Rochester Bankruptcy and Debt Relief

One question that I am often asked is whether the unsecured second or third mortgage on the property owned by the debtor can be stripped in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.  In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the unsecured second mortgage can be stripped by bringing a Ponds motion.

Unfortunately, in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the unsecured second or third mortgage cannot be stripped.  In a recent decision which also applies to the bankruptcy cases in Rochester, New York,  In re Grano, the Buffalo Bankruptcy Judge Bucki held that in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy cases, the debtors cannot avoid wholly unsecured second or third mortgages.

Joseph and Ann Grano owned a residence in the Town of Amherst, New York.  After filing a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy petition, they commenced the adversary proceeding against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to avoid a second mortgage.  In their complaint, they alleged that their real estate has a current fair market value of $445,000 and that it is encumbered by two mortgages: a first lien with an outstanding principal balance of $511,000, and the second mortgage of Wells Fargo with a balance of $95,837.60.

Granos asserted that they can avoid the second mortgage pursuant to the authority of 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (d).  In lieu of an answer, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.  In relevant part, section 506(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code states that “[a]n allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest . . . is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property . . . and is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest . . . is less than the amount of such allowed claim.” Asserting that the first mortgage secures a debt greater than the value of the property, the debtors argue that in its status as a second mortgagee, Wells Fargo retains only an unsecured claim.  Subject to exceptions not here present, 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) states that “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void.” In reliance upon this later subdivision, the debtors commenced their  adversary proceeding to avoid the second mortgage of Wells Fargo.

In Dewsnup, the Supreme Court accepted the position of the secured creditor, that “the words ‘allowed secured claim’ in §506(d) need not be read as an indivisible term of art defined by reference to § 506(a).”  Instead, the language of section 506(d) “should be read term-by-term to refer to any claim that is, first, allowed, and, second, secured.  Because there is no question that the claim at issue here has been ‘allowed’ pursuant to §502 of the Code and is secured by a lien with recourse to the underlying collateral, it does not come within the scope of §506(d), which voids only liens  corresponding to claims that have not been allowed and secured.” 502 U.S.at 415.  Effectively, therefore, the Supreme Court refused to recognize section 506(d) as a grant of authority to a debtor in Chapter 7 to “strip-down” or cancel the lien of an undersecured mortgage.

In contrast to Chapter 7, debtors in Chapter 13 may assert rights under special statutory provisions for the treatment of secured claims.  Specifically, 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) provides that a Chapter 13 plan may “modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaffected the rights of holders of any class of claims.” InNobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the language of section 1322(b)(2) precluded the bifurcation of an undersecured homestead mortgage into secured and unsecured claims. Consequently, to the extent that a homestead has value to collateralize any portion of a mortgage, a chapter 13 plan must treat that lien as fully secured.  However, in In re Pond, 252 F.3d 122 (2001), the Second Circuit distinguished those circumstances where the homestead lacks equity to collateralize any portion of an inferior lien. In this special circumstance, because the lien is wholly unsecured, the debtors “are not ‘holders of . . . a claim secured only by a security interest in . . . the debtor’s principal residence,’ 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), and their rights in the lien are not protected under the antimodification exception of Section 1322(b)(2).” 252 F.3d at 127.

In the present instance, Mr. and Mrs. Grano contended that this court should adopt for Chapter 7 the same exception that the Second Circuit has recognized for cases in Chapter 13, to the effect of permitting the avoidance of secondary liens that are totally undercollateralized. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the unique statutory predicate of Chapter 13.  In allowing a debtor in Chapter 13 to avoid a fully unsecured homestead mortgage, the decision in In re Pond utilized the authority of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). No parallel provision applies in Chapter 7.  The court concluded that notwithstanding the absence of equity beyond superior liens, the debtors may not avoid the second mortgage of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

This decision forces the debtors and their bankruptcy lawyer to engage in a cost benefit analysis in a situation where there is a wholly unsecured second or mortgage.  Assuming the debtors can file either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, the benefit of filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and discharging all unsecured debt, should be compared to the benefit of a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy plan payments over 5 years, and a likely discharge of the unsecured second or third mortgage.  Assuming the debtors wish to retain their residence, the comparison of two figures should point them in the right direction.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

What happens if prior to filing for bankruptcy, the debtor gives a bad check to someone?  A bad check, Not Sufficient Funds check, or a bounced check, is usually a check which the bank will not pay because there is either no such checking account or there are insufficient funds in the account to pay the check.  In New York, writing a bad check is a misdemeanor, punishable up to 90 days in jail for the first offense.  To be charged criminally for issuing a bad check usually means that the check was issued with knowledge that it would not be paid by the bank.  If you file for bankruptcy and have bad checks outstanding it might make your bankruptcy case more complicated.  For the most part, bad check debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy, but each case is unique.

Sometimes, while the debt may be listed in the bankruptcy petition, the debtor may be charged criminally.  The bankruptcy filing, and the automatic stay associated with it, will not stop a criminal prosecution.  The automatic stay prevents any attempts to collect a debt from you which extends to creditors holding or collecting on that check. Although the automatic stay blocks all collection actions by the creditors, it  does not extend to proceedings by the State or any Federal governmental agency pursuant to its police powers.  More specifically, any criminal prosecutions which enforce criminal laws are not subject to the automatic stay of bankruptcy.  The Bankruptcy Court treats prosecutions of bad checks as criminal proceedings and not attempts to collect debt as long as the actual purpose of a bad check prosecution is to enforce criminal bad check laws.  Since a bad check prosecution isn’t meant to pressure the debtor into paying a debt that could otherwise be discharged in a bankruptcy the automatic stay of bankruptcy will have no effect on bad check prosecutions which enforce criminal law.  If the debtor is found guilty of a crime of passing a bad check, the debtor may be liable for civil restitution, which is not likely to be found dischargeable by the bankruptcy court.

If no criminal charges are filed, the situation becomes clearer.  The debt associated with a bad check is likely to be dischargeable, but its dischargeability will depend on whether there was any fraud, false pretenses, or material misrepresentations made in the actual writing of the check.  If there was no fraud or misrepresentations involved, then the debt from the bad check is usually dischargeable.

If you contemplating filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, or are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a Rochester, NY, bankruptcy lawyer.

One issue that periodically comes up in  Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases is unsatisfied tax liability.  As of late, the IRS and New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, have been aggressive in enforcing their claims with respect to unsatisfied tax liabilities.

One common problem associated with back taxes is that the amount owed by the debtor tends to grow rapidly because of the interest and penalties that are imposed by the taxing authority.  In their collection efforts, the government agencies can engage in a variety of collection activities, including garnishment, levies, tax liens, seizure of physical assets, intercept of tax refunds, and other collection activities.

For many people with unpaid taxes, bankruptcy may be a way to improve their situation by either improving their financial state and having funds available to pay the taxes owed, or by discharging certain tax liabilities.

In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, certain past due taxes can be eliminated depending on how old the unpaid taxes are and whether the debtor filed an income tax return for the year the taxes came due.  For some people filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy will be a way to permanently eliminate their past-due taxes without having to pay them. To figure our whether or not your taxes can be discharged in bankruptcy you will need to know exactly what taxes you owe and for what years.

There are four general requirements for discharging an income tax in bankruptcy.  Initially, the tax must be one for which the return was not last due within three years of the filing of the bankruptcy.  Therefore, if a 2006 income tax return was last due on April 15, 2007, the three-year requirement would be met after April 15, 2010.

Second, for an income tax to be dischargeable, it must not have been assessed with 240 days of the filing of the bankruptcy.  When a return is timely filed, the assessment date is usually around the time a return is filed.

Third, if a return is filed late, it must not be filed within two years of a bankruptcy for the tax to be discharged. This requirement is subject to the following limitations:  (1) amended returns count as returns for purposes of this rule; (2) if in the course of correspondence with the IRS, the debtor gives financial statements with all the information needed to complete a return, this can also be deemed to be a return.; and (3) the two-year period begins once the taxing authority actually receives the return, not when the return is mailed, as is the case with timely-filed returns.

The fourth requirement is that the income tax return must be filed by the tax payer, it must not be fraudulent, and the debtor must not have attempted to evade the tax.

If the above requirements are satisfied, a bankruptcy lawyer can help you by obtaining a discharge of unpaid taxes.

If you are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a bankruptcy lawyer.

In Chapter 13 bankruptcies, it is not uncommon to see situations where the debtor, who owns a home, has both a first and a second mortgage, or even a third mortgage on that home.  In today’s real estate market, it is not uncommon for those mortgages to exceed the value of the home by a significant amount.  Since the secured debt must be paid in full in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, does it make sense for the debtor to greatly overpay the value of that home? The bankruptcy law offers us a solution for those situations.  Debtor’s bankrutcy lawyer can bring a “Pond” motion.  The motion is named after a decision, In re Pond, 252 F.3d 122 (2nd Cir. 2001).

A Pond motion is a motion made in a chapter 13 Bankruptcy case where the debtor owns and lives (as his or her primary residence) in a residence which has a second mortgage and the value of the house is less than the amount owed on the first mortgage, as of the date the debtor files his or her Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition.  If the motion is successful, the second mortgage will be treated as unsecured debt, removing its secured status. As a result, the amount owed to the second mortgage company gets treated like any other unsecured debt, and paid, in most Chapter 13 bankruptcies, pro rata. If the debtor is paying 50% of his unsecured debt through the Chapter 13 plan, it means that the amount paid on the second mortgage will be 50% of the amount owed.  Once the debtor obtains his or her discharge the remainder of the second mortgage debt is no longer owed.

Here in Rochester, Judge Ninfo has written a number of decisions addressing Pond motions.  One critical issue associated with Pond motions is valuation of the real estate.  In In re Dzenziel, the central issue presented to the court was whether the valuation of the property would make the second mortgage unsecured.

The debtors brought their Pond motion, alleging that their residence had a value of $99,047, and the balance due on the first mortgage was $99,813.97 as of their most recent mortgage statement.  Since the balance due on the first mortgage exceeded the value of the residence, the debtors asserted that the second mortgage was totally unsecured on the date they filed their Chapter 13 petition.  Because the second mortgagor disputed the debtor’s valuation of the property, the court conducted a trial on the Pond motion.

Testimony at trial indicated that the debtors originally purchased the property for $101,000 when the property had been appraised at $111,000. The debtors reported that when they obtained the second mortgage in 1999, the property had been appraised at $180,000.  The competing real estate appraisers testified respectively that the value of the property was either between $97,808 and $100,285 (adjusted to $99,047), or  $120,000.

Analyzing the Pond decision, Judge Ninfo wrote, “If there is no equity in a debtor’s residence after accounting for other encumbrances that have priority over a mortgage lien, so that the mortgage lien is not even partially secured, the lien can be avoided and the mortgage debt treated as unsecured.”  The court further stated that the burden falls upon the debtor to demonstrate that there is not even $1 of value over prior valid liens to support the mortgage lien that is to be avoided.  The court also held that the debtor’s burden of proof is higher when “it appears that there was equity available for the mortgage … at the time it was executed; the alleged value deficiency may have been created in part because of a debtor’s failure to make payments on superior mortgages… and [if] the alleged value deficiency is not substantial….”
Reviewing the evidence presented, the court determined that the property has a value of at least $100,000, which does exceed the balance due on the first mortgage, and based upon relevant testimony, the property probably has a value between $120,000 to $145,000.  Judge Ninfo concluded that  the debtors have not met their burden to demonstrate that there is no value over prior liens that would enable the court to avoid the second mortgage and denied the motion.

The above demonstrates that valuation of property is critical in those situations where the debtor has an opportunity to convert second mortgage to unsecured debt.  The bankruptcy lawyer would do well to use a reputable real estate appraiser and be prepared to conduct a hearing to substantiate the property’s value.

If you are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a bankruptcy lawyer.

In many bankruptcy cases, the debtors are not just behind on their mortgages, credit cards and other debt, but also behind on their utilities, including gas and electric, cable and telephone bills.  If the debtor is filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the remedy is simple – any outstanding bills incurred prior to the filing, will be paid over the term of the plan.  Things are less simple in Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

The utility company cannot shut off bankruptcy debtors’ utilities services if there are outstanding debts owed prior to the bankruptcy filing since that would violate automatic stay.  In most circumstances, the services will continue, but the utility may request a security deposit. If the utility company turned off service prior to the bankruptcy filing, the debtor should provide proof of filing to the utility and request that the services be turned back on.  The utility company must turn the debtor’s utilities back on since it is obligated to do so under the state law. Here is Rochester, before doing so, companies may require bankruptcy debtors to submit an initial deposit.

If the debtor fails to pay utility bills that come due after the filing, the utility provider generally can terminate service for nonpayment of post-petition utility bills.  This applies to both Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies.

If you are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a bankruptcy lawyer.

One of the limitations on receiving a discharge in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is that the debtor cannot discharge any debt for willful or malicious injury.

Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code precludes the discharge of a debt “for willful and malicious injury.” As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Kawaahua v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57, 61 (1998), the “word ‘willful’ in (a)(6) modifies the word ‘injury,’ indicating that nondischargeability takes a deliberate or intentional injury, not merely a deliberate or intentional act that leads to injury.” For the same reason, nondischargeability under this section will attach only to injuries that are malicious. In the Second Circuit, the Court of Appeals set the standard for “willful and malicious injury” in its decision in Navistar Financial Corp. v. Stelluti (In re Stelluti), 94 F.3d 84 (1996). The Court concluded that “[t]he term ‘willful’ in this context means ‘deliberate or intentional,’” and that “[t]he term ‘malicious’ means wrongful and without just cause or excuse, even in the absence of personal hatred, spite, or ill-will.” Id. at 87 (citations omitted).

In a recent case, In re Alessi, Judge Bucki held that the deliberate failure to abide by the terms of the contract, amounted to willful and malicious injury. In Alessi, the debtor, Mrs. Alessi,  not only failed to pay a debt, but a failure to pay from funds that the debtor had agreed specifically to earmark for that purpose. The uncontroverted facts showed that the funds resulting from a real estate transaction were accessible and not otherwise encumbered, that the debtor knew of her obligation to turnover the funds, and that through his counsel, Mr. Alessi made timely demand for payment, even though not obligated to do so. The resulting injury was willful, in that Ms. Alessi deliberately and intentionally refused to turn over the sale proceeds. By violating a contractual provision for use of committed funds, Amy Alessi inflicted a wrongful financial loss without just cause or excuse. Hence, she caused an injury that was malicious within the meaning of section 523(a)(6).

Thus, if you are a debtor, you may have an obligation to follow through on the contracts where the funds are specifically designated for a given purpose.  If you fail to do so, you may be denied a discharge.

If you are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a bankruptcy attorney.

In New York, the debtors can protect the equity in their residences by utilizing their homestead exemption. Equity is typically defined as the difference between the market value of the property and the debt owed on it. The homestead exemption is one of the most ways to protect your biggest asset, your home, from the claims of your creditors. In New York, an individual debtor can protect up to $50,000 of equity in home by filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy, $100,000 if the debtor spouses are filing jointly. In order to take the benefit of the homestead exemption, the property has to be your residence when you file the bankruptcy.

I am often asked if the debtor can lose the benefit of the homestead exemption.  My usual response is that the debtor could lose the benefit of the homestead exemption only in extreme circumstances. Typically, in order to lose the benefit of the exemption, the debtors must engage in fraudulent conduct or a clear showing of bad faith.  Further, the wrongful conduct must be related to the homestead exemption.

If, for example, you own a $300,000 investment property in addition to your $100,000 residence, but you wrongfully claim in your bankruptcy petition that you live in the $300,000 property, you may lose the right to claim the exemption. As long as the debtor does not lie or attempt to hide the property from the bankruptcy court, the debtor will not lose the homestead exemption.

If you are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a bankruptcy attorney.

Recently I have been seeing a lot of debtors who have guaranteed their children’s student loans. When I am asked whether I can do something about those loans in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, my usual answer is no.  The reason for this is that the government guaranteed student loans are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, except in extreme hardship situations, regardless of whether the borrower is the student or the parent who guaranteed the loan. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for the student to default on the loan.  In those situations, the full weight of the loan will have to be carried by the parent who guaranteed the loan.  If the parent is already having difficulties paying his/her bills, this may be the final straw to push the debtor into bankruptcy.

When the debtor tells about this situation, I, as a bankruptcy lawyer cannot offer much help. Since the bankruptcy court here in Rochester has taken a position that in Chapter 13 bankruptcy the student loans will be paid, along with other unsecured creditors, pro rata, even a five year repayment plan might not reduce the loan significantly.  In Chapter 7, the student loan would not be dischargeable.

As much as it pains me to say it, it is a bad idea for a parent to cosign a government guaranteed student loan. Further, parents guaranteeing the loans of their children face having student loans risk as they approach retirement. If the repayment of the loan is deferred by the student, this will keep the parents exposed to the debt until it is repaid, sometimes decades later. It entwines the two generations financially long after the student is an adult.  If the parent is approaching retirement, it is not likely that the parent would have the money to pay off student loans.

If you are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a bankruptcy attorney.

There are four general requirements for discharging an income tax in bankruptcy. Initially, the tax must be one for which the return was not last due within three years of the filing of the bankruptcy. Therefore, if a 2006 income tax return was last due on April 15, 2007, the three-year requirement would be met after April 15, 2010.

The “last due” requirement may be complicated by the debtor’s actions. If the debtor requests and receives an extension, the three-year clock starts after the last extension. See In re Wood, 866 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir. 1989). The three-year period is also tolled during the time when the taxing authority is barred from collecting the debt because of a prior bankruptcy.

The second requirement is known as the 240-day rule. For an income tax to be dischargeable, it must not have been assessed with 240 days of the filing of the bankruptcy. When a tax is assessed is sometimes complicated and depends on the practices of the federal or state taxing authority. For federal taxes, the I.R.S. regulations state that “the date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer.” This is not the same time as when the return is filed. However, when a return is timely filed, the assessment date is usually around the time a return is filed.

A debtor will know that a tax has been assessed when they are notified by the taxing authority of the tax claim. The exact date of assessment of a federal tax can be obtain by requesting and analyzing a debtor’s tax transcript.

Another related requirement is that, to be discharged in a bankruptcy, an income must not be not yet assessed but be assessable at the time that the bankruptcy is filed. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a), tax liability must be assessed within “three years after the return was filed….” Therefore, even if a tax has not yet been assessed for some reason at the time a bankruptcy case is filed, and the case postdates the applicable return by three years, this requirement for dischargeability will met.

The third requirement relates to the timing of when the return is filed.  If a return is filed late, it cannot not be filed within two years of a bankruptcy for the tax to be discharged. Under this rule, amended returns are treated as original filed returns. Also, if the debtor provides to the IRS with correspondence containing financial statements with all the information needed to complete a return, this can also be deemed to be a return. The two-year period begins once the taxing authority actually receives the return, and not when the return is mailed, as is the case with timely-filed returns.

The final requirement is the following.  The return must be filed. A substitute return filed by a taxing authority on behalf of a taxpayer is not considered a return for these purposes. There is, however, a split of authority on whether a return filed by a debtor after a substitute return is filed can is considered a return for this test. The return must not be fraudulent and the debtor must not have attempted to evade the tax.

Tax evasion is generally rare and courts disagree on what is deemed to constitute tax evasion for purposes of this test. Tax evasion is found usually in situations where a debtor is hiding assets, constructing complicated transactions for tax purposes, or making false and misleading statements to avoid tax. However, evasion has also been found to exist in some cases in which a debtor has simply not paid a tax while having the ability to do so.

If you have pending tax liabilities, and you believe that you can satisfy all or some of the above requirements, you should meet with a bankruptcy lawyer to determine whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy will result in a discharge of some or all of your tax liabilities.

If you are dealing with debt problems in Western New York, including Rochester, Canandaigua, Brighton, Pittsford, Penfield, Perinton, Fairport, Webster, Victor, Farmington, Greece, Gates, Hilton, Parma, Brockport, Spencerport, LeRoy, Chili, Churchville, Monroe County, Ontario County, Wayne County, Orleans County, Livingston County, and being harassed by bill collectors, and would like to know more about how bankruptcy may be able to help you, contact me today by phone or email to schedule a FREE initial consultation with a bankruptcy attorney.