Calculating the 6 month lookback with calendar anomalies

[mikepierce4]

Doing a case where the vagaries of the calendar include 27 weekly paychecks rather than 26 in the full previous 6 months, in a year that will produce 52 overall. If using the larger number, when doubled, it would distort annual income by 3%. In this case this is the difference between qualifying for a 7 or not. Can't find statutory support to help me figure this out. I feel that the 26 week data should be valid, but it does not fit into a strict reading of the code. Anyone deal with this before?

[justbroke]

My thinking is that if you're that close to a Chapter 7 and 3% is causing the case to be a "presumption of abuse'" then you need to just complete the entire B-122A and deal with the expenses appropriately. There is nothing that says that an "over-the-median" income person does not qualify for a Chapter 7 discharge. I don't think you'll find anything in the code. It will more be general practice for that District/Trustee/UST.

After Lanning, I would think that even in a Chapter 7 you could use averaging for 12 months based on a looking forward approach. But that's just my personal non-professional opinion.

Maybe despritfreya has an opinion and/or general practice.

[despritfreya]

I have no additional words of wisdom from what has been said by JB. If you are over median, complete the means test to see if there is disposable income left over. As to the pay periods, I do not believe it matters. The income is based upon what was received within that 6 month window, not what could have been received if the additional pay period were removed.

Des.