 | 
|
THE CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY LETTER |
|
|
In This Issue:
|
July 26 2004
|
|
|
|
•
|
CLE PROGRAM - DISCHARGING TAXES MADE SIMPLE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
PRIVACY BILL RESTRICTS USE OF SSN
|
|
|
|
•
|
REPOSSESSED CAR MUST BE RETURNED
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
MIDDLE CLASS LOSING GROUND
|
|
|
|
|
|
KING BANKRUPTCY ACADEMY SCHEDULES 3-DAY SEMINARS ON DISCHARGING TAXES - LAS VEGAS, SAN FRANCISCO & SAN ANTONIO
The first dates scheduled for the 5th annual Bankruptcy Academy program on discharging taxes in bankruptcy cases have been scheduled for
LAS VEGAS, Nevada, on Sept. 8, 9 and 10, 2004;
FISHERMAN'S WHARF, S. F., on October 27, 28 & 29, 2004,
SAN ANTONIO, Texas, January 27, 28 & 29, 2005.
Additional 2005 dates are pending for Atlanta, Georgia, and Boston, Mass.
Principal presenters will be; Morgan King, attorney and author of Discharging Taxes in Bankruptcy; Charles F. Rosen, former chief of the Los Angeles IRS office of Special Procedures (bankruptcy, insolvency); Eric M. Casper, formerly Senior Trial Attorney, Tax Division, U.S. Department of Justice - Washington, D.C.; and Robert N. Kolb, formerly with the IRS and recently the prevailing attorney for the debtor/taxpayer in two important appellate cases. Also appearing - enrolled agents Jerry Satterberg and Bobby Covic.
The 3-day seminar and workshop will be a thorough exploration of bankruptcy remedies for delinquent taxes and tax liens in consumer bankruptcy cases (chapter 7 and chapter 13), emphasizing practical handlng of tax discharge cases from A-to-Z.
CLE ACCREDITATION
Previous programs have qualified for CLE in all states for which CLE accreditation was requested. The Academy is applying for attorneys' CLE accreditation in all states for which CLE is mandatory.
CPE accreditation from the IRS for enrolled agents has been approved.
TUITION
Single attorney registration $645 until Aug. 2 (then $695)
Double attorney registration $995 (saves $400!)
Paralegal or other office staff $350
Enrolled agent or CPA $495
For more information about the Tax Discharge program, or to enroll, click on red below or call (925) 829-6460 west coast time.
|
|
 |
|
|
VEHICLE IS PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE UNDER GEORGIA LAW
Because ownership of collateral does not pass to a secured creditor upon repossession, the bankruptcy court did not err in issuing a contempt order for violation of the automatic stay against a secured creditor which refused to return to a debtor a vehicle that the creditor had repossessed prepetition.
The dispositive question on this appeal is whether a vehicle repossessed prior to the filing of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition is in fact the property of the debtor's bankruptcy estate. The answer to this question turns on whether, under Georgia law, legal ownership passes to a creditor at the time of repossession.
Based upon the Georgia law therein establishing that ownership of a motor vehicle remains with the debtor after repossession by a creditor, without further proceedings, we affirm the decision that the vehicle should have been returned to the Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor on demand.
In re Rozier __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. 2004
_________________________
CAN SUE TRUSTEE BUT MUST SEEK BK COURT PERMISSION
Merely holding and collecting assets, collecting and liquidating assets, and taking steps for the care and preservation of property does not constitute "carrying on business" for the purpose of being able to bring suit against a trustee under 28 USC 959(a) without advance court permission.
Plaintiff/debtor alleged that the trustee did not pay taxes and, as a result, lost six properties at tax sale; defectively sold at a foreclosure various properties, generating three law suits; failed to file corporate returns, resulting in forfeiture of charter and causing real estate to revert to stockholders; failed to file tax returns to the Rhode Island Tax Administrator, resulting in the denial of issuance of letters of good standing, causing defective titles and defeating transfer of titles; purchases of some properties were procured with funds from the Gambino family in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956; he breached his duty to protect the assets of the trust and to serve the trust with diligence.
The "Barton" doctrine - Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 127 (1881) - holds that the court administering the case must give consent before a trustee can be sued. One exception raised in the case at bar is where the trustee's conduct is done while operating the debtor's business. Here, the court held that merely liqudating assets on behalf of the estate did not constitute conducting business. Nevertheless the allegations stated valid causes of action, but plaintiff must apply first to the bankruptcy court.
Muratore v. Darr, __ F.3d __ (1st Cir. 2004)
______________________
GOOD FAITH FOUND FOR CHAPTER 13 SERIAL FILER WHO FILED 7 CASES
Debtor has met his burden of proof in showing that his current case has been filed in good faith. While Debtor has a long history of serial filings, the current case was filed more than four years after the last dismissal. Because so much time has passed, this court can infer no bad faith and should not deny confirmation solely because of Debtor's past filings. Further, Debtor adequately explained the circumstances of his previous cases and that evidence was not rebutted.
Based on an examination of the debts that Debtor scheduled, the current petition was apparently filed to save his house which was being advertised for a foreclosure sale. Utilization of Chapter 13 relief to save one's home is clearly a common and valid reason for filing and not the type of action that, standing alone, evidences bad faith.
IN THE MATTER OF SNIPES, (S.D.Ga. 2004)
|
|
 |
|
|
PUBLISHED BY KING BANKRUPTCY MEDIA FOR BANKRUPTCY PROFESSIONALS 7080 Donlon Way Suite 222 Dublin California 94568 (925) 829-6460
© King Bankruptcy Media 2004 CONTACT US AT editor@bankruptcymedia.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
