I regularly see clients who have not filed returns because they have some issue with the IRS, either taxes that will be owed with the unfiled return, or taxes owed from earlier periods. They think they are avoiding trouble by not filing. Not so.

The IRS levies two separate penalties for non filers: a penalty for not filing the return and a separate penalty for not paying the tax.

Perhaps you can’t pay all you owe with the return, but why incur an avoidable penalty for not filing a timely return?

Tax penalties are not dischargeable in Chapter 7 until they are more than three years old. Contain the damage: file on time.

I’ve often commented on the pressures in our society to spend. The US economy is fueled by consumer spending. The whole economic stimulus package is predicated on the recipients immediately spending the governmental windfall rather than saving it.

Marshall Loeb was spot-on with his Six Lies We Tell Ourselves About Our Spending. The excuse that I find most pernicious is ‘I work hard, I deserve it”. Ads fan the flames of a sense of entitlement to fine things and instant gratification. Few voices are heard suggesting that fine living comes after setting aside money for emergencies and retirement.

I see all too many clients at retirement age with absolutely nothing to live on but Social Security. The lucky ones have family that is financially stable. The unlucky are alone and living on the edge.

Read Loeb’s article, banish those excuses from your thinking, and start saving something today.

Sort of unwittingly, I got involved in one of the bigger issues plaguing bankruptcy courts recently: the claim filed in the bankruptcy by the debt buyer without supporting documentation. I objected to a claim filed a client’s case by Roundup Funding, who had never had any contact with my client prior to filing. There were no documents attached showing that Roundup was really the owner of the claim.

Roundup’s response to the objection proffered every argument suggesting it really owned the claim, except an assignment proving that it was the owner of the particular debt in question. This, it turns out, is their M.O., and as I looked, I found $400,000 in claims it had filed in other cases in just this bankruptcy division in the last calendar year.

The Chapter 13 trustee saw immediately what the issue was and supported my objection to the claim, even though the amount of money involved in this particular case was small. Small claims multiplied by enough cases, and there is real money at issue.

The United States Trustee has trumpeted lately that it is interested, not only in debtor misconduct, but in abuse by creditors. The UST responded to my letter on this issue, and professed interest. They then announced their interest in the issue at a gathering of bankruptcy lawyers, as apparent evidence that they didn’t just pick on debtors.

Come the hearing on my objection, the Chapter 13 trustee appeared and advised the judge how this seemingly small potatoes claim hearing had much larger implications. No sign, however, of the UST, who has a governmental mission, supposedly, to police the bankruptcy courts for abuse and attorneys on staff to do the work.

Roundup made a deliberate decision to withdraw its claim rather than appear in court to prove that it was entitled to file the claim. The judge and trustee discussed setting up an omnibus hearing to look at a range of Roundup claims.

Where was the UST? As I walked out of the courtroom, I saw the Assistant US Trustee sitting quietly in the back of the courtroom. Perhaps I imagined her finger in the wind, taking the measure of the situation, before doing anything.

The Mercury News had a great article on CCCS of Santa Clara County and its president Joy Thormodscard. It reinforces my advice to clients that CCCS is the only credit counseling agency whose advice on alternatives to bankruptcy I trust.

Take a look at their downloadable booklet on Getting Smart About Credit.

Also on point is their input on avoiding foreclosure and on reverse mortgages. Keep up the good work, CCCS.

My inquiries among other bankruptcy lawyers nationwide has yet to unearth a real, live homeowner who has been able to meaningfully rework a bad mortgage into a tolerable one. Not one homeowner.

From where I sit, I cannot tell whether it’s because the lenders are unwilling to do anything significant or because the homeowners are not effective in asking for enough to make a difference. Which ever it is, the foreclosure avalanche continues.

I suspect that the lenders (or their agents, the mortgage servicers) haven’t committed to making meaningful changes and haven’t staffed their loss mitigation departments with sufficiently empowered employees. It isn’t enough to allow a delinquent borrower to make a payment and a half til they catch up, or to tack the arrears onto the end of an ever adjusting ARM.

Which makes it more imperative that Congress pass, and the President sign, the Foreclosure Prevention Act with its provision allowing the modification of existing mortgages on family homes in bankruptcy.

Too often, practicing bankruptcy law feels pretty unrewarding. The money is poor, the clients often uncooperative, and the idiocy of the 2005 bankruptcy amendments overwhelming. Then there are lawyers on the other side who are mean spirited, less than honest, and indifferent about the ideals of the profession.

But I just returned from the Sacramento Valley Bankruptcy Forum imbued with a positive feeling about both my specialty and my colleagues. For two days, a number of judges and nationally known bankruptcy lawyers joined members of the local bar in sharing what they knew about the law and pushing all in the audience to a higher level of competence.
I know what it took each of the presenters to put together their 1.5 hour in the spotlight: I was one of the presenters, along with my always inspiring friends Doug Jacobs and Fredrick Clement. We worked over a period of months to think through what we could contribute on the subject of means testing to other bankruptcy lawyers.

Multiply our efforts by the 6 other panels, and you seen an enormous contribution of volunteer time by colleagues to make their competitors better lawyers. Pretty impressive.

Sometimes, it’s not so bad to be a lawyer.

Meeting with a client with Truth in Lending claims the other day reminded me about the power of the Bankruptcy Code to facilitate the sale of property subject to disputed liens while preserving the claims against a secured creditor.

These clients had property they wanted to sell but the amount they owed the holder of the first was in dispute. They asserted that the lender had violated Truth in Lending and had elected to rescind the loan. The parties were fighting about how much the clients had to tender to the lender as a result of the rescission.

Generally, a seller has to pay off all the liens on the property in order to deliver clear title to the buyer. Outside of bankruptcy, they might have to pay the creditor’s claim and sue to get it back. There is some risk of losing a TILA claim upon sale, as well.
Under Section 363 (f), the bankruptcy court can order the property sold and the liens to attach to the proceeds of sale. Thus, the debtor/seller and the secured creditor can argue later over the fund of money created by the sale, rather than having to resolve disputes before sale of the property. The costs of preserving the property in the interim are eliminated.

This section of the code speaks of the trustee as the seller, but the Chapter 13 debtor has most of the same powers as are granted to a Chapter 7 trustee. One more in my long list of why I love Chapter 13.

The latest governmental response to the mortgage mess is an offer for a 30 day hold on foreclosures offered as a voluntary program by six large mortgage servicers. Sorry, folks, but 30 days is not enough time to solve any one family’s housing problem, let alone the country’s problem.

The two things that are necessary to make any meaningful difference in houses lost to foreclosure is 1) a real willingness on the part of lenders to change the terms and perhaps the principle balance on loans, and 2) the manpower to staff a loss mitigation effort. Right now, I’m seeing neither.

Thirty days or an offer to tack the arrears on to the end of the loan does not solve the problem where the house is worth less than is owed or the arrears have arisen on a negatively amortized loan on impossible terms. Those are fundamental, structural problems in the loan. A remedy requires not a Boy Scout with a band aid but a surgeon with a scalpel.

My colleague Jonathan Ginsberg pointed out the play that the bankruptcy filing numbers are getting in the press: his local paper reports that bankruptcy filings are soaring.
In looking at the filing numbers, it is important to remember that 2006 was an aberrational year in consumer bankruptcy. The bankruptcy “reform” act became effective mid October, 2005. Huge numbers of people rushed to file bankruptcy before the law changed.

After the law changed, there was a lull in bankruptcy filings. I think two things are behind the low filing numbers in 2006. People who were on the fence about filing bankruptcy accelerated their decision to file because of the consumer-hostile provisions of BAPCPA, so those folks who normally would have filed in 2006, filed in 2005 to beat the change.

Secondly, after the amendments became effective, it took a while for the public to realize that bankruptcy relief was still available and for bankruptcy lawyers to master the changes in the law. Some bankruptcy lawyers left the practice and debt collectors told debtors that bankruptcy was not longer available to them or for the kind of debt that collector was trying to collect.
Certainly, there was no drop off in 2006 of people up to their ears in impossible debt; prosperity did not break out because we erected barriers at the bankruptcy court door. People’s ability to deal with the debt they had remained unchanged.

So, one should be cautious in drawing conclusions from a comparison between bankruptcy filing numbers between 2006 and 2007. That said, my experience suggests that there will be an onslaught of bankruptcy filings in 2008: the mortgage meltdown, slowing economy, and higher awareness of bankruptcy’s continuing availability will make debt relief look good to the consumer.

The stupidity of the means test as a metering device in bankruptcy was apparent as I worked through the case of a single debtor. Because she is a renter with an old, paid-for car, and no unpaid taxes, the means test will compel her to pay a significant amount monthly to her Chapter 13 plan.

Whereas, if she had mortgages that were double or triple the amount of her rent, or an upscale new car, or years of unpaid taxes, those payments would be deductions from her income in calculating what she must pay in Chapter 13. Her unsecured creditors would get nothing: all the available money would be diverted to secured claims or taxing authorities.

Does it seem to anyone else that we are rewarding the wrong sort of behavior?