Form B22C

[Walangatik]

Hello,

I have two properties in which my property taxes are not included in my mortgage payments.

Can I include my property taxes into my mortgage payment on #47 of Form B 22C or do I need to attach a blank sheet?

I dont see anywhere on Form B22 where I can include my property taxes.

Im confused.

Many Thanks.

[optimistic1]

Your assumption is correct.

See this link,

http://www.chapter13toledo.com/Ch13Newsletter3.PDF

Read on page 2 about tax and line 47.

This was written by a trustee and sent to Chapter 13 attorneys to aid them in how to fill out B22C.

Best of luck.

[Walangatik]

Thanks, this is great information. Have a great day.

[Walangatik]

oh yeah, so if I list my property taxes on line 47 of form b22c, do i average the monthly dues because I pay 8100 in property taxes?

[optimistic1]

Yup. The form calculates everything based on monthly figures, so divide by 12.

[Walangatik]

ok, thanks again. will do that right now:-)

[Walangatik]

ok, does this sound right. Which will more likely be the monthly payment plan, the DMI or the difference between I & J?

schedule I 8914.00
schedule J 8196. 00
and Form B22c 378.60

Thanks amd God bless everyone.

[optimistic1]

ok, does this sound right. Which will more likely be the monthly payment plan, the DMI or the difference between I & J?

schedule I 8914.00
schedule J 8196. 00
and Form B22c 378.60

Thanks amd God bless everyone.

Trusting you filled it out correctly, it could be either based on your income, your classification of debts, and local court rules based on interpretation of the bankruptcy laws and code.

Lets cite some case law on that very intriguing topic.

The Ninth Circuit was the first United States Court of Appeals to tackle the projected
disposable income question. In re Kagenveama, 541 F.3d 868 (9th Cir.2008).
Kagenveama involved an above-median income debtor with a surplus on his Schedule I
and J but negative disposable income on his B22C. The Ninth Circuit held that the
mechanical test governed and that the debtor need not pay more than what was required
by the B22C over the life of his plan. Due to the negative projected disposable income,
the debtor was also allowed to successfully propose a plan of less than 60 months despite
being “above median” income.


Next, the Eight Circuit took up the question and disagreed. See In re Frederickson, 545
F.3d 652 (8th Cir. 2008). Like in Kagenveama, Frederickson involved an above-median
income Chapter 13 debtor proposing to commit to less than a 60 month plan. The debtor
also had negative disposable income on his B22C and positive disposable income on his
Schedules I and J. The Eight Circuit, citing Kibbe and other cases, held that projected
disposable income was all but completely unconnected to the B22C, even in cases of
above-median debtors. The court used language that B22C was the “starting point” for
determining projected disposable income, but allowed deviation in cases of (1) changes
in circumstances and (2) differences between B22C and Schedules I and J not based on
any changes in circumstances. The Eight Circuit focused on what it deemed to be
Congressional intent--to ensure that debtors paid all that they could afford--and less on
the incorporation of the Section 707 expenses into Chapter 13 for above-median income
debtors.


Finally, the Tenth Circuit weighed in on the issue, siding more with Frederickson than
with Kagenveama. See In re Lanning, --- F.3d ----, 2008 WL 4879134 (10th Cir. 2008).
Lanning concerned another above-median Chapter 13 debtor. This time, the debtor had a
greater surplus on her B22C than on her Schedules I and J. This was due to a one-time
payment from her employer during the time period used to calculate her current monthly
income. The Chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the debtor’s plan, which was
based on the smaller Schedules I and J surplus. The Lanning court sided with the debtor,
also citing Kibbe and others in support of a flexible, “forward-looking” approach to
projected disposable income. However, Lanning did not go as far as Frederickson and
suggest that Schedule J could replace the B22C expenses for above-median income
debtors. It merely sided with the body of case law allowing bankruptcy courts discretion
to depart from the CMI calculation in cases when there had been a substantial change in
circumstances accounting for a difference between the B22C and Schedules I and J.



It could be either one, thankfully yours are relatively close together.

[Walangatik]

Thank you very much. I am hopeful :-)