Senate Bill 1552B (passed by the House Rules committee unanimously) would provide key protections toOregonhomeowners. The B engrossed bill includes most provisions of SB 1552 and SB 1564 as passed by the Senate and would provide strong foreclosure protection toOregonhomeowners. The B engrossed bill contains the following elements:

  • Mandatory Meeting with Distressed Homeowners – Requires lenders to meet with homeowners who are underwater to discuss alternatives to foreclosure with a third party mediator upon borrower request.
  • Mediation for Homeowners in Default – Requires lenders to meet face to face with homeowners in default to negotiate possible alternatives prior to foreclosing, unless homeowner chooses to opt-out. 
  • Housing Counseling – Requires a homeowner visit a housing counselor prior to proceeding with mediation.
  • Fast Track to Mediation – If the homeowner is unable to get an appointment with a housing counselor within 30 days, the housing counselor requirement is waived so the homeowner can proceed directly to mediation.
  • Advance Notification – Notice of mediation must be sent 60 days prior to the notice of sale, which is 180 days before a bank can sell a home in foreclosure. The existing 120 day timeline from notice of default to foreclosure sale remains.
  • Authority to Negotiate – Banks must send someone to mediation that has the authority to accept or reject proposals for foreclosure avoidance measures. If good cause is shown, the mediator may allow the lender’s representative to attend the mediation by other means.
  • Attorney General Oversight – Directs the Attorney General to draft rules and oversee the foreclosure mediation program.
  • No Cost to Homeowner – Allows mediator to waive cost of mediation to homeowner.
  • Exception for Small Lenders – Lenders doing fewer than 250 foreclosures a year (including those filed by affiliates or agents) are exempt from the mediation requirements.
  • End to “Dual Tracking” – Prohibits banks from “dual tracking” homeowners (renegotiating loan terms with homeowners while at the same time  pursuing foreclosure) by only allowing a lender to foreclose if:
  1. The borrower has violated a current foreclosure avoidance agreement, or;
  2. The borrower is not eligible for any foreclosure avoidance measure.
  • Proper Notice – Once a lender has determined it can foreclose, it must provide the homeowner with notice 30 days before the foreclosure date is scheduled. If the sale is postponed, the lender must provide the homeowner at least 15 days’ notice of the new date.                                                                                                                                                                  
  • Right to Damages – A violation of dual tracking provision is liable for a $500 fine, actual damages incurred by the homeowner, and reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff.
  • Cloud on the Title – Violation of either mediation or dual track provisions would create a cloud on the home’s title that would prevent a bank from selling an illegally foreclosed upon property.

The  Oregon senate bill 1552 is expected to be signed by Governor Kitzhaber.  Once that happens, these new provisions become effective 91 days thereafter.  

The main thing this does is set up a whole new state-run system of foreclosure workout mediation, which is a pre-requisite to all non-judicial foreclosures by any lending institution which conducts at least 250 of them in a year (so all big banks/servicers are subject).  It requires them to be physically present at the mediation together with authority to negotiate a deal and information such as borrower’s complete payment history, copy of actual note, and chain of title of trust deed.  Interestingly, it also appears to allow for a borrower who is in danger of defaulting to pro-actively make a request for this loan workout mediation ahead of any foreclosure notice being filed by the lender.   This could potentially open up a whole new avenue to getting loan modifications, short sales, and other workout options accomplished.

One other significant new provision is the new law will eliminate any possibility for deficiency in a residential trust deed foreclosure action so long as the borrower (or immediate family) lives in the property at the time of the initial DEFAULT leading to the foreclosure.  This is significant because under the current law, in order to receive this protection, the borrower must live in the property at the time the foreclosure action is commenced, which could be a lot later.  This will make it a lot easier for people to abandon properties to foreclosure without worry of deficiency if they wish to do so.

Two more really significant things in here I forgot to point out earlier:

1)      No more “dual tracking” – basically designed to stop lender from negotiating a workout while at the same time pursuing foreclosure – people will know one way or the other and should reduce those situations where the servicer says everything is coming along great, and then they find out the house was foreclosed on the same day, etc.

2)      This one is similar – lender must re-notify by serving a written notice of any postponement of auction which is either greater than 2 days from initial date or more than one postponement.  This will also eliminate the situation where borrower thinks the auction was cancelled, but really was just postponed by oral proclamation at the time, and no further notice ever required to be given.  This will change that quirky and dangerous system of the past.

The remainder appears to be a lot of language and syntax cleanup of the existing statute.

 

The settlement documents of the deal that was announced more than a month ago were finally completed and filed at court on Monday, March 12. They catalog page after page of serious wrongdoing by the banks in their servicing of mortgages and processing of foreclosures.

In my last blog I said that the settlement would be finalized and made public “any day now.” It actually happened only hours later.

The settlement documents consist of hundreds of pages, but I’ll make it easy for you.

One document talks about the past, the wrongdoing by the banks. That’s the Complaint. The plaintiffs are the United States, 49 of the 50 states (all except Oklahoma), and the District of Columbia; the defendants are five of the biggest banks—Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citi, and Ally/GMAC, and their subsidiaries, totaling 18 named defendants. This 99-page Complaint is the subject of today’s blog.

The rest of the documents—one Consent Judgment for each of the five banks—talk about the agreed penalties for the banks’ past wrongdoing, but mostly focus on the future: 1) where the money from those penalties is going to be spent; and 2) the new standards by which these banks are now required to service mortgages and process foreclosures.  In my next blog I’ll talk about these penalties, and how they are supposed to help homeowners who have been hurt by the banks.

To say that the Complaint is 99 pages long is misleading, because it actually ends on page 48, followed by signature pages for each of the 51 plaintiffs. And In fact the document doesn’t really get to the point until the Factual Allegation starting on page 21. The detailed litany of bank misconduct goes on relentlessly for the following 16 pages, totaling 55 paragraphs of allegations, some including many subparagraphs of even more detailed allegations. It’s difficult to do justice to all this in one blog. To try to show both the breadth and depth of the alleged misconduct, I’ll give you most of the Complaint’s outline of the types of wrongdoing, and one or two examples quoted under each one:

A. The Banks’ Servicing Misconduct

            1. The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, and Unlawful Servicing Processes

Failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements; imposing force-placed insurance without properly notifying the borrowers and when borrowers already had adequate coverage.

             2. The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, & Unlawful Loan Modification and Loss Mitigation Processes

Providing false or misleading information to consumers while initiating foreclosures where the borrower was in good faith actively pursuing a loss mitigation alternative offered by the Bank; miscalculating borrowers’ eligibility for loan modification programs and improperly denying loan modification relief to eligible borrowers.

   3. Wrongful Conduct Related to Foreclosures

Preparing, executing, notarizing or presenting false and misleading documents, filing false and misleading documents with courts and government agencies, or otherwise using false or misleading documents as part of the foreclosure process (including, but not limited to affidavits, declarations, certifications, substitutions of trustees, and assignments).

 B. The Banks’ Origination Misconduct

   1. Unfair and Deceptive Origination Practices

In the course of their origination of mortgage loans in the Plaintiff States, the Banks have engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices. Among other consequences, these practices caused borrowers in the Plaintiff States to enter into unaffordable mortgage loans that led to increased foreclosures in the States.

 C. The Banks’ Bankruptcy-Related Misconduct

Making representations that were inaccurate, misleading, false, or for which the Banks, at the time, did not have a reasonable basis to make, including without limitation representations contained in proofs of claim under 11 U.S.C. § 501, motions for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, or other documents.

 D. Violation of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA)

The Banks foreclosed upon mortgages without required court orders on properties that were owned by service members who, at the time, were on military service or were otherwise protected by the SCRA.

 The 55 paragraphs of wrongdoing resulted in these five banks agreeing to pay about $26 billion in a combination of cash and other forms, to the states and to individual homeowners. As I said, I’ll tell you how this is supposed to be divvied up in my next blog.

A federal judge has yet again issued a ruling that effectively questions the validity of scores of foreclosures in Oregon, a crisis the Legislature could resolve in the mortgage industry’s favor this week if bank lobbyists and House Republican leaders have their way.

In an opinion issued Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon rejected a magistrate judge’s finding and rulings by two of his colleagues that big banks could avoid recording notices in local land records each time a loan is sold to other lenders or investors.

 Simon sided with two other federal judges in Oregon in ruling that lenders have violated state recording law. They’ve done this, they say, by logging sales within its nationwide Mortgage Electronic Systems Inc. and declaring MERS a “beneficiary” of the loan.

The mortgage industry created MERS to reduce the need for recording loan sales, or assignments. That enabled mortgages to be quickly bundled and sold to investors. MERS does not loan money, collect loan payments or invest in mortgages. It is, however, named in certain loan documents as the mortgagee or beneficiary of record.

Simon ruled that under state law, lenders must file a notice in county records each time they sell or transfer a note, or a promise from a borrower to pay.

MERS, he ruled, can file those notices on the lenders’ behalf, if a lender has authorized it to do so. MERS cannot, however, simply log those notices within its own database without also recording it publicly, he found. In millions of loans nationwide, it has.

In acting as he did, Simon overruled lower Magistrate Janice Stewart’s previous findings and recommendations in the case. His ruling also conflicts with opinions in other cases issued by his equals in Oregon — Judge Michael Mosman and Judge Marco A. Hernandez.

But it aligns with rulings in other cases by Judge Owen Panner and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Frank Alley. Panner’s ruling, which also came last year as lawmakers debated the MERS issue, is on appeal to the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals.

-Excerpt taken from  Brent Hunsberger, The Oregonian @ OregonLive.com

See full story here

The settlement announced on Feb. 9 has been publicly released so far only in a broad outline of its terms. Any day now the actual agreement will be finalized and filed at court. In the meantime here are some tantalizing tidbits.

More than a month has passed since the announcement of the long-awaited mortgage settlement by the state attorneys general and the federal government with the five largest mortgage loan servicers. A special website, set up by the Attorneys General on the Executive Committee that negotiated the settlement, provides a 4-page “Settlement Fact Sheet” and also a “Settlement Executive Summary” of similar length. This website also provides some other possibly helpful information like the phone numbers for the loan servicers involved and the address, phone number and website of each state’s attorney general. But none of that is going to get you very far in any practical way because in fact the details of the settlement are still being put into writing. The “National Mortgage Settlement” has in fact not quite been settled, at least not in detail. As the website says, it’s still “coming soon.”

It’s worth reading the relatively short “Fact Sheet” and the “Executive Summary,” and to look through the rest of the website. Here are some aspects of the deal from those sources that may surprise you:

  • Although 5 loan servicers are involved in this settlement, one stands out, Bank of America, because it is obligated to pay more than twice as much as any of the others. It’s expected to pay (through a combination of cash payments, mortgage write-downs, and refinances) about $12 billion. Much of B of A’s financial exposure comes from its ownership of a huge portfolio of former Countrywide mortgages.
  • The largest portion of the settlement funds—about $10 billion—will go towards reducing the principal balance of mortgages. The banks have been extremely resistant to principal reductions, and this settlement requires the largest reductions ever. However, the amount is still very small compared to the total amount of negative equity among these banks’ homeowners.
  • In an effort to beef up the enforcement side of the settlement, an independent Monitor has been named who will have what at least sounds like significant powers to enforce a detailed set of new mortgage servicing standards. Penalties for violations will be up to $1 million per violation, and up to $5 million for some repeat violations.
  • The mortgage servicers will receive credit for different efforts they make to help their homeowners. The banks will get credit for mortgage write-downs, but also partial credit for write-downs by investors on mortgages that the banks do not own but merely service, as well as for helpful actions banks are already taking like approving short-sales. The compromise was to provide as much benefit as possible to homeowners while giving banks some flexibility in earning credit for their efforts.

The effectiveness of this settlement will depend on how strongly the written agreement is drafted. I’ll provide practical information about this written agreement just as soon as it is filed at court, so please check back here again.

Chapter 7 protects you and your assets with the automatic stay. Chapter 13 goes a big step further by also protecting your co-signers and their assets.

The first three chapters of the Bankruptcy Code—chapters 1, 3, and 5—include code sections that tend to apply to all of the bankruptcy options. In contrast, the code sections within chapters 7 and 13 apply only to cases filed under those chapters. Because the automatic stay—your protection from collection by creditors that kicks in as soon as your bankruptcy case is filed—applies to all bankruptcy cases, it is found in one of the earlier chapters of the code. It’s in chapter 3, section 362.

But the very first section of chapter 13—section 1301—also deals with the automatic stay, and adds another layer of protection that only applies to cases filed under Chapter 13.

The core of section 1301 states that once a Chapter 13 case is filed, “a creditor may not act, or commence or continue any civil action, to collect all or any part of a consumer debt of the debtor from any other individual that is liable on such debt with the debtor.”

This means that a creditor on a consumer debt, who is already stopped by the general automatic stay provisions of section 362 from doing anything to collect a debt directly from the debtor, is also stopped from collecting on the same debt from anybody else who is co-signed or otherwise also obligated to pay that debt.

If you think about it, that’s rather powerful. You are given the ability to protect somebody—often somebody your really care about—who is not filing bankruptcy and so is not even directly in front of the court. The person being protected may not even know that you are protecting them from the creditor.

This “co-debtor” protection does have some important conditions and limits:

1. It applies only to “consumer debts” (those “incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose”).

2. For purposes of this code section, income tax debts are not considered “consumer debts.” So spouses on jointly filed tax returns or business associates with whom you share a tax liability are NOT protected.

3. This protection does not extend to those who “became liable on… such debt in the ordinary course of such individual’s business.”

4. Creditors can ask for and get permission to pursue the otherwise protected co-debtor to the extent that:

(a)  the co-debtor received the benefit of the loan or whatever “consideration” was provided by the creditor (instead of the person filing the bankruptcy), or

(b)  the Chapter 13 plan “proposes not to pay such claim.”

5. This co-debtor stay evaporates as soon as the Chapter 13 case is completed, or if it’s dismissed (such as for failure to make the plan payments), or converted into a Chapter 7 case.

Choosing between Chapter 7 and 13 often involves weighing a series of considerations. If you want to insulate a co-signer or someone liable on a debt with you from any adverse consequences of your bankruptcy case, that is one consideration that will likely push you in the Chapter 13 direction because of the co-debtor stay.

Eligibility can turn on 1) who is filing the bankruptcy, 2) the kinds and amounts of debts, 3) the amount of income, and 4) the amount of expenses.

1) Who is filing the bankruptcy:

If you are a human being (or a human being and his or her spouse), you can file either a Chapter 7 or 13 case.

If you are a part owner of a partnership or corporation, that partnership or corporation cannot file a Chapter 13 case. But it can file a Chapter 7 one. And it can do so whether or not you also file one individually.

2) The kinds and amounts of debts:

If you have “primarily consumer debts” (more than 50% by dollar amount), then you have to pass the “means test” to be allowed to be in a Chapter 7 case. (More about that below.)

Chapter 7 has no restriction on the amount of debt allowed. In contrast, Chapter 13 is restricted to cases with a maximum of $360,475 in unsecured debts and $1,081,400 in secured debts.

3) Amount of income:

The “means test” in Chapter 7 is quickly satisfied if your income is no more than the published “median income” for your family size and state.

Chapter 13 requires “regular income,” which is defined in somewhat circular fashion to be income “sufficiently stable and regular” to enable you to “make payments under a [Chapter 13] plan.” Also, if the income is less than the “median income” applicable to your family size and state, then the plan will generally last three years; if the income is at the applicable “median income” amount or more, the plan will last five years.

4) The amount of expenses:

In Chapter 7, if you are not below “median income,” then you enter into a largely mathematical test involving your expenses to see if you pass the “means test” and are eligible for filing a Chapter 7 case.

In Chapter 13, a similar calculation largely determines the amount you must pay monthly into your plan to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 13.

 

Choosing between Chapter 7 and 13 can often be very simple and obvious. But there are at least a dozen major differences among them, ones that you may well not be aware of. So when you come in to see me or another attorney, be clear about your goals but also open-minded about how to reach them. You may well have tools available that you were not aware of.

Get the maximum benefit from your bankruptcy against your taxes by following these sophisticated strategies.

Pre-bankruptcy planning to position a debtor in the best way for discharging or for otherwise favorably dealing with tax debts is one of the more complicated tasks handled by a bankruptcy attorney. Do NOT attempt these strategies, including the five mentioned here, without an attorney, indeed frankly without an attorney who focuses his or her law practice on bankruptcy. Elsewhere in this website I make clear that you cannot take anything in this website, including what I write in these blogs, as legal advice. That’s especially true in this very sophisticated area. Also, I could write a chapter in a book on each of these five strategies, so all I’m doing here is introducing you to them, to begin the discussion when you come in to see me.

1st:  Wait out the appropriate legal periods before the filing of your bankruptcy case.

As you may know from elsewhere in these blogs, most (but not all) forms of income tax become dischargeable after the passing of specific periods of time. Much of pre-bankruptcy tax strategy turns on figuring out precisely when each of your tax liabilities will become dischargeable, and then either waiting to file bankruptcy until all those liabilities are dischargeable, or, when under serious time pressure to file, at least when the maximum amount will be discharged as is possible under the circumstances.

2nd:  File past-due returns to start the clock running on those as soon as possible.

If you know you owe taxes for prior years and don’t have the money to pay them, your gut feeling may well be to avoid filing those tax returns in an attempt to “fly under the radar” as long as you can. But irrespective of any other rules, you cannot discharge a tax debt until two years after the pertinent tax return has been filed. Get good advice about how to deal with the IRS or other taxing authority during those two years so that you take appropriate steps to protect yourself and your assets. You deserve a rational basis for getting beyond your understandable fears about this.

3rd:  Try to stay in compliance with the new tax year(s) while you wait to file your bankruptcy case, by designating tax payments to the more recent tax years instead of older ones.

Because recent tax year tax liabilities cannot be discharged in a Chapter 7 case and must be paid in full as a priority debt in a Chapter 13 case, you want to try to stay current on your most recent tax debts. It’s also usually a necessary step in keeping the IRS and its ilk from taking aggressive action against you, thus allowing you to wait longer and discharge more taxes. With the IRS in particular you can and should explicitly designate which tax account any particular tax payments are to be applied to achieve this purpose.

4th:  Avoid tax fraud and evasion, and whenever possible, withholding taxes.

Simply put, you can’t ever discharge any taxes related to fraud, fraudulent tax returns, or tax evasion, so avoid these kinds of illegal behavior. If you have any doubt, talk to a knowledgeable tax accountant or attorney. Unpaid tax withholdings also cannot be discharged, so either try to avoid them from accruing, focus your resources on paying them off, or just recognize that they will either have to be paid after your Chapter 7 case or as a priority debt during your Chapter 13 case.

5th:  Be aware of tax liens.

Tax lien claims have to be paid in full in Chapter 13, with interest, and can survive a Chapter 7 discharge. So try to avoid having the taxing authority record a tax lien against you—admittedly sometimes easier said than done. Or if that is not possible, at least refrain from building up equity in possessions or real estate. That equity, although often exempt from the clutches of the bankruptcy trustee and most creditors, is still subject to a tax lien. So any built up equity just increases what you will have to pay to the taxing authority on debt you might otherwise been able to discharge completely.

A Chapter 13 case can be such a good tool for dealing with income tax debt, especially if you owe more than just a year or two of taxes. BUT, you lose those benefits if you don’t successfully finish paying off the Chapter 13 plan. So, go into it only if you have both a burning desire to make it all the way and a truly feasible plan with which to do so.

Chapter 13 often enables you to tame the tax debt beast in a very tidy package. Often you can discharge (write off) some of your tax debts, and pay substantially less on the taxes you must pay, by avoiding or reducing interest and penalties. And you can usually do all this while paying less per month and while being protected from all the nasty collection mechanisms in the tax authorities’ arsenal.

However, the truth that you need to keep in the front and center of your mind is that it’s all conditional: you don’t get the prize until the end of the race. And if you don’t get to the end of the race, no prize for you. The prize is the discharge—the discharge of the debts for the tax years that can be discharged, and of the interest and penalties that you would owe if you weren’t in a Chapter 13 case. You have to get through the whole race–pay your plan payments as scheduled and meet the other requirements of your plan (such as sending yearly tax returns to your trustee, and keeping current on any ongoing child or spousal support payments).

Now this doesn’t mean that your Chapter 13 case is inflexible. Depending on the situation, an experienced attorney will likely be able to build some flexibility into the terms of your original plan. Or if your circumstances change, your plan can usually be amended accordingly.

But look at it this way: the IRS and any other tax authorities are put on hold and have to accept the reductions and the write-offs while your Chapter 13 case is proceeding. But in the background they continue tracking what you would owe—including accrued interest and penalties–if you weren’t in a Chapter 13 case.  If at any time during your case you do not comply with the terms of your plan and, after appropriate warnings, your case gets dismissed (thrown out), leaving the tax authorities no longer be prevented from chasing you. At that time all those taxes, interest and penalties that your Chapter 13 case would have avoided would come roaring back at you.

This is something you want to avoid at all cost. How do you avoid getting your Chapter 13 dismissed?

  • Be fully engaged in the process of putting your Chapter 13 plan together at the beginning of your case, so that you understand its terms and truly believe that you can consistently comply with them.
  • Keep track of your progress throughout your case, both to stay motivated and to catch any potential problems early.
  • Inform your attorney if your financial circumstances change, whether they improve, so that you can account for increased disposable income, or if they deteriorate, so that you can reduce your required plan payments or take other appropriate action.

Your Chapter 7 trustee can use your unneeded assets to pay current-year income taxes if you split the calendar tax year into two: the pre-bankruptcy and post-bankruptcy “short years.”

I’m closing this series on taxes and bankruptcy with three blogs on some relatively sophisticated topics. The tools I discuss do not apply to most cases. But when they do, they can save you a lot of amount of money, and better meet your goals. This first one is a good example.

Let’s first set the scene. If you have substantial income tax liabilities, especially if they are spread over a number of years, Chapter 13 is often the best tool for dealing with them. But a Chapter 13 takes three to five years. Sometimes a Chapter 7 case accomplishes enough so that it’s the better option. If your taxes are old enough and you meet a series of conditions (see my last blog about this), a Chapter 7 case could discharge (legally write off) most or all of your tax debts. But even if Chapter 7 would leave you with a significant nondischargeable tax debt, it might still make more sense as long as you could anticipate a reliable and manageable arrangement for satisfying that one last debt outside of bankruptcy. Getting in and out of bankruptcy in a matter of months instead of up to five years may be worth a lot to you.

The short year election could help just enough to make Chapter 7 a feasible option, and therefore the preferred option. That’s  because it can enable more of your nondischargeable taxes to be paid by the Chapter 7 trustee, leaving you owing less taxes at the completion of your bankruptcy case.

As I said in the first sentence of this blog, the short year election allows you to split your tax year into two tax portions, each of which is treated as its own tax year. The first “short year” covers from January 1 of that year to the day immediately before the filing of your Chapter 7 case, and the other “short year” is the rest of the year—from the date of filing your case until December 31.  

How can this possibly help? Two ways.

1. It allows any taxes you may owe for the short year before filing the Chapter 7 case to be a “priority” debt in your case, so that it can be paid from assets collected by the Chapter 7 trustee. This turns debt that would have been treated as incurred after the filing of the case, and thus wholly your obligation, into one that may be paid in whole or in part by the trustee. This can reduce or eliminate the current year tax debt, leaving you with either less or none to pay after your bankruptcy case is over.

2. It allows you to apply any loss carry forwards or credit carry forwards from the prior tax year to the income earned during that same pre-bankruptcy short year. The loss carry forwards reduce the tax for that short year, thus reducing any your potential tax debt owed after your case is finished. The credit carry forwards increase the tax for that short year, but that gives the trustee the opportunity to pay it if there are estate assets with which to do so. Each in their own way can increase the possibility that you will have less or no taxes to pay after your case is over.

The context that this works best in is a closed business or some other situation where the debtors have non-exempt assets that they do not mind surrendering to the trustee in return for a discharge of most of or all of the debts. Imagine a spouse who had been trying to run a business, and then had to close it down. The other spouse has a relatively high salary or other income but stopped paying withholdings or quarterly estimated taxes at the beginning of the year because of the lack of income from the other spouse closing down the business. By three-fourths of the way through the year, a substantial amount of tax liability could accrue. They may not be able to simply wait until after the end of the year because of pressure from creditors. The short year election allows the tax debt accrued through three-fourths of the year to be potentially paid by the trustee by liquidating the no longer needed business assets. The trustee may also have funds from other sources, such as preferential payments from a creditor or two.

So, through the benefit of the short year election, in the right circumstances the trustee could pay thousands of dollars of your nondischargeable tax debt by liquidating assets that you no longer need, instead of having this same money just going to your other creditors. And to the extent that the trustee would be getting some of that money through forced reimbursement of creditor’s preference payments, some of your taxes would be indirectly paid by those creditors. Not often that you can get somebody else to pay your taxes.

As I said at the beginning, the short year election is a tool which applies only limited cases, but when it does it can be extremely helpful.

 

NOTE: This election is available ONLY in asset Chapter 7 cases–not Chapter 13s or no-asset Chapter 7s.

What income taxes can a Chapter 7 bankruptcy completely write off?

My last blog ended saying how Chapter 13 lets you pay off certain income taxes much more conveniently because you’re protected from the tax collector and can usually avoid paying substantial amounts of interest and penalties. But that’s for taxes you can’t write off. What exactly does it take to write off a tax completely?

It takes meeting four main conditions.

But before I list and describe these, I have to emphasize that this whole area—dealing with tax debts in bankruptcy—is a very complex one. I present the information in these blogs to you because the more you know the better. But part of being informed is knowing when you definitely need an attorney’s help. So, part of my job is to make very clear when you are in a particularly difficult area, when you truly need the help of someone who spends his or her professional life thoroughly understanding the complex rules, and constantly applying them in the real world. This is clearly one of those areas.

And now on to those four main conditions for writing off income taxes.  

1. Have three years passed since the tax return was due?

This one is pretty straightforward, because every income tax debt has a due date for the filing of its tax return. The important twist here: if you requested an extension of time—usually from April 15 to October 15—the three-year period does not begin until the extended due date.  

2. Have two years passed since the applicable tax return was actually filed?

It does not matter how ancient the tax if at least two years have not passed since the return was in fact filed. And a “substitute for return”—the common procedure in which the IRS in effect prepares a tax return on your behalf based on the (usually incomplete) information it has available—that doesn’t count as a filed return for this purpose.  

3. Have 240 days passed since assessment of the tax?

In most situations an income tax is assessed within a few weeks after you file it. Assessment is the tax authority’s formal determination of your tax liability, usually through its review and acceptance of your tax return. But sometimes the amount of tax is in dispute because of a tax audit or litigation about the amount. By the time the accurate tax amount is finally assessed, the above three-year or two-year time periods may have passed, but that tax cannot be written off unless that bankruptcy case is filed more than 240 days after the assessment. This 240-day period is also put on hold while a taxpayer’s “offer in compromise” is pending. Just like it sounds, that’s an offer to the IRS to settle the tax for less money or for specific payment terms.

4. Have you filed a fraudulent tax return or intentionally attempted to evade the tax?

Even if all the required time periods have passed, if you were dishonest on your tax return—such as not including some of your income or claiming invalid deductions–or tried to avoid paying a tax in some other way, that tax will not be written off in bankruptcy.

This discussion should give you a good idea whether any or all of your income tax debts can be written off in a bankruptcy. And in some cases applying these four conditions will give you the accurate answer. But there are some other considerations that can come into play. What if the IRS recorded a tax lien against your home and on your personal possessions?  How would a prior bankruptcy affect these timing rules? What about your appeal of a tax? What’s considered an honest mistake on a tax return instead of an intentional tax evasion? When can the taxing authority add a 30-day “tack-on” to the 240-day rule?

Bankruptcy can certainly write off income taxes under the right circumstances, but you need to have an experienced attorney review your personal situation to see if you truly meet those circumstances.