top Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

401k loan & bankruptcy

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

    #16
    TEW,

    Every case is different. Everyone has different numbers when it comes to income and expenses, median and means. As I explained in the other thread, in my case, the CPAs working for the UST said, in my Chapter 7, my income and the money I was using to pay my 401k loan back could pay my creditors 100%. My only out is if my employer says it is MANDATORY that I pay my 401K back IF I am receiving a paycheck (i.e., if I earn a paycheck, do I have to make my 401k loan payment back to the 401K plan in full per the payment terms that were set up by the employer when I took out the loan). Key: Mandatory, if employed, per employer's payment setup. If it is not mandatory to pay back the loan as a condition of my employment, either I have to have chapter 7 dismissed or converted to 13. If the terms of the payment were set up by me rather than employer, same thing. If I could pay partial payments rather than entire thing, same thing. If I could pay via any other means than payroll deduction, same thing. If I could default for any reason, hardship included, same thing. So, my option (not knowing what my employer allows), at this point, is have UST dismiss or convert to 13. I am in process of determining my employment options. That said, my attorney should have advised all of this prior to filing and certainly prior to 341. So, if it is dismissed, I'm screwed for a variety of reasons. If it is converted to 13, I'm may be screwed. In a 13, you are only allowed to repay your 401k loan back in the same percentage that you pay your creditors. Of course the UST is overseeing as it was a conversion. Say I can only afford to repay my creditors 30% based on the fact that my tax structure at the time of filing is different than it is now, I can only repay my 401k back 30%. I was informed that the trustee had to make the payments, i.e., the administration fee comes into play, i.e., it is not out of payroll deduction, i.e., it is not full repayment to the 401k, all of which may be grounds for defaulting on the 401k which would mean that I would be canned because it may be mandatory to repay the 401k. What I have learned is that it is in my better interests for Chapter 7 purposes that the loan repayment be 100% mandatory if employed, but that if it is Chapter 13 it is better that the loan not be mandatory, not be 100% repayment, not be under payroll deduction. I know there is a lot to this, and I know that I am not explaining it very well. My only point in bringing this up was to inform andysmom to get the best legal advice she can so she is not surprised if and when this comes up. At no point did I tell her that she couldn't file Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. I told her my situation and explained that it, in my opinion, was imperative she get the best attorney she could find that was versed in these high dollar 401k loan repayments. I am sorry that she is misunderstanding me. All I was trying to do was help. So, I guess I will butt out now. I'll keep her in my prayers as I try to get through my own BK situation the best way possible.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by LALADY View Post
      TEW,

      Every case is different. Everyone has different numbers when it comes to income and expenses, median and means. As I explained in the other thread, in my case, the CPAs working for the UST said, in my Chapter 7, my income and the money I was using to pay my 401k loan back could pay my creditors 100%. My only out is if my employer says it is MANDATORY that I pay my 401K back IF I am receiving a paycheck (i.e., if I earn a paycheck, do I have to make my 401k loan payment back to the 401K plan in full per the payment terms that were set up by the employer when I took out the loan). So you some how think that an agreement with your employer has more authority then the BK court? Good luck with that.

      Key: Mandatory, if employed, per employer's payment setup. If it is not mandatory to pay back the loan as a condition of my employment, either I have to have chapter 7 dismissed or converted to 13. If the terms of the payment were set up by me rather than employer, same thing. If I could pay partial payments rather than entire thing, same thing. If I could pay via any other means than payroll deduction, same thing. If I could default for any reason, hardship included, same thing. So, my option (not knowing what my employer allows), at this point, is have UST dismiss or convert to 13. I am in process of determining my employment options. That said, my attorney should have advised all of this prior to filing and certainly prior to 341. So, if it is dismissed, I'm screwed for a variety of reasons. If it is converted to 13, I'm may be screwed. In a 13, you are only allowed to repay your 401k loan back in the same percentage that you pay your creditors. Of course the UST is overseeing as it was a conversion. Say I can only afford to repay my creditors 30% based on the fact that my tax structure at the time of filing is different than it is now, I can only repay my 401k back 30%. I was informed that the trustee had to make the payments, i.e., the administration fee comes into play, i.e., it is not out of payroll deduction, i.e., it is not full repayment to the 401k, all of which may be grounds for defaulting on the 401k which would mean that I would be canned because it may be mandatory to repay the 401k. What I have learned is that it is in my better interests for Chapter 7 purposes that the loan repayment be 100% mandatory if employed, but that if it is Chapter 13 it is better that the loan not be mandatory, not be 100% repayment, not be under payroll deduction. I know there is a lot to this, and I know that I am not explaining it very well. My only point in bringing this up was to inform andysmom to get the best legal advice she can so she is not surprised if and when this comes up. At no point did I tell her that she couldn't file Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. I told her my situation and explained that it, in my opinion, was imperative she get the best attorney she could find that was versed in these high dollar 401k loan repayments. I am sorry that she is misunderstanding me. All I was trying to do was help. So, I guess I will butt out now. I'll keep her in my prayers as I try to get through my own BK situation the best way possible.
      Here's the short of it. If you have the money to pay that loan back. You have the money to pay your creditors
      Chapter 7 07/30/2008
      341 09/17/2008
      Discharge 11/21/2008

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by TEW View Post
        Here's the short of it. If you have the money to pay that loan back. You have the money to pay your creditors
        I believe the issue she's running into, is that as a requirement for her employment, she is required to pay back the 401k loan. If she doesn't, she loses her job, and then she can't pay ANYONE back. However, the law doesn't allow the 401k loan to be prioritized, so she's in a catch 22.

        It's a rough situation.
        Filed Chapter 13 on 2-28-10. 341 completed 4/14/10. Confirmed 5/14/10. Lien strip granted 2/2/11
        0% payback to unsecured creditors, 56 payments down, 4 to go....

        Comment


          #19
          Tew guru, You are not following what I am saying either.

          Either people are misunderstanding what I am saying or laughing. Had you read the other thread, you would have seen that I'm not trying to screw my creditors nor am I being deceiptful with the panel trustee or UST. I am not trying to benefit myself. If I was, I would have never taken the 401k loan to begin with as that went to creditors. It did not go towards luxuries. I was and continue to follow the advise of numerous attorneys after having spent an exhorbitant amount of money on them, and will still have to pay large amount to the current one after whatever happens happens.

          So for you to laugh, is not only childish, but cruel. Most everyone here, myself included, knows that the UST rules the roost.

          Momof3, you're right on, once again. You should have your title changed from newbie to something else.

          Comment


            #20
            In looking through IRS rules just now, they state 401k loan repayments are mandatory (unless you're military, then there's special rules for that).

            There is a God. This is EXACTLY what I need.

            Looks like I may have grounds to oppose the M/D. On Monday, I need to get my employer, CPA and attorney on board.

            Comment


              #21
              I wish you much luck, LALady.
              Filed Chapter 13 on 2-28-10. 341 completed 4/14/10. Confirmed 5/14/10. Lien strip granted 2/2/11
              0% payback to unsecured creditors, 56 payments down, 4 to go....

              Comment


                #22
                Plain and simple
                If you pay on that loan during your BK there is a very good chance the UST will take that money
                the payment is NOT an allowed expense..........................
                Chapter 7 07/30/2008
                341 09/17/2008
                Discharge 11/21/2008

                Comment


                  #23
                  Actually, Tew, I believe you are wrong.

                  I spoke with my attorney this afternoon. Since the repayment of my 401 is mandatory, the repayments are, in my Ch7, now considered an allowable expense giving me neg DMI even though I am over median.

                  It appears my Ch7 will go through, after all.

                  *****

                  Thank you, momof3, for your kind post. I appreciate it.

                  *****

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by LALADY View Post
                    Actually, Tew, I believe you are wrong.

                    I spoke with my attorney this afternoon. Since the repayment of my 401 is mandatory, the repayments are, in my Ch7, now considered an allowable expense giving me neg DMI even though I am over median.

                    It appears my Ch7 will go through, after all.

                    *****

                    Thank you, momof3, for your kind post. I appreciate it.

                    *****
                    That's GREAT news! Congrats!
                    Filed Chapter 13 on 2-28-10. 341 completed 4/14/10. Confirmed 5/14/10. Lien strip granted 2/2/11
                    0% payback to unsecured creditors, 56 payments down, 4 to go....

                    Comment


                      #25
                      there's a lot of mis-information going on here. i have never heard of any manditory/non-manditory payback rules. All 401k loan paybacks are manditory as there are tax consequences. there is Case Law that trumps the UST from excluding your payback. If JustBroke is around he can cite the case law

                      For a Ch-7 filing it is best to be -DMI before you add in your 401k payback payment.

                      For a Ch-13, The monthly payment will be part of the budget your attorney works out for you.

                      this is where it pays to bave the best attorney who understands the UST and will fight if they try to pull a fast one. a lot of attorneys are afraid to challenge the UST and just roll over
                      Stopped Paying CC's 2/2009. Retained Attorney 1/10/2010 Filed 1/23/2010. Discharged 5/19/10 $187K CC, $240K 2nd,$417K 1st, No asset Ch-7

                      Comment


                        #26
                        My M/D is full of mandatory / nonmandatory language. Case law is cited in it. It specifically stated that resultant tax consequences are not to be considered. The darn thing is almost 50 pages long. I'm not spewing mis-information. I am stating what is in the M/D. If there is mis-information, maybe it is in the M/T. I'm attempting to save my future livelihood and not end up in debtor's prison. Yeah, I know, there is no such thing as debtor's prison. You couldn't have convinced me of that prior to finding the IRS rule this am.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          M/t=m/d

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by LALADY View Post
                            My M/D is full of mandatory / nonmandatory language. Case law is cited in it. It specifically stated that resultant tax consequences are not to be considered. The darn thing is almost 50 pages long. I'm not spewing mis-information. I am stating what is in the M/D. If there is mis-information, maybe it is in the M/T. I'm attempting to save my future livelihood and not end up in debtor's prison. Yeah, I know, there is no such thing as debtor's prison. You couldn't have convinced me of that prior to finding the IRS rule this am.
                            I just think it's odd that that the UST would pull that card. i have never ever heard of adhering to terms of a 401k loan to be a condition of employment. the plan administrator sets down the rules, and they have to conform to the IRS guidelines.

                            Now if your Laid off, and you discontinue payments it will convert to an early distribution, and you will have tax consequences.
                            Stopped Paying CC's 2/2009. Retained Attorney 1/10/2010 Filed 1/23/2010. Discharged 5/19/10 $187K CC, $240K 2nd,$417K 1st, No asset Ch-7

                            Comment


                              #29
                              I've talked this topic to death.

                              I'll post the outcome here when there is one so that maybe it will help someone else out down the road.

                              Good night, all.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                The problem is two fold and is indeed a catch-22. Technically, 401(k) loan repayments and contributions are not allowed expenses in a Chapter 7. However, if you can prove "special circumstances" this can be overlooked. Many Trustees read "special circumstances" to be of the type that are listed in the Code like medical reasons or military duty, so the bar is high. The Trustee's don't use IRS rules as the Bankruptcy Code stands on its own and only includes IRS code by explicit inclusion or reference.

                                As for LALady's specific case, I don't know how many years she has left to pay her loan back, but many Trustees will consider that if the loan payments stop within 5 years, then the debtor can be in a Chapter 13 and start contributing those payments to the creditors. It's not simply a matter of they are not allowed in a Chapter 7. The real problem is that the hypothetical Chapter 13, that they must use to determine if you have the ability to pay, allows either a 401(k) loan repayment or a contribution (but usually not both).

                                So, will LALady's "special circumstance" work? It's up to a Judge to decide at this point. The only time I've read 401(k) special circumstances is when the person was close to retirement. It is never a matter of whather it's mandatory for employment.
                                Chapter 7 (No Asset/Non-Consumer) Filed (Pro Se) 7/08 (converted from Chapter 13 - 2/10)
                                Status: (Auto) Discharged and Closed! 5/10
                                Visit My BKForum Blog: justbroke's Blog

                                Any advice provided is not legal advice, but simply the musings of a fellow bankrupt.

                                Comment

                                bottom Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X