Taxes and Bankruptcy–Debunking a Hardy Myth

No wonder people think “bankruptcy can’t help me with my tax debt.” Even attorneys sometimes perpetuate the myth.

A few days ago I saw a video of a bankruptcy attorney being interviewed in what amounted to be an infomercial. He was asked by the interviewer whether there were some debts that can’t be “touched” in a bankruptcy:

Attorney: “Absolutely. Things like child support, alimony, uh, tax debts, student loans. Those generally aren’t dischargeable.”

Interviewer:  “So the government’s gonna help you eliminate some of the debt in a bankruptcy. But not the debt to them.”

Attorney: “Not theirs, of course!”

Lumping tax debts in with child support and alimony—which indeed cannot be legally written off, or discharged—is just plain wrong. For him to say that tax debts “generally aren’t dischargeable” while including it with other debts that are never dischargeable, or in the case of student loans very rarely dischargeable, is at best very confusing.

And no question, the merger of taxes and bankruptcy can be confusing, because each of these are rather complicated areas of law. Misinformation doesn’t help.

In my next few blogs, you’ll get some solid answers about what taxes can be discharged and what can’t. The fact is that bankruptcy can discharge taxes of many types and in many situations. Sometimes ALL of a taxpayer’s taxes can be discharged, or most of them. But there ARE significant limitations, which I will explain carefully.

But right now maybe the most important thing to understand is that even as to the particular taxes that may not be discharged, a bankruptcy still usually provides huge advantages in dealing with those taxes. So besides the possibility that you will be able to discharge some or all of your taxes, bankruptcy can also:

1. Keep the taxing authorities from garnishing your wages and bank accounts, and “levying on” (seizing) your personal and business assets.

2. Stop them from gaining greater leverage against you, through tax liens and piling on greater penalties and interest.

3. Avoid forcing you to pay them monthly payments based on totally unreasonable policies (such as giving no consideration to most of your other legal obligations), all the while penalties and interest continue to accrue.

Overall, bankruptcy gives you leverage against the IRS, or state or local taxing authority that you cannot get any other way. It gives you a lot more control over a very powerful class of creditors. And your tax problems are resolved as part of your whole financial package, so you don’t find yourself working hard to deal with your taxes while worrying about being blindsided by other creditors.

I’ll explain all this in my next blogs. Call me in the meantime if you can’t wait, or you know you shouldn’t wait. There is no kind of debt that needs more careful personal attention and advice than tax debts.

/by

Federal Law Protects Renters from Foreclosure

A temporary federal law gives renters some protections against getting evicted from their homes when a bank forecloses on their landlord. The “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act” is short—only two pages—and simple: after the completion of a foreclosure of a home or apartment building, the new owners of the property must allow  renters to continue staying there for either 90 days or through the end of their lease, whichever is longer. So even with a month-to-month rental, the renter would be allowed to stay for 90 days after the foreclosure. Of course have to pay rent and fulfill their side of bargain while they remain on the property.

Why has this been a problem? The public focus during this long foreclosure crisis has been on the millions of homeowners losing their single family homes. But many of these homes are in fact rented out to others. And there are also many foreclosures of multiunit residences—everything from duplexes to apartment buildings. In fact research by the National Low Income Housing Coalition estimated that “renters represent as many as 40% of the American families who will lose their homes in this crisis.”

While homeowners have long had an established set of protections during the foreclosure process, renters have had virtually none. Renters often had no idea that their landlord had fallen behind on mortgage payments and that their home was being foreclosed.  They found out only after the foreclosure sale had occurred and the bank or the new owner shocked them with eviction papers. The “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act” provides at least a modest cushion of time in almost all situations, and the right to the full term of their lease for tenants who bargained for such longer leases.

This straightforward law contains very few exceptions. It does not apply if the tenant is also the owner of the property being foreclosed, or the owner’s spouse, child, or parent. The rental agreement must be genuine, and must provide for payment of rent at about fair market value (or with a legitimate governmental subsidy). Also, if after the foreclosure the new owner intends to live in the home as his or her primary residence, then the tenant must surrender the property after 90 days even he or she has a longer term.

This law is temporary in that it was to expire at the end of 2012. Last year’s financial reform law has extended that expiration to the end of 2014.

Maybe the most important part of the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act” is that it sets a threshold standard, but also explicitly states that it shall not “affect the requirements… of any State or local law that provides longer time periods or other additional protections for tenants.” During these last two years many states have recognized the need for tenant protections. If you are a tenant in a house or apartment that you are afraid is being foreclosed upon, contact our office to set up a consultation to discuss this and any other financial concerns you may have.

/by

Surprising Supporters of Increased Taxes on the Rich

Not only do the majority of the wealthy think that they should be taxed more, so do a majority of Republicans. These are the surprising conclusions of two recent polls.

When the second-richest American, Warren Buffett, wrote an op-ed column in the New York Times a few months ago advocating increased taxes for himself and everybody else with an annual income over $1 million, that wasn’t such a big surprise. He has been pushing similar policies for quite a while. For that matter so has the # 1 richest American, Bill Gates.

But that column by Buffett generated such a firestorm of opposition that it would have been easy to think that he and Gates don’t have much support among their wealthy colleagues.  Not true, according to a survey of millionaires taken during October 2011 by the Spectrem Group, “the premier research and consulting firm in the wealth and retirement industry.” More than 67 percent of those millionaires surveyed said that the U.S. economic situation would be improved by increasing taxes on those with more than $1 million in annual income, pretty much what Buffett is advocating.

Well, OK, that’s surprising. But maybe they’re so rich they can easily afford to pay taxes. Or maybe those in the top 1% being made infamous by the Occupy Wall Street folks are not as greedy as they are being made out to be. Or maybe just not that anti-government. As Mark Cuban, another of the ultra-rich, has said straight out in his own blog a couple months ago: “Pay your taxes. It’s the most Patriotic thing you can do.”

Now Gates, Buffett, and Cuban may not exactly be representative of all wealthy Americans. And who knows how reliable that Spectrem Group survey is. But if true, it’s noteworthy that a full two-thirds of millionaires think that if their taxes were higher that would help our economy instead of hurt it.

But what about everyday Republicans? I would have thought that a very strong majority of Republicans would oppose “increasing the taxes paid by people who make more than one million dollars a year.” This was the wording of the question asked in a CNN/ORC poll taken in mid-October.  But instead about 56% of Republicans favored increased taxes for these high-earners, while 43% opposed them.

I don’t pretend to know what this means. It may be as simple as an attitude—even among Republicans–of “tax the other guy to plug the deficit.” There are only about 250,000 U.S. households with incomes of more than a million dollars, so they don’t get a lot of votes in a national poll. Whatever the cause for this willingness for a selective tax-increase among the Republican electorate, it seems to reveal a disconnect between them and their single-mindedly anti-tax representatives in Washington.

/by