Aggressive Bankruptcy Planning Didn’t Result in the Loss of Discharge

October 29, 2024

Aggressive Bankruptcy Planning Didn’t Result in the Loss of Discharge

Sixth Circuit held that preferring one creditor with a nondischargeable claim before bankruptcy isn’t intent to hinder, delay or defraud.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

ABI MEMBERS ONLY

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign in using your ABI Member credentials.

Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!

Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."

Learn More

Opinion Link

View Opinion

https://abi-opinions.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/Miller+v.+Wylie.pdf

Case Details

Case Citation

Miller v. Wylie (In re Wylie), 24-1321 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2024)

Case Name

Miller v. Wylie (In re Wylie)

Case Type

Consumer

Court

6th Circuit

Bankruptcy Tags

Consumer Bankruptcy

Discharge/Dischargeability

Comments

Submitted by Donald Bailey on October 29, 2024

J have never understood how intent to pay one’s taxes can be construed as a 727(a)(2) violation. Aren’t we supposed to pay our taxes? Isn’t that why recent taxes are non-dischargeabke?

Submitted by Evan Smith on October 29, 2024

Had anyone acted on it, the pre-petition tax payment might have been subject to recovery as a preference. I agree with the Judge that given these facts there is no basis for denial of discharge.