Bankruptcy Wizard
Ransom cuts both ways!
Yes, that's right! What may just start a new trend in Chapter 7 (and Chapter 13) bankruptcy practice is the broad reading of the term "applicable number of vehicles" when it comes to the means test form! Ransom v. FIA Card Services, 131 S.Ct. 716 (2011). Remember, that the Means Test Form is nothing more than the materialization (in the structure of a "form") of the notorious "Means Test" that was added as part of the bankruptcy code restructuring in 2005.
We just love the BAPCPA because now, after Ransom, there are more things to litigate! It appears that Ransom cuts both ways!
I like Judge Williamson and wish he were my judge. In any event, the judge took the literal definition of "applicable" and turned this against the UST. The UST relied heavily on the "forms" and the "charts" which only show two vehicles. The judge would not be dissuaded.
What Would the IRS Do?
This ruling is against the UST's wishes as the UST complained and sought to have the extra vehicle expense excluded! The UST tried to argue that the collection and financial standards manual did not have the "force of law", but the charts did! Silly UST!
The case is out of the Middle District of Florida and is In Re Johnson, Case No. 11-0810.
Yes, that's right! What may just start a new trend in Chapter 7 (and Chapter 13) bankruptcy practice is the broad reading of the term "applicable number of vehicles" when it comes to the means test form! Ransom v. FIA Card Services, 131 S.Ct. 716 (2011). Remember, that the Means Test Form is nothing more than the materialization (in the structure of a "form") of the notorious "Means Test" that was added as part of the bankruptcy code restructuring in 2005.
We just love the BAPCPA because now, after Ransom, there are more things to litigate! It appears that Ransom cuts both ways!
I like Judge Williamson and wish he were my judge. In any event, the judge took the literal definition of "applicable" and turned this against the UST. The UST relied heavily on the "forms" and the "charts" which only show two vehicles. The judge would not be dissuaded.
What Would the IRS Do?
This ruling is against the UST's wishes as the UST complained and sought to have the extra vehicle expense excluded! The UST tried to argue that the collection and financial standards manual did not have the "force of law", but the charts did! Silly UST!
The case is out of the Middle District of Florida and is In Re Johnson, Case No. 11-0810.
Comment