Can this be FRAUD?

[sjcmCA]

I retained a very experienced attorney who is a former Judge (overall almost 40 years experience). He knows every Trustee and go to 341 meeting almost every day.

Even though his office is extremely busy due to his reputation, he goes to 341 meeting and review all bankruptcy cases himself.

However, when I saw the means test result I was surprised.

They didn't include my home business income and retal income last 6 months but only my primary income from the employer. (These two incomes are negative due to loss and excess mortgage expenses).

I don't know why they don't want to put these info in the means test. I asked to double check it but they look just igonore those income/expenses since it's negative income, so to speak.

Can this cause a FRAUD issue when I don't include the business and rental incomes in the means test?

He tries my case look normal. Probably complicated math would raise Trustee's interest.

They said that I don't even bring any bank statements in 341 meeting, only Driver Licence and SS card. I am living in Northern California.

Should I just trust the very experienced attorney? The paralegal told me that they have very few objections or problems due to his reputation and experience. But I concern...

[albacore44]

Yes. A good experienced BK attorney will know exactly how to prepare your case, as well as know what is customary for your district. i'm in So cal and using a 30 year BK only att who is well known with the trustees. Sounds like you found a good one

[JimKutkowski]

Should I just trust the very experienced attorney? The paralegal told me that they have very few objections or problems due to his reputation and experience. But I concern...

Ask the attorney why it wasn't on there. This will come up at the 341 meeting. This can be fraud if you do not qualify for Chapter 7 and he is burying it.

[jribe]

was the income listed on your schedules?
If not - you have a serious problem - and would be considered fraud.

The means test should have it as well; there's not legitimate reason to leave it off. It asks for all income (including business).

Please remember that " i hired an attorney" is not an excuse for knowing the law and that reason will not fly if it comes up in court.

It is your responsibility to review your papers; and it's your signature on those pages - confirming that everything is true and correct *under perjury*

My advice: ammend your petition ASAP

I retained a very experienced attorney who is a former Judge (overall almost 40 years experience). He knows every Trustee and go to 341 meeting almost every day.

Even though his office is extremely busy due to his reputation, he goes to 341 meeting and review all bankruptcy cases himself.

However, when I saw the means test result I was surprised.

They didn't include my home business income and retal income last 6 months but only my primary income from the employer. (These two incomes are negative due to loss and excess mortgage expenses).

I don't know why they don't want to put these info in the means test. I asked to double check it but they look just igonore those income/expenses since it's negative income, so to speak.

Can this cause a FRAUD issue when I don't include the business and rental incomes in the means test?

He tries my case look normal. Probably complicated math would raise Trustee's interest.

They said that I don't even bring any bank statements in 341 meeting, only Driver Licence and SS card. I am living in Northern California.

Should I just trust the very experienced attorney? The paralegal told me that they have very few objections or problems due to his reputation and experience. But I concern...

[shabam]

Contact his paralegal and have them amend the schedules. Holding back on income can be a big problem.

[music12]

you might be safe simply because your attorney is a former judge.

but i didn't know former judges can represent people in court. i thought they could do everything except appear in court.

[sjcmCA]

Ask the attorney why it wasn't on there. This will come up at the 341 meeting. This can be fraud if you do not qualify for Chapter 7 and he is burying it.

Even though I add the business and rental income, I will be qualified for Chapter 7 ($12k over median but there are more expenses).

I think he tries my case look just simple and not to take any Trustee's attention.

I will call the paralegal to make sure if the documents have been revised appropriately.

What if I have not known well of the bankruptcy laws? I have learned a lot from this forum so I can bring this issue up before filing.

But still this BK process is exteremely stressful.

[AngelinaCatHub]

You paid a professional. As we were, you know NOTHING. You should go by his advice. You are only swearing what you put down on your forms. If he can handle it, he will. I would go by faith on this one or get your money back and start over.

He may know things you do not. Trust him, or fire him. If it were me, I would trust him. 'Hub

[albacore44]

You paid a professional. As we were, you know NOTHING. You should go by his advice. You are only swearing what you put down on your forms. If he can handle it, he will. I would go by faith on this one or get your money back and start over.

He may know things you do not. Trust him, or fire him. If it were me, I would trust him. 'Hub

Like I said, each district is different in how they interpret the Laws. here in Ca., from what i have heard, they dont seem to want as much documentation. If this guy was a Judge/Trustee and reviews all the cases, he knows exactly how to prepare your case to slide it through. I could be wrong.....but I dont think so.

[justbroke]

If the business is generating negative income... then it doesn't really exist. It should, however, be listed in your Statement of Financial Affairs and/or as a DBA name on your Official Form 1 (the petition itself).

Case in point, there is a section form B22A which lists rental income. If the expenses associated with that rental income make this a "negative" activity, you actually put "$0.00" on the Means Test.

Since your attorney is experienced, I'd go by his judgment on this (pun intended).

[sjcmCA]

I really appreciate all your nice comments. That's why I keep checking all the threads here every day.

Since I put all the business and rental incomes/expenses in 2008 Tax Return, I will make sure that this won't create any problems.

Someday, when I clear out all the BK related issues/questions, I will list a summary of ALL my BK experiences. That's the way I can pay back & help those in a desperate situation.

Thanks again for all your consideration!

[frogger]

Unless you've done everything business related in cash, then it's going to be on the 2 years of tax returns that you'll have submitted. My business is running in the negative too, but it's all on the returns, therefore should be submitted (in my opinion).

I'm sure that they will review your tax returns vs. your submitted schedules.

[OhioFiler]

Your attorney is correct and JustBroke wins the prize for the correct reason. If your small business was profitable THEN you would include the income.

If you actually have income from the business but lie on the schedules to exclude it then you have a fraud issue.

[sjcmCA]

My home business started from Feb. 2008 though as such the 2007 tax return doesn't include any business info. But I will talk about this with the attorney if we need to submit two years tax return.

Since I stopped receiving the rent from tenant while I don't pay mortgages, there will be difference between the means test (for the past 6 month incomes) and the Schedule I (for current and projected income).

I think this is very normal since the time frame is very different, e.g., past 6-month income vs. current & projected income. Am I understanding correctly?

[Calthius]

In my case I had the same situation. I had a business which lost income for the first 3 months of the year then we closed it. Our attorney said that because the income was negative that it didn't need to be included in the means test. However I did provide financial statements to my lawyer who passed them on to the trustee and was asked about them at the 341.