點評
微信
微博《楊清泉律師專欄》SUPREME COURT DISALLOWS CAR OWNERSHIP EXPENSE DEDUCTION…(PART II)
法律
時間:02/15/2011
瀏覽: 1851
《楊清泉律師專欄》SUPREME COURT DISALLOWS CAR OWNERSHIP EXPENSE DEDUCTION ABSENT CAR PAYMENTS(PART I)
The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of Ransom’s plan, ruling that he could deduct a vehicle ownership expense only if he was currently making loan or lease payments on the Camry. The old saying goes, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too!” The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. So did the Supreme Court.
“Whether Ransom may claim the $471 car ownership deduction…turns on whether that expense amount is ‘applicable’ to him, “ Justice Kagan wrote in her first opinion issued for the Court. “What makes an expense amount ‘applicable’ in this sense (appropriate, relevant, suitable or fit) is most naturally understood to be its correspondence to an individual debtor’s financial circumstances. Finally, the Court said that debtor’s interpretation would run counter to the statute’s overall purpose of ensuring that debtors repay creditors to the extent they can, here, by shielding some $28,000 that he does not in fact need for loan or lease payments, and would render the term “applicable” superfluous.
If you need debt relief, contact my office. I will analyze your case personally.
Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than four thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of Ransom’s plan, ruling that he could deduct a vehicle ownership expense only if he was currently making loan or lease payments on the Camry. The old saying goes, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too!” The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. So did the Supreme Court.
“Whether Ransom may claim the $471 car ownership deduction…turns on whether that expense amount is ‘applicable’ to him, “ Justice Kagan wrote in her first opinion issued for the Court. “What makes an expense amount ‘applicable’ in this sense (appropriate, relevant, suitable or fit) is most naturally understood to be its correspondence to an individual debtor’s financial circumstances. Finally, the Court said that debtor’s interpretation would run counter to the statute’s overall purpose of ensuring that debtors repay creditors to the extent they can, here, by shielding some $28,000 that he does not in fact need for loan or lease payments, and would render the term “applicable” superfluous.
If you need debt relief, contact my office. I will analyze your case personally.
Lawrence Bautista Yang is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and has been in law practice for thirty years. He specializes in bankruptcy, business and civil litigation and has handled more than four thousand successful bankruptcy cases in California. He speaks Mandarin and Fujien and looks forward to discussing your case with you personally. Please call (626) 284-1142 for an appointment at 1000 S Fremont Ave Bldg A-1 Suite 1125 Unit 58 Alhambra, CA 91803.
图片翻摄自网路，版权归原作者所有。如有侵权请联系我们，我们将及时处理。
(626) 284-1142
個人、公司破產，第7、13章，破產法庭出庭訴訟
打開微信，使用 “掃描QR Code” 即可將網頁分享到我的朋友圈。
分享本頁
打開微信，使用 “掃描QR Code” 即可將網頁分享到我的朋友圈。
