Bankruptcy Attorney Paul

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23, enacted April 20, 2005), providing for significant changes in bankruptcy in the United States, was passed by the 109th United States Congress on April 14, 2005 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 20, 2005.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) made sweeping changes to American bankruptcy laws, affecting both consumer and business bankruptcies. Many of the bill's provisions were explicitly designed by the bill's Congressional sponsors to make it "more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy."[1] Although the BAPCPA was intended to make it more difficult for debtors to file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy--under which most debts are forgiven (or discharged)--and instead force debtors to file a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy--under which debts are discharged only after the debtor has repaid some portion of these debts--the Act has not been effective in practice.[citation needed] Approximately 85% of debtors are not subject to its "means test" and a large percentage of the rest are able to "pass" the means test.

Some of the bill's more significant provisions include the following:

Prior to the BAPCPA Amendments, debtors of all incomes could file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. BAPCPA restricted the number of debtors that could declare Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The act sets out a method to calculate a debtor's income, and compares this amount to the median income of the debtor's state. If the debtor's income is above the median income amount of the debtor's state, the debtor is subject to a "means test." [2]

The most noteworthy change brought by the 2005 BAPCPA amendments occurred within 11 U.S.C. § 707(b). Congress amended this section of the Bankruptcy Code to provide for the dismissal or conversion of a Chapter 7 case upon a finding of “abuse” by an individual debtor (or married couple) with “primarily consumer debt.” The pre-BAPCPA language of § 707(b) provided for dismissal of a chapter 7 case upon a finding of “substantial abuse.” Under the former § 707(b), only the court or the United States trustee could bring a motion to find abuse under the section. The 2005 amendments removed these restrictions.

Post-BAPCPA, § 707(b) provides two definitions of "abuse." “Abuse” may be found when there is an unrebutted “presumption of abuse” arising under a BAPCPA-created “means test,” [§ 707(b)(2)], or through a finding of bad faith, determined by a totality of the circumstances [§ 707(b)(3)].

Only debtors whose monthly income is higher than the median income of their state, as calculated by the Code, are subject to being found abusive under § 707(b)(2). Debtors whose income falls below the median income figure may be in violation of the means test, however no party is permitted to file a motion in order to find abuse under § 707(b)(2).[3] This creates a means test "safe harbor" for debtors below the state's median income figure.

Current monthly income is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(10A) as the monthly average of the income received by the debtor (and the debtor’s spouse in a joint case) during a defined six-month time period prior to the filing of the bankruptcy case. Some narrow classes of payments, for example, social security, are excluded from these figures. Notably, the average income may be higher or lower than the debtor's actual income at the time of filing for bankruptcy. This has led some commentators to refer to the bankruptcy code’s “current monthly income” as “presumed income.” It should be noted that if the debtor's debt is not primarily consumer debt, then the means test is inapplicable.

The applicable median income figure is adjusted by family size. Generally, the larger the family, the greater the applicable median income figure and the more money the debtor must earn before a presumption of abuse arises.[4]

This code section then requires a comparison between the debtor’s “current monthly income” and the median income for the debtor’s state. If the debtor’s income exceeds the median income, then the debtor must apply the means test.

For debtors subject to the means test, the test is calculated as follows. The debtor's “current monthly income” is reduced by a set of allowed deductions specified by the IRS. These deductions are not necessarily the actual expenses the debtor incurs on a monthly basis. Some commentators have referred to these deductions as “presumed expenses.”

The deductions applicable in the “means test” are defined in § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iv) and include:

living expenses specified under the ‘’collection standards of the Internal Revenue Service,’’

actual expenses not provided by the Internal Revenue Standards including “reasonably necessary health insurance, disability insurance, and health savings account expenses,”

expenses for protection from family violence,

continued contributions to care of nondependent family members,

actual expenses of administering a chapter 13 plan,

expenses for grade and high school, up to $1,500 annually per minor child provided that the expenses are reasonable and necessary,

additional home energy costs in addition to those laid out in the IRS guidelines that are reasonable and necessary,

1/60th of all secured debt that will become due in the five years after the filing of the bankruptcy case,

1/60th of all priority debt, and

continued contributions to tax-exempt charities.[5]

A “presumption of abuse” will arise if: (1) the debtor has at least $166.67 in current monthly income available after the allowed deductions (this equals $10,000 over five years) regardless of the amount of debt, or (2) the debtor has at least $100 of such income ($6,000 over five years) and this sum would be enough to pay general unsecured creditors more than 25% over five years. For example, if a debtor had exactly $100 of “current monthly income” left after deductions and owed less than $24,000 in general unsecured debt, then the presumption of abuse would arise, [§ 707(b)(2)(A)(i)].

If a presumption of abuse is found under the means test, it may only be rebutted in the case of "special circumstances."[6]

Bankruptcy Attorney 　破産廃止

破産手続廃止（破産廃止）（はさんてつづきはいし）とは、破産手続による破産者の債権債務関係の清算が終了する前に破産手続を終了させることをいう

裁判所は、破産財団をもって破産手続の費用を支弁するのに不足すると認めるときは、破産手続開始の決定と同時に、破産手続廃止の決定をしなければならない（破産法216条第1項）。これを同時廃止（同時破産廃止）という。

前項の規定は、破産手続の費用を支弁するのに足りる金額の予納があった場合には、適用しない（破産法216条第2項）。

裁判所は、破産手続開始の決定と同時に破産手続廃止の決定をしたときは、直ちに、次に掲げる事項を公告し、かつ、これを破産者に通知しなければならない（破産法216条第3項）。

破産手続開始の決定の主文

破産手続廃止の決定の主文及び理由の要旨

第1項の規定による破産手続廃止の決定に対しては、即時抗告をすることができる（破産法216条第4項）。

前項の即時抗告は、執行停止の効力を有しない（破産法216条第5項）。

第31条及び第32条の規定は、第1項の規定による破産手続廃止の決定を取り消す決定が確定した場合について準用する（破産法216条第6項）。

破産者は、①債権届出の期間内に届出をした破産債権者（まだ確定していない破産債権を有する破産債権者であって、裁判所の決定によりその同意を得ることを要しないとされたものを除く。）全員の同意を得たとき、又は②同意をしない破産債権者がいる場合に当該破産債権者に対して裁判所が相当と認める担保を供しているとき（但し破産財団から担保を供した場合は、他の届出をした破産債権者（まだ確定していない破産債権を有する破産債権者であって、裁判所の決定によりその同意を得ることを要しないとされたものを除く。）の同意を得ているときに限る。）は、破産廃止の申立てがあれば裁判所は破産廃止決定をしなければならない（破産法第218条第1項）。これを同意廃止という。

法人である破産者が同意廃止の申立てをするには、当該破産者が社団法人である場合には定款の変更に関する規定に従い、財団法人である場合には主務官庁等の認可を得て、あらかじめ、当該法人を継続する手続をしなければならない（破産法第219条第1項、2項、3項）。

裁判所は、同意廃止の申立てがあったときは、その旨を公告しなければならない（破産法第218条第3項）。

届出をした破産債権者は、同意廃止の申立てがあった旨の公告が効力を生じた日から起算して２週間以内に、裁判所に対し、同意廃止の申立てについて意見を述べることができる（破産法第218条第4項）。

裁判所は、同意廃止の申立てによる破産手続廃止決定をしたときは、直ちにその主文及び理由の要旨を公告し、かつその裁判書を破産者及び破産管財人に送達しなければならない。棄却した場合には、その裁判書を破産者に送達しなければならない。この破産手続廃止決定、棄却の決定に対しては即時抗告ができる。破産手続廃止決定を取り消す決定が確定したときは、破産裁判所はその旨を直ちに公告しなければならない（破産法第218条第4項）。

破産手続廃止の決定は確定しないとその効力は生じない（破産法第218条第4項）。

wiki

Bankruptcy Attorney 　最新情報

Yahoo!JAPAN・・・日本最大ポータルサイト

自己破産について: 破産とは、債務者が多額の借金などにより経済的に破綻してしまい、 ... 自己破産をすると、周り近所にその事実が知られるのではないかと心配する方が多いのですが、そのような心配はまずないといっていいでしょう。破産 ...
破産: このうち個人で利用できる手段は、破産、民事再生、特定調停、任意整理になります。 ... 等々)。しかし、その言動に破産手続をとることをためらったりしてはなりません。 ... その他、自分で破産申立をするのに比べて、手続がスムーズに進みます。 ...
0からの自己破産による解決: 自己破産に関する相談。手続きの流れ、メリット、デメリット等。 ... 裁判を起こされても自己破産できる? 借入先が思い出せない!そんな時は... 弁護士に自己破産を依頼するメリット. ご依頼の際によくあるご質問. 管轄の裁判所をお探しの方へ ...
自己破産: 破産手続のあらまし. 大阪地方裁判所. 大阪地方裁判所堺支部. 大阪地方裁判所岸和田支部 ... 自己破産(じこはさん)の申立てをお考えの方は,以下の説明を最後までよく読んでください。 ... 法律の定める要件に合っていれば,破産 ...
「破産・倒産」最新記事一覧 - ITmedia Keywords: 「破産・倒産」に関連する最新記事を掲載しています。 ... かつての名門企業であるGMが、今年に入り米連邦破産法11条の適用を政府に申請したことからも、 ... エスクァイアに限らず、休廃刊する雑誌や自己破産を申請する出版社は後を絶たない。 ...