Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): payments not later than 30 days after the date of the filing of the plan or the order for relief, whichever is earlier....” 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1). Although the bankruptcy court did not identify § 1326(a)(1)(A) or § 1307(c)(4) as the statutory basis for dismissal during the April 16, 2014 hearing or in the Dismissal Order, we can discern that the court was referring to those provisions when it stated: “This statute says once you file a plan, thirty days later you have to commence your payments.” Bankruptcy courts within this circuit have long held that a debtor’s failure to make payments to the chapter 13 trustee as required by § 1326, “by itself, is grounds for dismissal.” In re Jones, 174 B.R. 8, 12 (Bankr.D.N.H.1994); see also In re Kaspar, 60 B.R. 658, 659-60 (Bankr.D.R.I.1986) (<HOLDING>). Courts beyond this circuit agree. See, e.g., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a debtors obligation to repay a pension plan loan is a debt because the plans right to offset the obligation against future benefits constitutes a method of enforcement sufficient to create a right to payment (B) holding that debtors breach of his obligation to make payments to the trustee under his proposed plan without good cause independently   constitutes grounds for dismissal (C) holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach (D) holding that debtors failure to pay postconfirmation taxes pursuant to terms of court order constituted cause for dismissal as a lack of good faith (E) holding on an objection to confirmation of plan that the debtors failure to file tax returns before filing the chapter 13 plan and debtors failure for six months to comply with federal law constituted a lack of good faith sufficient to warrant dismissal of the case
Output (English): holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach