On October 17, 2005 the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) went into effect. This legislation was the biggest reform to the bankruptcy laws since 1978. The legislation was enacted after years of lobbying efforts by banks and lending institutions and was intended to prevent abuses of the bankruptcy laws. The changes on Chapter 7 filings were significant. The most noteworthy change brought by the 2005 BAPCPA amendments occurred within 11 U.S.C. § 707(b). The amendments effectively subject most debtors who have an income, as calculated by the Code, above the debtor’s state census median income to a 60 month disposable income based test. This test is referred to as the “means test”. The means test provides for a finding of abuse if the debtor’s disposable monthly income is higher than a specified floor amount or portion of their debts. If a presumption of abuse is found under the means test, it may only be rebutted in the case of “special circumstances.” Debtors whose income is below the state’s median income are not subject to the means test. Under this test, any debtor with more than $182.50 in monthly disposable income, under the formula, would face a presumption of abuse.
Notably, the Code calculated income is based on the prior six months and may be higher or lower than the debtor’s actual current income at the time of filing for bankruptcy. This has led some commentators to refer to the bankruptcy code’s “current monthly income” as “presumed income.” If the debtor’s debt is not primarily consumer debt, then the means test is inapplicable. The inapplicability to non-consumer debt allows business debtors to “abuse” credit without repercussion unless the court finds “cause.”
“Special circumstances” does not confer judicial discretion; rather it gives a debtor an opportunity to adjust income by documenting additional expenses or loss of income in situations caused by a medical condition or being called or order to active military service. However, the assumption of abuse is only rebutted where the additional expenses or adjustments for loss of income are significant enough to change the outcome of the means test. Otherwise, abuse is still presumed despite the “special circumstances.”
