Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!) (updated: 04/28/2015)

Welcome to the Bankruptcy Forum. Bankruptcy (BK) Forum is known as BKForum.com and will be referred to as BKF hereinafter. In order to ensure a long term success of our vibrant community, we have established certain rules and guidelines to which everyone must adhere to. Please take your time to carefully read our rules, before you start to participate in the community.

Things you agree to do:
BKFORUM.com (BKF) users agree to use the search function before starting a new thread. This prevents duplicate discussions and allows for better organized topics.

All BKF users agree to read the sticky posts which may be available at the top of a forum page. These Sticky posts often contain valuable information. They may also outline more rules and guidelines specific for that particular forum, stickies are put in place by that forums moderator(s) or admin(s).

Things you agree not to do:

All BKF users agree not to call people names or write a post simply to make a personal attack, or get a negative reaction; this behavior is not allowed on our forum. The use of derogatory language aimed at anyone will be severely dealt with. There is no need to agree with each other, or to even like each other. However, by signing onto BKForum.com you agree to treat each member and guest with the respect they deserve. No threats or personal attacks will be allowed.

All BKF users agree not to discuss, engage, or encourage any behavior or activity which violates the law. Discussion of drugs, violence, murder, theft, vandalism, fraud or any other issue which could be used to help individuals break the law is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to "bump" old threads, unless there is a specific benefit to the community by doing so. But in most cases, please don't post in very old threads, instead start new threads.

All BKF users agree not to attempt/use another members account. It is against BKF rules to use any account other than your own. Impersonating another member will result in an immediate ban. It is also against the rules to open more than one account in your own name without permission from a moderator or administrator. If you have been banned for any reason, it is against the rules to open another account. If you were banned temporarily and you are caught using another account you will be banned permanently. Choosing a moniker which is similar in either sound or spelling as a moderator or administrator is strictly forbidden.

All BKF users agree not to private message any moderator, admin, or other member with questions related to their personal circumstances (Questions about the forum or issues with the forum are ok). This forum only works when members share their experience and insights with everyone.

Things you agree not to post:
All BKF users agree not to post any derogatory/racist/or sexist remarks. This includes attachments, links and all information contained within posts, signatures, and avatars, failure to comply with this rule will result in a permanent ban.

All BKF users agree not to post any copyrighted or trademarked information without the express written permission of the owner(s) / proper citation of source.

All BKF users agree not to post any real names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, social security numbers, or any other personal details (their own or other people's).

All BKF users agree not to post links, pictures, attachments, videos, or the like of pornographic content, objectionable material or extreme violence, whether cartoon or real.

All BKF users agree not to use BKF for advertising purposes without a written contract between yourself/company/agent and the administration of BKF. Blatant advertising will result in a ban.

All BKF users agree not to spam the forums. Spam includes but is not limited to posting erroneous, non-relevant-useless, off-topic, or meaningless posts. Spam may also include posts which contain no text, or large areas of blank space between lines. Simply posting emoticons without text is considered spam. BKF is the largest bankruptcy message board and all the content is intended to help other users. Please help us improve the quality of our forum by making sure that your posts are well-worded, spell checked, grammatically correct and syntaxed.

Regarding actions of moderators and administrators:

The forum is no place to air out your opinion or be judgmental of our staff and its capabilities.

All BKF users agree not to abuse or mistreat moderators or administrators. It is against BKF rules to post any information regarding bans or any other action taken by a member of the moderating or administrative team. If you wish to discuss bans or warnings please do so via PM. To place a complaint against a moderator, send a PM to a super moderator. All Moderators are equal, any decision made by a moderator must be adhered to. If a moderator tells you something you do not like, do not go to another moderator looking for a different answer. If you are caught doing this you will be banned. The moderators work as a team and respect the decisions made by their peers and will help enforce them unless an administrator tells them differently.
If you have an issue with how the forum is run, then notify one of our administrator and we will look into the situation. We have in the past and still do appreciate any input that you offer this forum. But critical input and/or judgmental postings towards the staff will result in you getting banned.


Should you find a thread offensive or out of line, then notify a Mod in a PM so they can evaluate the situation and do the action deemed necessary.

All moderators do have active "other" lives outside of the forum and help moderate this forum in their spare time throughout the days and weeks.

If you have a problem with a member or Mod follow the proper channels of reporting it.

BKF reserves the right to delete any posts which contain anti-BKF comments or discussion. Any bashing of moderators or administrators, or any of their discussion or actions will also be deleted, and the responsible posting party(s) will be banned. Any public anti-BKF advertising, communication, or posts on another forum will result in permanent bans as well.

All warnings and bans are decided by individual moderators and administrators. Warnings are preferable to bans however, for serious offenses and repeat abusers bans will go into effect. The length of the bans can vary from several hours to permanent.

All messages posted or sent including through PM are the property of BKforum.com.

All BKF users agree not to advertiser on the forum (Niether by posting, private messaging or using your signature). If you are a company/attorney/legal adviser wishing to advertise on the site or sell a product, you must contact the head administrator and inquire about our advertising packages.

All bankruptcy related opinions expressed on BKForum.com are those of their authors and not necessarily of BKF, its staff or representatives.

You agree not to copy any material/post/content from BKF without written permission from our head administrator .

By posting on this forum you agree to these terms and conditions, including any punishment deemed appropriate by moderators or administrators in the event of an offense.

Administrators/Moderators can change these rules at any time without prior notice.
See more
See less

Failure of borrower to met Internal Revenue Code makes student loan dischargable?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Failure of borrower to met Internal Revenue Code makes student loan dischargable?

    Maybe I stumbled onto something. Co-signed for a student loan in June 2005. The original guarantor was a non-profit [TERI]. I filed for Chapter 7 October 13th, 2005, 4 days before the BAPCPA Act took effect. I understand this didn't affect the loan since the guarantor [TERI] was non-profit. FYI, my Chapter 7 was discharged in 2/16/2006.

    Recently I came across this an article that mentions a provision that the loan may be dischargeable after all.

    Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code states that student loans cannot be discharged, unless payment of the student loans would impose an undue hardship upon the debtor or his dependents. This section has been part of the bankruptcy law for over twenty-five years. It was also amended in 2005 to include private student loans.

    However, not all loans incurred in connection with education costs are student loans. For a loan to fall with this section, (1) it must have been made under a government or nonprofit student loan program, or (2) it must be a qualified educational loan under section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, for attending an eligible education institution as defined in section 221(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, and incurred for costs of attendance as defined in section 472 of the Higher Education Act.

    If you have a student loan and are filing for bankruptcy, it would be wise to discuss with your attorney whether your student loan falls within these definitions. Perhaps your student loan bill arrives from Sallie Mae and you attended a public university; in such a case you probably can conclude that your student loan qualifies under definition (1) above. If so, you cannot discharge the student loan in bankruptcy unless you can prove undue hardship.

    On the other hand, if you attended a for-profit trade school and obtained a private loan from the school, or from a financial institution to which the school referred you, maybe none, or only part, of such a loan qualifies under definition (2) above. Remember, if a private student loan does not qualify under the extensive legal provisions referred to in definition (2), the loan is dischargeable without your having to prove undue hardship.

    For example, perhaps you were not an “eligible student” at the time the private student loan was made to you; or maybe the loan was not incurred to pay “qualified education expenses”; or perhaps the loan was not for attendance at an “eligible education institution” because the school was not accredited under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. All these are requirements imposed by section 221(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. Failure of a private student loan to meet any of these criteria means that the loan is fully dischargeable, because it would not qualify under section 523(a)(8) of the bankruptcy law.

    Because section 523(a)(8) incorporates requirements contained in section 221(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, persons filing for bankruptcy and owing private student loans should carefully review section 221(d) with their attorney to determine if such loans are dischargeable. Section 221(d) is lengthy, and it imposes many requirements which must be met before a loan can qualify as a student loan. If your loans fail to meet these criteria, you may be able to discharge them in your bankruptcy.
    The site won't allow me to post a direct link but it can be found... bankruptcylawnetwork "student-loans-maybe-they-can-be-discharged-after-all"

    The loan in question was taken under the presumption it was to be used for tutition. That didn't happen. I know for a fact that $$$ wasn't used for school, and if it was very little as her attendance was spotty but I can verifty with the register's office tomorrow. If I can prove the loan wasn't used by the guidelines in the Internal Revenue Code is it possible that the discharge of this loan in my 2005 Chapter 7 filing will be recognized? I'm going to the local IRS office tomorrow and have them look up the Code before I bring this matter to the attention of the attorney that filed my Chapter 7.

  • #2
    I highly doubt that the student's failure to use a qualified loan for the intended and agreed purpose will make the loan dischargeable. Even if it does, the next move would be for the creditor to object to discharge because the loan was incurred through fraud.
    LadyInTheRed is in the black!
    Filed Chap 13 April 2010. Discharged May 2015.
    $143,000 in debt discharged for $36,500, including attorneys fees. Money well spent!

    Comment


    • #3
      It's not.

      These are very technical exceptions; also, none of the exceptions apply to "how" the borrower used the funds. It is whether the loans were intended for the "qualified" purpose.

      Don't confuse "intent" with "reality." You can prove up and down, and sideways, how the funds were used...that doesn't matter. It is whether the intent of the loans meets the purpose. What you really need to do is get a copy of the NOTE.

      Nice try, but fail.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by LadyInTheRed View Post
        I highly doubt that the student's failure to use a qualified loan for the intended and agreed purpose will make the loan dischargeable. Even if it does, the next move would be for the creditor to object to discharge because the loan was incurred through fraud.
        Seeing the co-signer is the one that's pursued the discharge and had nothing to do with how the borrower allocated the loan how are they fraudulent? I was neither privey, responsible or had any legal say so in how the loan was distributed.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally Posted by HHM

          Student loans are simply non-dischargeable unless the debtor can prove one of two exceptions, either
          1. The student loan is not really a student loan
          In your sticky "Regardless of what anyone says... " you made this statement. How does that statement not apply to the Internal Revenue Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code I posted or affect my particular case? TIA.

          Comment


          • #6
            Moth, I understand you are desperate, and therefore "wanting" to read anything you can in a way that benefits you.

            But, the issue of how the funds were used "by the borrower" is not one of the factors. No offense, but there are people much smarter than you, and much smarter than me that have litigated these issues, your particular circumstance (at least the way you described here) wouldn't get you out from underneath the student loan.

            The key phrase, (from your own post) that you are wishing didn't exist is "Incurred to..." If a borrower takes out a student loan, but instead of paying it for schools, books and yes, living expenses, and instead buys a car, that act does not change the nature of the loan.

            Now, that doesn't mean you are not without hope, if you could somehow show a "mutual fraud" (good luck) that the borrower and lender colluded in someway to make the loan and both sides "knew" it wasn't really intended as a student loan, then "maybe" you have something...but simply proving how the borrower "spent" the funds is not relevant.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MothAudio View Post
              Seeing the co-signer is the one that's pursued the discharge and had nothing to do with how the borrower allocated the loan how are they fraudulent? I was neither privey, responsible or had any legal say so in how the loan was distributed.
              11 USC § 523(a)(2) provides:

              a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt—
              ....
              (2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by—
              (A) false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, other than a statement respecting the debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition;
              It doesn't say that it must be the BK debtor who committed fraud. Besides, by co-siging the loan, you became responsible for the primary borrower's actions related to that loan. You want to take advantage of those actions on one hand, and not suffer the consequences of those actions on the other. You are grasping at straws.

              You are never going to get to the point of discussing fraud anyway. Because, as HHM states, the important thing is the intended purpose of the loan, not what the student ended up spending the money on.
              LadyInTheRed is in the black!
              Filed Chap 13 April 2010. Discharged May 2015.
              $143,000 in debt discharged for $36,500, including attorneys fees. Money well spent!

              Comment


              • #8
                However, not all loans incurred in connection with education costs are student loans. For a loan to fall with this section, (1) it must have been made under a government or nonprofit student loan program, or (2) it must be a qualified educational loan under section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, for attending an eligible education institution as defined in section 221(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, and incurred for costs of attendance as defined in section 472 of the Higher Education Act.
                The loan was for attendence in an eligible education institution and incurred for the costs of attendence. That is the purpose for which it was given and it was with that understanding that you co-signed the loan. Do you really think the court is now going to punish the lender and guarantor because the student did not spend the money as originally intended?
                LadyInTheRed is in the black!
                Filed Chap 13 April 2010. Discharged May 2015.
                $143,000 in debt discharged for $36,500, including attorneys fees. Money well spent!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by LadyInTheRed View Post
                  11 USC § 523(a)(2) provides:



                  It doesn't say that it must be the BK debtor who committed fraud. Besides, by co-siging the loan, you became responsible for the primary borrower's actions related to that loan. You want to take advantage of those actions on one hand, and not suffer the consequences of those actions on the other. You are grasping at straws.

                  You are never going to get to the point of discussing fraud anyway. Because, as HHM states, the important thing is the intended purpose of the loan, not what the student ended up spending the money on.
                  Really? They're an adult not my dependant. I was just a friend trying to help out another, not their accountant or legal guardian. I wasn't aware that simply co-signing gave me legal authority over how the loan was dispursed? If that was the case the check should have been written to me and I would have managed the account.
                  Last edited by MothAudio; 01-29-2013, 02:11 PM. Reason: sp

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LadyInTheRed View Post
                    The loan was for attendence in an eligible education institution and incurred for the costs of attendence. That is the purpose for which it was given and it was with that understanding that you co-signed the loan. Do you really think the court is now going to punish the lender and guarantor because the student did not spend the money as originally intended?
                    I'm just commenting on the article and the Internal Revenue Code as it is written. All I'm saying is that one of the guidelines of the Code were not met.
                    Last edited by MothAudio; 01-29-2013, 02:10 PM. Reason: sp

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks HHM. I read a couple of articles that suggested there might be a possiblity of a discharge. I'm sure my case isn't unique but ATST I'm retired and have the time and inclination to pursue all possible angles.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MothAudio View Post
                        Really? They're an adult not my dependant. I was just a friend trying to help out another, not their accountant or legal guardian. I wasn't aware that simply co-signing gave me legal authority over how the loan was dispursed? If that was the case the check should have been written to me and I would have managed the account.
                        It gave you a legal obligation to pay back the student loan if the student didn't, regardless of how the money was spent.
                        LadyInTheRed is in the black!
                        Filed Chap 13 April 2010. Discharged May 2015.
                        $143,000 in debt discharged for $36,500, including attorneys fees. Money well spent!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          All I'm saying is that one of the guidelines of the Code were not met.
                          That is your interpretation (wishful thinking) There is no guideline in the code about "how the money was actually spent."

                          Comment

                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                          Collapse
                          Working...
                          X