Smith, III: Now they’re boarding up the penalties, but accruing post-petition interest.

CH: So the penalties are still dischargeable; it’s just the interest that’s still accumulating, and will be there at the end of the road. So, now we get these calls from our clients saying, "Hey, what’s going on? I got this letter from the IRS," and we have to give them the sad news that when the law changed back in 2005, there was a provision in there that allows the IRS to collect these interest charges on debts that were otherwise fully-paid through the plan.

Andrew DeYoung: Starting April 1 of this year, and this only relates to Chapter 13 cases, the debt limits are going up. That means the amount of unsecured debt that you have is increasing about $10,000. Debtor’s going into bankruptcy are able to have another $10,000 owed out and still will qualify for a Chapter 13 case. It’s now $394,725, up from $383,175. For secured debt, the amount is now $1,184,200, up from $1,149,525. It changes every three years and it can be found in the Federal register if you use the code words "109(e)" or "Chapter 13 debt limit." 

CH: It’s pretty rare that someone would have debts of that amount.

AD: One case that we worked on the debtor had purchased some vacant real estate in Florida, when the market was doing very well. He purchased the property for roughly $300,000 to $350,000 per parcel. The value then went down to under $50,000 per parcel. We ran up against the debt limits on that issue. We were luckily able to negotiate with the creditor to work a solution in the Chapter 13, but if the creditor had not agreed to work with us we would not have been eligible for a discharge in Chapter 13 because the secured debt of the debtor was too high. In a case I’m working on now the problem is where the debtor has student loans totaling $370,000. The rest of their unsecured debt is not very high, but with the debt limits only around $390,000, absent an agreement with the Department of Education, we’re not eligible for a Chapter 13.

CH: The consequence would be that they have no choice but to resort to a Chapter 11, which is primarily designed for corporations and individuals with really, really complicated situations — and those cost a whole lot more for attorneys fees and court costs.

AD: In talking to the U.S. trustee, I was advised two days ago that you would be a fool to take a Chapter 11 for under $10,000 (as the attorney fee), which in comparison to our Chapter 13 fee would be a total fee over 60 months of $4000. $10,000 up front in one sum or $4000 over 60 months is quite a big difference.

CH: It’s rare, but once in a while you get a debtor who has that kind of debt, and then you have to really go into how much the really totals out to be. You think it might be a certain amount, but the hope is that it falls under those thresholds so you can just barely make it into a Chapter 13.

Part 1 of Interview: What’s New in Bankruptcy Law in Indiana

Part 2 of Interview: Property You Can Protect When You File for Bankruptcy

Tax Returns, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and Bankruptcy

by

We recently interviewed Christopher Holmes and Jess M. Smith, III, the senior partners at Tom Scott & Associates, P.C. Below is Part 3 of that interview, which focuses on filing your taxes in relation to when you file for bankruptcy, as well as how a subsidize premium for health insurance purchased through the Healthcare.gov website can affect your taxes.
Q: On another topic, what happens when someone who has filed for bankruptcy has not been filing their taxes on time every time?
JS: A hot issue is tax returns in Chapter 13 filed late.
CH: Pre-2005, if you filed bankruptcy first and you had a bunch of unfiled tax returns, you could turn them in after your bankruptcy and basically all of the taxes were going away except for the ones from the last three years. That gave great incentive for people to get right with the IRS after they’ve file for bankruptcy. Now, they’ve reversed the law to make it much more harsh on debtors. If you don’t file your taxes within two years of the bankruptcy the taxes due are never going away.
Here is a horror story example: A salesman in his late 50s, who lived in Noblesville in Hamilton County, came to us in 2009 with a bunch of letters and documents from his accountant. Based on his recollection and the documents, he thought his taxes from 2000 through 2005 had been filed in 2005. So we were getting ready to file his bankruptcy case in 2009, we made sure he paid his taxes for 2006, 2007, and 2008, which were the three years before his bankruptcy filing. We went through the bankruptcy and he paid those taxes, and then he eventually obtained his bankruptcy discharge.
About two months after his discharge, the IRS started coming after him saying that his returns from 2000 through 2005 weren’t filed until 2008. Because they were filed within two years of the bankruptcy, they were had not been discharged. He swore those returns had been filed and said, “I know my accountant mailed these in.” he gave me power of attorney and I got on the phone with the IRS in Sacramento. Unfortunately for the client, the IRS had scanned the envelopes, with the postmarks, of all of those returns, so they had image files that showed that for some reason the returns had not been mailed in until 2008.
So, he had misrepresented to me the status of those returns when we filed his case in 2009, so as soon as he was out of his bankruptcy when we paid his 2006 through 2008 taxes, we now had to file another bankruptcy to deal with these old taxes, because the IRS was starting to levy his pension.
CH: His old taxes would have been discharged because they were more than three years old, except for the fact that those taxes were filed within two years of the day of the filing of the bankruptcy case, so you don’t get the benefit of that so-called three-year rule, which meant the taxes didn’t go away as they would have back in the good old days before 2005.
JS: Looking back, he had to file his case in 2009, because he had another creditor pursuing him in court, so he didn’t have the luxury of waiting two years and a day to file for bankruptcy. That’s important for people to understand now, if you have not filed your taxes and you want to get resolution on them. Usually, the recommendation is to get them done sooner rather than later to have any hope of discharging them in a bankruptcy.
CH: The moral of the story is to file your taxes every year to avoid that sort of problem.
JS: Another issue that is moving to the forefront of bankruptcy cases – and I don’t know yet how we’re going to resolve it because it is such a new issue – is that people have been signing up for personal health insurance under the recently legislated Affordable Care Act – otherwise known as Obamacare – and then it is turning out that their annual income is too high, so when they file their taxes they no longer qualify for the subsidized premiums they received. they are then getting nailed by the IRS with huge liabilities. I have client coming in tomorrow who owes over $3000 on his 2014 taxes.
CH: So he had a subsidy that was bigger that it should have been because it was based on his current income?
JS: Correct.
CH: So they projected his income as less than what it proved to be, so he received a bigger subsidy than he would otherwise.
JS:  I don’t yet know all of the details, but instead of receiving the refund his accountant projected, the IRS said, “No, you owe us a little over $3000.” What I currently know is that it has something to do with Form 8962 Insurance Premium Tax Credit, referred to as the PTC form. Moving forward, that is probably going to be a common issue that triggers tax liabilities the people don’t anticipate.
CH: Because the subsidy is based on an income means tests.
JS: I don’t know for sure yet, but apparently he sought out a subsidize premium when he applied through the Healthcare.gov website in 2013 for healthcare insurance coverage for 2014. When tax time came in 2015 to recapture, he got nailed. We’ll have to wait and see how this situation gets resolved, but it is an issue that will likely come up more frequently in years to come.

Parts 1 and 2 of This Interview

Part 1: Divorce and Bankruptcy
Part 2: An Experienced Bankruptcy Attorney Can Help You Keep Your Personal Property