Critical Case Comment

By Kevin R. Anderson, Chapter 13 Trustee for the District of Utah

In re Cannella, No. 14-21398, 2015 WL 1208679 (Bankr. D. Kan., Aug. 12, 2014) (Berger). In performing the hypothetical liquidation analysis of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4), Chapter 13 attorney’s fees are deducted as a priority claim before estimating the return to non-priority unsecured creditors.

Factual Summary

On the petition date, the Debtors held $3,010 in cash, but their plan proposed a $0.00 return to unsecured creditors. The Trustee objected to confirmation under the best-interests-of . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Here’s How a Name Change Affects a Tax Return

March 10, 2019

When someone legally changes their name, there are tax consequences they need to know about, especially at tax time. People change their names for several reasons: Taking their spouse’s last name after a marriage Hyphenating their last name with their spouse’s after getting married Going back to their former name after a divorce Giving an adopted child the last name...

Critical Case Comment – Present Tense in § 544(b)

Henry E. Hildebrand, III

February 19, 2023

When case converts from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7, the Chapter 7 trustee is not limited to the valuation of the debtor’s home as stated on the original schedules and may capture the increase in equity resulting from the property’s appreciation. (Dales) In re Adams, 2022 WL 2079725 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. June 9, 2022) Case Summary Matthew and Katherine Adams...

Members

Plan Confirmation, Valuation of Claims, and Burden of Proof

Robert G. Drummond

November 10, 2024

Some courts require debtors to prove collateral value as part of plan confirmation, while others shift the burden to creditors if debtors cast doubt on claim validity. Here Drummond looks at a new decision casting the burden on the debtor.

Members

IRS Warns of Impersonation Email Scam; Reminds Taxpayers IRS Does Not Send Unsolicited Emails

August 25, 2019

On 8/22/19 the IRSe and its Security Summit partners warned taxpayers and tax professionals about a new IRS impersonation scam campaign spreading nationally on email. Remember: the IRS does not send unsolicited emails and never emails taxpayers about the status of refunds. The IRS detected this new scam as taxpayers began notifying [email protected] about unsolicited emails from IRS imposters. The...

Saldana v. Bronitsky – Point of View

Cathy Moran

December 1, 2024

Stay tuned as next week we will bring you the Counter-Point to Moran’s POV.

Members

Turnover by Motion? How About Under Rule 6008?

February 28, 2021

By Joseph A. Bledsoe, III (“Jody”), Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Eastern District of North Carolina (New Bern) In the aftermath of City of Chicago v. Fulton, discussions abound as to whether it is sufficient for a chapter 13 debtor to seek return of his vehicle, repossessed prepetition, via a motion for turnover. Most seem to believe a motion...

Members

From the Archives

Debbie Langehennig

December 31, 2023

From the archives is a expansive piece on 3002.1.

Members

What Constitutes Property of the Estate in Chapter 13, and What are the Consequences of Failing to Amend the Schedules?

Landon L. McCall

June 23, 2024

Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code is very broad in its definition of “property of the estate” . . .

Members

Small Business Reorganization Act…(“SBRA”) H.R. 3311 – Part Three

October 6, 2019

By Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Topeka, KS) Click here for Part One Click here for Part Two What needs to be in a plan filed in a case under the SBRA? Start with the statute…1 A. Contents of Plan2 Comparison of “Contents . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is...

Members

Cars, Fines, and Chapter 13 in the Windy City

January 12, 2020

By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) The Seventh Circuit thought that it had finished dealing with the intersection of cars, fines, Chapter 13, and the City of Chicago when it rendered its decision earlier in 2019 in “Steenes I.” In re Steenes, 918 F.3d 554 . Alas, it was not to be,...

Members