Source: http://hoorfarlaw.com/blog/?m=201207
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 23:16:52
Document Index: 317273759

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1325', '§1325', '§506', '§502', '§109', '§109', '§109']

July « 2012 « Law Office of Camron Hoorfar, PC
The 3.8% Medicare surtax won’t apply to all home sale profits after 2012
Many readers tell us they’ve received e-mails or read newspaper articles asserting that gains on all home sales will be hit by a 3.8% tax. This is incorrect.
Most gains on sales of primary residences will be exempt. Only the portion of profits that exceeds the $250,000 or $500,000 exclusion will be subject to the tax. And only higher-incomers will owe the surtax…singles with adjusted gross incomes over $200,000 or joint filer’s net investment income (including taxable capital gains) or the excess of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income over the threshold amounts.
But profits on sales of rentals and second homes may be hit by the surtax.
Medicaresurtaxtaxable capital gains
Employer-provided cell phones are tax free fringes, the Service says
As long as companies give the phones to workers primarily for business reasons, employees won’t be taxed on either the business or personal use of the phones. Thus, workers will not need to keep a log of their business and personal calls.
Ditto where employers reimburse for the business use of personal phones. The payments aren’t taxed to employees if the use of the phone is reasonably related to the firm’s business needs and the amounts paid are not unusual or excessive.
These same rules apply to iPads and other tablets, according to IRS officials.
business phoneiPadIRSpersonal phonetaxes
Provin Notice to Debt Collectors
Debt collectors often dispute receiving communications, written or verbal, that consumers believe they conveyed. There is no certain way to avoid disputes over a debt collector’s receipt of a consumer’s communication, whether it be a TCPA revocation of consent, a FDCPA notice to cease communications, or other notice.
Mailed notices get the benefit of the longstanding, rebuttable presumption that a properly addressed letter is received by the addressee. The simplicity of that rule often collides with errors that prevent the presumption from arising. The presumption may not be available if the consumer forgets to keep a copy of the letter showing it was properly addressed or fails to include the ZIP code in the address. The use of certified mail gets the benefit of the presumption only as long as the return receipt is presented. Many courts extend the presumption of receipt to a fax with a confirmation generated by the sender’s machine, and some courts have extended it to emails. A consumer’s memory or notes affirming a verbal notice to the debt collector may often create at least a factual issue requiring trail. Debt collector’s notes are usually only a summary of any conversation and may not provide a convincing rebuttal. Using multiple methods may be the best way to avoid disputes.
debt collectorFDCPAnoticesTCPA
Chapter 13- Confirmation of plan- Good faith
Because Code §§1325(b)(1)(A), (B) give a chapter 13 debtor the option of either paying the debtor’s projected disposable income over the applicable commitment period or paying the debtor’s unsecured creditors in full, a plan that pays the debtor’s creditors in full over the applicable commitment period does not violate the requirement of good faith in Code §1325(a)(3) even though the debtor could pay the creditors in full more quickly by paying his or her full projected disposable income each month. In re Richall, 2012 WL 1657132.
IRS continutes to go after S corporations that pay low salaries to owners
Many owners of S companies take low salaries so the bulk of the profits are passed through to their own returns free of Social Security and Medicare taxes. IRS and the courts balk at this practice. In a recent case, a CPA set up an S company to serve as a partner in an accounting firm. He took a $24,000 salary from the S firm in a year when its share of the partnership’s profits was $203,000. An Appeals Court agreed with the IRS that the pay was unreasonably low, relying on an expert’s testimony that the CPA’s services were worth $91,000. The Court held that $67,000 of the profits are properly reclassified as salary and subject to payroll taxes.
CPAIRSS corporations
federal tax returnJob search expenses
Chapter 13- Confirmation of plan- Treatment of secured claims- Valuation of collateral
Neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure allocates the burden of proof as to the value of secured claims under Code §506(a). Concluding that a burden-shifting approach was the most appropriate, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals explained that the initial burden should be on the party challenging a secured claim’s value, because Code §502(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f) granted prima facie effect to the validity and amount of a properly-filed claim. It was only fair, then, that the party seeking to negate the presumptively valid amount of a secured claim—and thereby affect the rights of a creditor—bear the initial burden. If the movant establishes with sufficient evidence that the proof of claim overvalues a creditor’s secured claim because the collateral is of insufficient value, the burden shifts. The creditor thereafter bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence in both the extent of its lien and the value of the collateral securing its claim. In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 2012 WL 1664174.
Bankruptcy CodeFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureThird Circuit Court of Appeals
Credit counseling– Completion on petition date:
As part of the Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010, Bankruptcy Code §109(h)(1) was amended so that it now requires credit counseling “during the 180-day period ending on the date of filing of the petition.” Unfortunately, the drafters may have inadvertently created a new controversy; Collier on Bankruptcy suggests that the amended language of §109(h)(1) arguable opens the door to allow the credit counseling to be obtained at any time on the date of filing the petition, including after the petition is filed with the court. While the court agreed that an ambiguity remained in the language of the statute, the court adopted a rule that the credit counseling requirement must be met prior to the moment of filing the petition. Thus, here, the debtor failed to comply with §109(h)(1), where she filed her bankruptcy petition at 8:02 p.m., and she also filed a Certificate of Counseling indicating that she had received a briefing from an approved credit counseling agency at 9:09 p.m. of the same day. In re Lane, 2012 WL 1865448.
Bankruptcy Technical Corrections Act of 2010credit counseling
CACH LLCQualified witnessRecords CustodianSupreme Court