The US tax code is stuffed with tax breaks to further some social policy or another.  We’ve made it safer for legislators to funnel money to the poor, the parents of college aspirants, those saving for retirement by giving them a tax break than by appropriating money for the purpose deemed worthwhile.

And these are the consumer breaks.  The business tax breaks, to favor one industry or behavior or another, are more prevalent and more complex still.

Kathy Kristof’s article today points out that the tax code has become so complex that most people hire others to prepare their returns and those professionally prepared returns are full of errors!

The national expenditure of talent and money to navigate the tax code is not a rational use of bright people.  Tom Friedman pointed out last week the waste of talent commited by Wall Street developing exotic financial instruments rather than genuinely useful products.

As an electorate, let’s become brave enough to make our policy choices upfront, and not disguised as a matter of taxation.  Consider what the nation could do with the energy and intellect of  accountants and lawyers liberated from tax issues as a result.

My newest colleague at Bankruptcy Law Network, David Leibowitz, summarized my view of bankruptcy law in the new year :

• Project calm
• Work hard to hone my skills
• Share what I learn
• Stay healthy since it will be a long haul

My hopes are that hard times will reset our personal and societal values, so that “things” and personal consumption will recede in importance in favor of family, friends, and community.

Perhaps we come to understand that the things that taxes buy us are, by and large, positives:  better schools, roads without potholes, bridges that don’t collapse, decent care for the unfortunate.

Maybe even we come to value living below our means and taking responsibility for retirement.

Since my magic wand is out for servicing this  week, maybe it’s enough to hope for clients who will come organized and prepared to help me help them.

Bankruptcy Law Network’s blog, where I write with 25 other premier consumer bankruptcy lawyers,  was recently voted one of the 100 best blawgs by the American Bar Association.  They’ve opened the voting among their 100 best up to the public.

We need your vote to avoid a last place finish in the “niche blog” category<g>.   Actually, we are climbing in the voting.  Put in your plug for the importance of sound information about bankruptcy as this year moves forward.

Please follow this link and vote for Bankruptcy Law Network.

Best wishes for the New Year.

Cathy

Like most things in the law, the issue of how individuals and their businesses relate is multifaceted. It comes up when individuals have a small business that provides a living, but the owners have accumulated crushing debt. I wrote earlier about how incorporation could create a separate legal entity that could continue to operate during the bankruptcy of its shareholders.

My good friend Doug Jacobs pointed out that under some circumstances, incorporation could be seen as a fraudulent transfer.

A fraudulent transfer is one where the entity conveying property either intends to put it beyond the reach of his creditors, or, receives less than the asset was worth in exchange, leaving the transferor less able to pay his debts. The bankruptcy code allows the bankruptcy trustee to recapture assets transfered in fraud of creditors.

My counter argument to Doug’s point is that incorporation hardly conveys away the value of the business, as the debtor simply exchanges his outright ownership of the business for outright ownership of the stock in the corporation that owns the business. If there is real value there, a bankruptcy trustee can reach it by dissolving the corporation.

My second argument is that before incorporation, the business was indistinguishable from the individual. The idea of “transferring” debts to the newly created corporation is facially pleasing, but cannot relieve the individual of any liability he had before incorporation.

It is an axiom of law that no agreement between two entities can bind a third: that is, the individual and his corporation cannot by agreement cut off the right of the individual’s creditor to look to the individual for repayment, even though the new corporation and the individual might agree that the corporation will be henceforth liable.

This analysis is probably more theoretical than real, since the small businesses my clients usually operate are little more than personal services businesses. Incorporation simply provides cover for the trustee who, because of incorporation, doesn’t have to shut the business down as part of his duties to preserve the assets of the estate.

But it does draw attention to the fact that the legal culture does vary from place to place. I practice in Silicon Valley; Doug practices in the Central Valley. Like it or not, even though the law is the same in both places, judges often bring a slightly different perspective to the bench, depending on where they practice.

For that reason, when you select a bankruptcy lawyer, you want one who knows the judges before whom your case will be heard and understands the legal culture in that community.

I have more actions against creditors for violation of the automatic stay going right now than I have brought in the entirety of my nearly 30 year career. What is it that makes creditors so heedless of a federal court injunction?

I have clients complaining of staid banks like Bank of America calling multiple times a day after they got notice of the bankruptcy; Chase trying to foreclose on a client’s house despite the automatic stay; the State of California levying against a Chapter 13 debtor for the second time in two years, well after the bankruptcy case was filed.

Is it desperation on the part of creditors? A general disdain for the law? Budgets that don’t permit training of staff?

I don’t know, but my mission is to make this scofflaw attitude costly for creditors. Debtors are entitled to a respite from collection efforts. It’s about time creditors got the message.

California’s legislature passed changes to state foreclosure law that attempts to require dialog between an unpaid mortgage lender and a homeowner facing loss of his home.

SB1137 adds a requirement that the parties meet and discuss options to foreclosure before a notice of default can be recorded. Lenders must advise the debtor of the availability of HUD certified housing counseling.

What are the constraints on the advice HUD counselors can give? Can they suggest the borrower look for violations of applicable law in their loan transactions? Will they suggest Chapter 13 as an alternative to foreclosure? Do they have contact information for the loan modification staff at the lenders?

I applaud the California politicians who took some action on the problem. (Congress, Mr. Bush, are you listening?). My concerns go to whether any form of “counseling” will make a difference.

The typical problem is that the terms of the existing loan are simply beyond the capacity of the borrowers. The only solution is a modification that includes a fixed interest rate and often a forgiveness of interest or even principal. Otherwise, at the end of a longer foreclosure process, the bank is going to own another home.

I’ve spent the last three days at the annual meeting of the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees in San Francisco. Strewn through the convention site are banners thanking those who have contributed money to put on the gathering of Chapter 13 trustees. Those three sponsors at this event are exclusively big creditors and lawfirms who represent them.

The parties in interest in a Chapter 13 form a triangle: trustee, debtor, creditors. The trustee has obligations to both of the other parties. Debtors come in onesies and twosies. Creditors tend to be national and big money players. There is no organization of bankruptcy debtors; there is an organization of debtor’s attorneys, the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. By the nature of the practices of its members, NACBA is not a big money player.
At the gatherings of debtor’s lawyers, the usual sponsors are those who want to sell something to the attendees. It’s not the opposing parties.

I don’t think that Chapter 13 trustees can be “bought” by free breakfast and afternoon snacks. But just like influence of lobbyist money on politicians, this feels uncomfortable to me as a debtor’s lawyer.

More on education efforts by the Chapter 13 Trustees.

My clients this week had a number of rental properties on which they owned nearly as much as the properties were worth. The clients thought the properties had long-term appreciation potential and were just certain that filing Chapter 7 meant giving up the properties. Not so.
The bankruptcy trustee is charged with turning non exempt property of the bankruptcy debtor into cash for the benefit of the creditors. The trustee’s focus is on the bottom line. For each asset, the trustee asks:

1. What is the asset worth, today, in its present condition?
2. What are the costs of preserving the property pending sale?
3. What are the costs of selling the asset?
4. Are there tax consequences of the sale?

The trustee’s handbook is clear that the trustee should administer assets only if he expects to be able to make a meaningful distribution to creditors. Each trustee has a threshold that he sees as the minimum amount of money necessary to open a case.

So, for my clients, they are likely to emerge from Chapter 7 with title to these properties still in their portfolio. When you crunch the numbers, for each property, the costs of selling the properties, maintaining them in the interim, dealing with tax returns and possible tax consequences would consume all the sale proceeds.

A basic premise of bankruptcy law is that liens pass through bankruptcy unaltered. Post bankruptcy my clients will still have rentals encumbered to the extent of their value. They will still be subject to foreclosure if they fail to make the mortgage payment. But they don’t have to worry that the trustee will deprive them of the property simply because they filed bankruptcy.

Debt settlement companies thrive on tapping the consumer’s genuine desire to pay back their debts. They promise that they will compromise with your creditors for a sizable discount and all will be well with the world. There are any number of reasons that isn’t so, and the promoters know it, but that’s another blog.

The scheme works because the debt settlement company gets a hunk of their fee first, before creditors are offered a dime. And they get it by automatic withdrawal from the consumer’s bank account. I have been amazed lately at just how hard it is to cancel one of those payment arrangement.

The couple in my office this week are poster children for the absurdity of the debt settlement program. The numbers supplied to the desperate couple, 79 and 76, showed that $19K would go to creditors and $16K to the debt settlement company. Huh?

The other absurdity was that this couple had only Social Security and a small pension for income, and they have a substantial mortgage payment. Yet, the debt counselors(!) wanted $1036/month for this service! Needless to say, the entire arrangement was unworkable and any debt expert worth a $16K fee knew it from the start.

Yet, the firm got several months worth of $1000 bank drafts before the couple’s son learned what was going on and helped extract them from the “program”.

I’ve turned the Florida law firm running this “business” in to the State Bar of California for investigation of unauthorized practice of law in this state. My next task is to see if the money is recoverable.

A debtor who becomes entitled to an inheritance in the six months following the filing of a bankruptcy case must contribute that inheritance to his creditors. 11 USC 541 (a)(5). This is one of only three exceptions to the idea that bankruptcy operates to “net out” what the debtor owns and what he owes on the day the case is filed.

As Craig Andresen points out, the contents of a spend thrift trust are not property of the bankruptcy estate, and not, therefore, available to pay creditors in a bankruptcy case. So, if that inheritance comes to the debtor in trust rather than outright, it does not go to creditors.
As awkward as it is, I try to ask prospective debtors if there is any likelihood that they will inherit money in the near future. If that is a possibility, I suggest that the client talk frankly with the source of that inheritance about making any gift to my client in trust, with a spendthrift clause.

While most Americans are incredibly private about their financial troubles, I doubt that anyone leaving money to their loved ones at their passing wants that money to end up benefiting the credit card lenders. It may require that the client swallow their pride to admit to the depths of their financial woes in the process of enlisting the help of the testator to make their gift effective. It requires consideration.