Yet Another Reason Why the Means Test is “Broken”

The Bankruptcy Code produces some difficult results. Sometimes those results pass difficult and extend into problematic. The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho crossed well over difficult in In re Clifford, 2022 WL 16727279 (Bankr. D. Id. 2022).

The question addressed in Clifford is one that comes up in every Chapter 13 case – how do we calculate “Current Monthly Income”? Debtor worked for the City of Nampa, Idaho. Her form B122 listed her Monthly Gross Income of $4,132.47 for annualized CMI of $49,589.64. The applicable median income for Debtor’s household size is $54,942.00. Debtor’s Chapter 13 Plan provided for a 60-month Plan but asserted that Debtor was “below median” income with a 36-month Applicable Commitment Period.

The Chapter 13 Trustee objected, asserting that Debtor had incorrectly calculated CMI and that Debtor was actually above-median. The Trustee argued – and the Court agreed – that in addition to Debtor’s salary, CMI includes the actual cost of any employer-paid benefits. The Court stated that §101(10A) includes not only income received by Debtor, but also “any amount paid by any entity other than the debtor on a regular basis for the household expenses of the debtor or the debtor’s dependents”. In this case, in addition to her salary, the City paid $35.50 per month for dental insurance and $597.00 per month for health insurance. When this additional “income” is added to Debtor’s salary, Debtor’s CMI increases to $4,764.97, which annualizes to $57,179.64, placing Debtor “above median”.

Debtor argued that she does not actually “receive” or have any right to receive any of the insurance premium payments- those go directly from her employer to the insurance company and Debtor could not use those funds to pay creditors which was the whole purpose of BAPCPA. The Court stated that §101(10A) does not require the payments be made to Debtor as long as they are payments regularly made for Debtor’s personal expenses and not specifically excluded from CMI in §101(10A). Further, while Debtor does not directly receive the premium payments, Debtor does not have to provide her own insurance coverage and Debtor’s health care expenses are reduced, thus increasing the amount of a debtor’s income available to pay creditors.

The Trustee attempted to make the same argument regarding Debtor’s employer’s contribution to her retirement account, but the Court held that the Trustee did not present sufficient evidence or argument regarding those contributions.

The Court’s decision in Clifford is not entirely an outlier. The Court cited In re Toxvard, 485 B.R. 423, 435 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2013), in which the Court concluded that amounts withheld from Debtor’s non-filing Spouse’s income and used to purchase family health insurance constituted payment by Debtor’s spouse of an expense for Debtor’s benefit. In In re Aslakson 2013 WL 1304494 (Bankr. D. Or. 2013), the Court held that medical and dental expenses paid by Debtor’s wholly-owned LLC were payments for the benefit of Debtor and Debtor’s dependents and must be included.

Toxvard and Aslaksonat least had one “redeeming characteristics” – in both cases the medical expenses were within the control of Debtor or the non-filing spouse. In Aslakson, Debtor chose to have his company pay the expenses directly rather than provide additional income to Debtor for him to use to pay the expenses, and had the money been advanced to Debtor it would have been included in CMI. In Toxvard, Debtor’s spouse controlled the decision to have funds deducted to pay insurance. Had the spouse not elected that deduction, her income would have been that much higher and that would have raised the CMI figure. But in Clifford, there is no indication that Debtor had any option – the employer automatically paid the insurance premiums, not from funds deducted from Debtor’s paycheck but from the employer’s own funds. Had the employer decided to stop paying those premiums, it would not have increased Debtor’s income by one cent, yet Debtor somehow “enjoyed” these premiums as “income”.

The list of reasons why the means test makes no sense is long and well-discussed. Including employer-paid benefits – whether health insurance, employer-funded retirement contributions or the cost of other “fringe benefits” – needs to be added to that list.

Attorney at Osipov Bigelman, PC (Southfield, MI)

Tom DeCarlo is an attorney at Osipov Bigelman, PC, in Southfield, Michigan. He has over 38 years of experience in bankruptcy, including a 17-year stint as a Staff Attorney to a Chapter 13 Standing Trustee in Detroit. He is a frequent contributor to and a recurrent seminar speaker including the Annual Steven W. Rhodes Veteran’s Day Conference.

Related Articles

Copy of Hildebrand-2016
July 17, 2022
A referral fee by retained special counsel paid to debtor’s attorney violates the prohibition in § 504 in that the referral fee constitutes an unauthorized splitting of attorney’s fees. (Williamson) In re Davis, 638 B.R. 198 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Four years after Lisa Davis filed her Chapter 13 petition, she was involved in an auto...
NBR cropped 2
May 19, 2024
Debtor Attorneys, this one is specifically for you – a very direct answer from our ethics expert on a real-world scenario regarding ghosting clients (ghosting is an adjective here, not a verb! Have a question for Ms. Ps & Qs? Click here – you may remain anonymous if you wish.
March 14, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Exemptions are determined at the time the debtor files for bankruptcy. … This maxim is called the "snapshot" rule because the debtor's financial situation is frozen in time, as if someone had taken a snapshot of it.1 Recent Caselaw The First and Ninth Circuits On March 1, the Ninth Circuit...
September 26, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) "Equity is not an old man, with a long grey beard, sitting under a tree. Equity has rules."1 Introduction Section 105 When enacted in 1978, the Bankruptcy Code in section 105 included an "all writs" statute for the Bankruptcy Courts: The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that...
January 20, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART I: Statutes, Rules & Supreme Court (In)actions Introduction Click here for Part II Click here for Part III Click here for Part IV What is the effect of an arbitration clause in bankruptcy? When . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
August 20, 2023
Equity that accrues as a result of market conditions in debtor’s assets between the time of confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan and conversion to Chapter 7 constitutes property of the estate which may be administered by the Chapter 7 trustee.
February 24, 2019
By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) We all get sucked in, at some time, to try and rescue a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case gone bad. Make sure that you don’t let a bad situation get worse. Get your arms around §109(g). When only a do-over will do, don’t wait around. No Payments for Months The debtor came to me...
November 29, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) PART VI – CONSUMER FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES (CONCLUSION) Introduction In the consumer bankruptcy field, trustees and debtors' counsel often are uncomfortable with the rules in Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). In this series for the NACTT Academy, we have looked at numerous topics involving the interplay of Article...
September 27, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Disgorgement of fees for nondisclosure. The Tenth Circuit held that the “default sanction” for an attorney’s failure to satisfy disclosure obligation is full disgorgement of fees paid. While full disgorgement may not be required in particular circumstances, the “default sanction” principle required reversal and remand. The bankruptcy court, affirmed by the BAP, had...
December 20, 2020
By James M. Davis, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Henry E. Hildebrand, III (Nashville, TN) Bankruptcy Courts take determinations from the Supreme Court seriously. And rightfully so. But sometimes, some bankruptcy courts are guilty of reading too much into the Court’s statements. The latest example is the soul searching around “nunc pro tunc” (“now for then”) orders. Earlier...

Looking to Become a Member? offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.


These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: