A recent online article on MSN.com provides some good information about consumers who are considering filing for bankruptcy. You can read the full text of the article here: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/BankruptcyGuide/10-secrets-of-filing-for-bankruptcy.aspx. We would echo many of the items in this article. Most of our clients can keep their homes, if they want to, and even when they have equity up to $150,000. A debt relief agency will often do more harm than good. To learn more about bankruptcy and whether it fits your financial situation, sign up for one of our free bankruptcy seminars at www.freearizonabankruptcyseminar.com or visit our website at www.bankruptcylawyeraz.com.
Archive for December, 2009
Tempe Bankruptcy Attorney notes bankruptcy tips on msn.
Monday, December 28th, 2009Phoenix Bankruptcy Attorney discusses forgiveness of indebtedness income and the insolvency exception.
Friday, December 18th, 2009Individuals facing financial difficulties often hear rumors from creditors and other sources that if their debts are “charged off” or otherwise “forgiven” by their creditors, the individual will receive an IRS Form 1099 from their creditor at the end of the taxable year which shifts the tax liability for the forgiven debt to the individual. Creditors and debt collectors excitedly cite to the Internal Revenue Code in support of their argument: 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(12) states: “General definition.–Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: … Income from discharge of indebtedness.” This “discharge of indebtedness” in lay terms simply means the writing off or forgiveness o f outstanding debt. Thus, the general rule supports the creditors and may create tax liability.
However, creditors fail to inform you that there are major exceptions to the general rule that debt forgiveness is taxable income. Two major exceptions to this general rule are 1) if the debt is forgiven while the individual is in a bankruptcy case; and 2) if the debt is forgiven when the individual is insolvent. See 26 U.S.C. § 108(a)(1)(A) and (B), (“Exclusion from gross income.–… In general.–Gross income does not include any amount which (but for this subsection) would be includible in gross income by reason of the discharge (in whole or in part) of indebtedness of the taxpayer if– (A) the discharge occurs in a [bankruptcy] case, [or] (B) the discharge occurs when the taxpayer is insolvent.”) As is readily seen from the fact that there is one exception for those in bankruptcy and a separate exception for “insolvency”, an individual does not necessarily have to be in bankruptcy to be insolvent. Bankruptcy is simply a safe-harbor which creates a bright-line rule.
Yet, it is important to know that those desiring to raise the insolvency defense may have a fight on their hands. Insolvency is determined on a case by case basis and must be assessed as of the time the debt is forgiven. So if an individual is considered “solvent” at the time the debt was forgiven and that individual later becomes insolvent, the debt forgiveness is considered taxable income for which the individual will be liable. Unfortunately, any such taxes are probably not dischargeable in a subsequent bankruptcy. Before you attempt to negotiate with creditors or seek debt reduction/forgiveness, it would be well worth your while to seek the advice of a competent attorney.
Phoenix Bankruptcy Attorney notes that “cramdown” fails in the House of Representatives.
Monday, December 14th, 2009Once again, the judicial mortgage modification amendment intended to assist home owners with houses which are significantly upside-down has failed in the the House of Representatives, this time failing on a 188-241 vote late last week.
Similar legislation passed the House earlier this year on a 224-191 vote. Today, 50 Democrats who had voted in favor of H.R. 1106 switched their position and voted against the judicial mortgage modification amendment. This is especially baffling, given all the evidence that the voluntary program is not working …and the escalating foreclosure crisis.
If you want to know how your Member of Congress voted today, go to http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll963.xml. If you want to compare your Representative’s vote today with that on H.R. 1106, go to http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll104.xml to see their earlier vote.
Of course, there were a number of variables associated with the vote that were not a factor in the earlier vote, particularly given that Members also were being asked to vote against the banks by supporting the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). As hard as it may be to believe, some Members just could not vote twice in the same day against the interests of the financial services industry. It is just that simple.