Just filed

[prosefiler]

Just noticed somthing in reading that you are suppose to have filed any past tax returns in "weeks" before filing bk. I filed my 2005 and 2006 only a few days before filing bk. I filed at the irs building downtoen in my city and I am sure it will all be on file by the time my 341 comes. It will be a refund to me but will be sucked up by my student loans,Does anyone think this may be a problem and if yes what can I do

[MajorMike]

I have about 14k in unsecured debt all accumulated before 2003 anbeyond that its all small medical accounts a health club membership, and some misc debts. Thanks for the tip on the tax returns.

You're using your BK card on 14k In debt? Are you sure you thought this through? Even if you DON'T use an attorney, you should still seek some advice through appointments. They're free.

[MajorMike]

Just noticed somthing in reading that you are suppose to have filed any past tax returns in "weeks" before filing bk. I filed my 2005 and 2006 only a few days before filing bk. I filed at the irs building downtoen in my city and I am sure it will all be on file by the time my 341 comes. It will be a refund to me but will be sucked up by my student loans,Does anyone think this may be a problem and if yes what can I do

First of all, why didn't you file in 2005 and 2006? Is there a reason you can give the court as to why you waited?
As far as I know, I think as long as you do it before you file it's ok, but someone else will chime in.

[prosefiler]

major mike I have considered if I should file before hand. I apoligize that I did not use a bk attorney as you have suggested.

[MajorMike]

major mike I have considered if I should file before hand. I apoligize that I did not use a bk attorney as you have suggested.

Hey, go get the NOLO book and make sure you read it.
I'm sure it'll say on there exactly what needs to be done and will answer all your questions.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Just noticed somthing in reading that you are suppose to have filed any past tax returns in "weeks" before filing bk. I filed my 2005 and 2006 only a few days before filing bk. I filed at the irs building downtoen in my city and I am sure it will all be on file by the time my 341 comes. It will be a refund to me but will be sucked up by my student loans,Does anyone think this may be a problem and if yes what can I do

Prosefiler, if you filed these returns prior to filing your bk, AND you kept photocopies of exactly what you submitted to the IRS, that should suffice for the trustee and the court. I wouldn't sweat it. The law is not specific other than to require that you have filed the most current tax year's return prior to filing bk. On a practical basis, yes, that has come to mean *prior years*, but if you are all caught up for at least the last three years, I can't foresee you having a problem at all. Yes, it will be blatantly obvious that you filed your tax returns in order to file bk... but I *guarantee* that you are not the first!!!

Hang in there. And btw, don't feel like you have to apologize here for anything you've chosen or decided. Anyone who has had (or is considering) bk got here, at least in part, by way of choices. Pot, kettle, black. You're doing all you need to do to get your life back on track, and I commend you for that. Don't let anyone question you for it... not even here.

MajorMike, I'm not sure what you're looking for in your questions to Prosefiler, but I'm sure you can agree that what's done is done: whatever he has chosen before now, that's over and done with: he is where he is, right now, and that's what he's looking for help with. Whatever went before is more or less spilt milk, as the saying goes. So... can you tone it down some? I know you're just trying to understand, but when someone is stressing this hard it can come off as confrontative very easily. I like what you write a lot and I don't think you mean it that way, so if you could dial it down just a hair I'd be most appreciative.

Also, regarding your statement that if you filed pro se you'd be crapping your pants... how do you assume I (we) didn't? I mean, I didn't get all the way to Depends mode but *dang* I had my moments. You're right, it's nerve wracking!

[rfassett]

A word on Bridgeport. I used them also and before the 341 I received a letter of inquiry from the U S Trustee's office about the preparation company I used. It was a sternly worded two page questionaire type inquiry. I responded as honestly as I could and never heard anything else about it, good or bad, nothing - until the end of the Rule 2004 examination (which you will most likely never get to do, I hope) and the trial attorney for the U S Trustee's office told me that they did appreciate my thorough response and that they have their sites set on Bridgeport. Apparently the operator is not even states side and has operated under different names until shut down and then starts another. The company is apparently being investigated for not reporting income, etc, etc. It will probably not have any impact on your filing, but just be aware.

[FreshLikeADaisy]

Rfasset, I received a similar letter of inquiry myself prior to the 341. I filled it out, signed it, and sent it back prior to the 341 with all the rest of my docs, and never heard another word about it. I prepared my own forms and did not use a BPP at all; I got the impression that it was sent to all pro se filers.

My gut feeling at the time was that the U.S. Trustee Program was looking VERY carefully at all pro se filings to find out 1) whether BPPs are actually practicing law in any fashion, and 2) gathering information in order to enact legislation regulating the practices of various BPPs.

In the UST's defense, I have to admit that every single notice of deficiency I saw in my research came from a BPP prepared bk, and that when I went and looked up the "offending" forms, I had to agree: wrong forms, old forms, user-created "forms", etc. If I were a trustee and I had to look through piles of forms every day, I'd be kind of torqued too.

I haven't seen anything from Bridgeport at all (that I know of) so I am not directing this comment to them; the BPPs that I saw generating Notices of Deficiency were all locals.

But the way the questions were worded on that questionnnaire... I got the feeling that the USTs were just not happy with BPPs in general. I'm not surprised to hear about your experience; it seemed at the time like it was part of a much broader inquiry. I agree with your statement regarding Prosefiler's bk; I don't think their inquiry into Bridgeport or other BPPs will affect him personally at all.

But I do think there is about to be a crackdown on BPPs in general, which may not be a bad thing if it doesn't restrict the ability of those who would like to file pro se to be able to do so.

Ah well, those are just my thoughts.

[rfassett]

I should add that my forms contained no material errors that I am aware of - and after what I have been through, I would be aware if there were material errors. But the trial lawyer from the DOJ U S Trustee's office was pretty convincing that the particular company in question is on the hot-seat - and it is just a matter of time.