In Re Lara

347 B.R. 198, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1170, 2006 WL 2300209
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas
DecidedJune 28, 2006
Docket15-33390
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 347 B.R. 198 (In Re Lara) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Lara, 347 B.R. 198, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1170, 2006 WL 2300209 (Tex. 2006).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BARBARA J. HOUSER, Bankruptcy Judge.

Manuel Lara, Jr. and Margaret G. Lara (the “Debtors”) filed this Chapter 13 bankruptcy case on October 31, 2005. At issue here is confirmation of the Debtors’ proposed Chapter 13 plan of reorganization (the “Plan”). The Chapter 13 trustee objects to confirmation of the Plan on the grounds that the Plan fails to satisfy the disposable income test of § 1325(b)(1)(B). Specifically, the Trustee and the Debtors disagree over how to calculate certain expense allowances under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 37 (2005) (“BAPCPA”), and the extent to which certain expense deductions are permitted at all under BAPCPA. The Court has core jurisdiction over the issues raised in connection with this confirmation hearing in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157(b). This Memorandum Opinion and Order constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. The Means Test and its Impact upon Chapter 13 Plans

When read together, §§ 1325(b)(1), 1325(b)(2), and 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Bankruptcy Code permit a debtor to deduct certain standard expense allowances that have been developed by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) from his current monthly income in order to properly calculate the amount of his projected disposable income, which then must be dedicated to the payment of claims under a plan of reorganization. These standard expense allowances are found at www.us-doj.gov/usVeo/bapcpa/meanstesting.htm. According to the IRS, these standards are used to determine a taxpayer’s ability to pay a delinquent tax. The IRS has developed two broad categories of standard deductions. The so-called “National Standards” reflect amounts that are deemed to be reasonable expenditures for five catego *201 ries of expenses. 1 The amount of a debt- or’s expense allowance under the National Standards will vary depending upon his income and the number of people in the debtor’s household. Here, the Debtors and the Trustee agree that the Debtors’ National Standards expense allowances aggregate $1,430.00, and that the Debtors are entitled to an additional food and clothing expense allowance of $54.00.

The IRS has also established “Local Standards” for transportation and housing costs. Transportation costs are divided into two categories for car owners: ownership costs and operating costs. The ownership cost standards provide maximum allowances for the lease or purchase of up to two vehicles by a debtor and/or the debtor’s spouse and dependants, while the operating cost standards reflect amounts deemed reasonably necessary to operate up to two cars. If a debtor has a car payment, he is entitled to deduct both the standard ownership costs and the standard operating costs for that car. For cases filed before February 13, 2006, ownership costs were fixed on a national basis at $475.00 for the first car and $338.00 for the second car. The standard expense allowance for operating costs depends upon the region and city of the taxpayer’s residence. In the Dallas/Fort Worth region at the time this bankruptcy case was filed, a debtor was permitted to deduct, as vehicle operating costs, $332.00 per month for one car and $425.00 per month for two cars. Here, the Debtors and the Trustee disagree over the amount of the Debtors’ allowable transportation ownership costs and operating costs, which will be discussed further below.

The IRS “Local Standards” also include standard expense allowances for housing 2 and utilities. 3 These standard allowances are determined by the county of the debt- or’s residence. Here, the Trustee and the Debtors agree that the permitted housing and utilities allowance is $425.00 per month.

A debtor is also entitled to deduct his actual monthly expenses for the categories specified as “Other Necessary Expenses” by the IRS. 4 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). Here, the Debtors and the Trustee agree that the Debtors may deduct, as Other Necessary Expenses, their actual expenses for: (i) taxes of $2,197.70, (ii) mandatory payroll deductions of $64.07, (iii) life insurance of $224.79, (iv) health care of $38.65, *202 (v) health insurance of $353.75, and (vi) charitable contributions of $1,668.90.

Finally, the Debtors and the Trustee agree that the Debtors may deduct the following additional monthly payments of: (i) $1,361.45 for debts, (ii) $30.00 for priority claims, and (iii) $400.49 for qualified retirement deductions. Of course, in order to properly calculate the amount of the Debtors’ disposable income, the Court must determine the Debtors’ current monthly income, from which the appropriate expense allowances will be deducted. While a question arose during the confirmation hearing about the amount of the Debtors’ current monthly income, the parties anticipated being able to agree upon this amount. And, shortly after the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, the Court was advised that the Debtors and the Trustee agree that the Debtors’ current monthly income is $11,009.73.

II. The Debtors’ Disputed Deductions

As noted previously, the Debtors and the Trustee disagree over the appropriate amount of certain expense allowances, and/or whether any additional expense allowance is permitted at all, in calculating their disposable income. Each disputed expense deduction will be addressed separately.

First, the Debtors contend that each of them is entitled to claim the one vehicle ownership expense allowance, regardless of whether there is any debt or lease payment on that vehicle. The Trustee contends that no ownership allowance is permitted unless there is a debt or lease payment related to the vehicle. While this dispute arose prior to the decision in In re Hardacre, 338 B.R. 718 (Bankr.N.D.Tex. 2006), the Hardacre decision disposes of this issue in the Trustee’s favor. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Hardacre, id. at 728, the Debtors are only entitled to a one vehicle ownership expense allowance of $475.00, less the actual monthly payment of $25.00 on the vehicle, plus an additional allowance of $200.00 due to the age of the vehicle, for a total expense allowance of $650.00 per month.

Second, the Debtors contend that they are entitled to an expense allowance of $664.00 per month for their vehicle operating costs. The Debtors come to this expense allowance amount by taking the one vehicle operating costs allowance of $332.00 and multiplying it by two, claiming that each debtor in a joint case is entitled to take the one vehicle allowance amount. In contrast, the Trustee contends that the Debtors in a joint case are only entitled to the two vehicle operating expense allowance of $425.00.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Egebjerg v. Anderson
574 F.3d 1045 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
In Re Kafi
413 B.R. 544 (E.D. Texas, 2009)
In Re Coffin
396 B.R. 804 (D. Maine, 2008)
In Re Young
392 B.R. 6 (D. Massachusetts, 2008)
Pearson v. Stewart (In Re Pearson)
390 B.R. 706 (Tenth Circuit, 2008)
Grossman v. Sawdy
384 B.R. 199 (E.D. Wisconsin, 2008)
In Re Phillips
382 B.R. 153 (D. Massachusetts, 2008)
In Re Canales
377 B.R. 658 (C.D. California, 2007)
In Re Hubbard
384 B.R. 808 (N.D. Indiana, 2007)
In Re Scarafiotti
375 B.R. 618 (D. Colorado, 2007)
In Re Turner
2007 BNH 32 (D. New Hampshire, 2007)
In Re Morgan
374 B.R. 353 (S.D. Florida, 2007)
In Re Wilson
373 B.R. 638 (W.D. Arkansas, 2007)
Stapleton v. Talmadge (In Re Talmadge)
371 B.R. 96 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2007)
In Re Vesper
371 B.R. 426 (D. Alaska, 2007)
In Re Bennett
371 B.R. 440 (C.D. California, 2007)
In Re Lynch
368 B.R. 487 (E.D. Virginia, 2007)
In Re Swan
368 B.R. 12 (N.D. California, 2007)
In Re Watson
366 B.R. 523 (D. Maryland, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
347 B.R. 198, 2006 Bankr. LEXIS 1170, 2006 WL 2300209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lara-txnb-2006.