Sixth Circuit: Chapter 13 Debtor May Exclude 401(k) Plan Contributions from Disposable Income | Practical Law

Sixth Circuit: Chapter 13 Debtor May Exclude 401(k) Plan Contributions from Disposable Income | Practical Law

In a case of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a Chapter 13 debtor may exclude from her bankruptcy petition disposable income the post-petition 401(k) plan contribution dollar amount if she contributed that amount to her plan before her bankruptcy.

Sixth Circuit: Chapter 13 Debtor May Exclude 401(k) Plan Contributions from Disposable Income

by Practical Law Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation
Published on 04 Jun 2020USA (National/Federal)
In a case of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a Chapter 13 debtor may exclude from her bankruptcy petition disposable income the post-petition 401(k) plan contribution dollar amount if she contributed that amount to her plan before her bankruptcy.
On June 1, 2020, in a case of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a Chapter 13 debtor may exclude from her disposable income, as defined in Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), the debtor's post-petition 401(k) plan contribution dollar amount if that amount was regularly withheld from the debtor's wages before her bankruptcy (Davis v. Helbling (In re: Davis), (6th Cir. June 1, 2020)).

Background

The debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2017 under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor to satisfy her unsecured debts by paying all of her "projected disposable income" to her unsecured creditors over a five-year commitment period (see Practice Note, Bankruptcy: Overview and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Timeline).
For the debtor to obtain approval of her Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan from the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio, her plan had to provide for the payment of all her "projected disposable income" to her unsecured creditors (11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B)). Significantly, her plan claimed as part of her allowable monthly expenses (which would be excluded from her monthly disposable income) her monthly contribution of $220.66 to the 401(k) plan sponsored by her employer (see Practice Note, Contributions to a Defined Contribution Plan: Overview). This monthly contribution began before the debtor's bankruptcy, and she sought to continue these contributions during her bankruptcy.
The Chapter 13 trustee in this case objected to the debtor's bankruptcy plan on the grounds that wages withheld as voluntary 401(k) plan contributions are considered disposable income under the Bankruptcy Code, and therefore the debtor's proposed plan would not pay all of her projected disposable income to her unsecured creditors. The court sustained the trustee's objection, basing its decision on dicta included in the Sixth Circuit's decision in Seafort v. Burden (In re Seafort), which suggested that the Bankruptcy Code always includes a debtor's voluntary retirement contributions as disposable income, even if the debtor began making those contributions before entering bankruptcy (669 F.3d 662, 674 n.7 (6th Cir. 2012)).
The debtor then filed an amended bankruptcy plan that included her monthly 401(k) contributions in her disposable income calculation, but she the objected to this amended plan to preserve the disposable income issue for appellate review. The bankruptcy court confirmed the amended plan, and the debtor appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

Outcome

Based on its interpretation of the statutory text as excluding voluntary retirement plan contributions from disposable income, the Sixth Circuit vacated the bankruptcy court's order confirming the debtor's Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan and remanded for further proceedings.

Relevant Statutes

A debtor's Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan must provide for the payment of all her "projected disposable income" to her unsecured creditors (11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B)). Bankruptcy Code Section 1325(b)(2) (11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2)) defines disposable income as the debtor's "current monthly income ... less amounts reasonably necessary to be expended ... for the maintenance or support of the debtor." Although "projected disposable income" is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, following the Supreme Court's decision in Hamilton v. Lanning (560 U.S. 505, 524 (2010)), it is determined by taking the debtor's current disposable income under Bankruptcy Code Section 1325(b)(2), adjusted in certain circumstances for changes "known or virtually certain" to occur during the commitment period. When a debtor expects no changes in financial circumstances, her projected disposable income under Section 1325(b)(1) is simply her disposable income under Section 1235(b)(2).
According to the Sixth Circuit, before 2005, the "overwhelming consensus" among bankruptcy courts was that wages voluntarily withheld as 401(k) plan contributions were part of a debtor's disposable income. However, Section 541(b)(7)(A) of the BAPCPA (11 U.S.C. § 541(b)(7)(A)) provides that "property of the estate does not include … any amount … withheld by an employer from the wages of employees for payment as contributions to … a 401(k) retirement plan … except that such amount under this subparagraph shall not constitute disposable income as defined in section 1325(b)(2)" (emphasis added; the emphasized text is referred to as the "hanging paragraph").

Four Interpretations of BAPCPA Section 541

Since the enactment of the BAPCPA, federal courts have applied four interpretations of Bankruptcy Code Section 541(b)(7)(A):
  • A debtor may deduct 401(k) plan contributions from her disposable income for purposes of a bankruptcy petition, even if the debtor began those contributions after filing the petition (see Baxter v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 346 B.R. 256, 263 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2006)). The Sixth Circuit rejected this view in Seafort v. Burden (669 F.3d 662, 674 n.7 (6th Cir. 2012)).
  • A debtor may never deduct 401(k) plan contributions from her disposable income, regardless of whether the debtor made contributions before filing the bankruptcy petition (In re Prigge, 441 B.R. 667 (Bankr. D. Mont. 2010)).
  • The hanging paragraph in Section 541(b)(7)(A) excludes the debtor's pre-petition retirement plan contribution amount (not just her accumulated savings) from her disposable income; a debtor may deduct 401(k) plan contributions from her disposable income if she made an equal or greater monthly contribution before her bankruptcy; this was the interpretation applied by the Seafort Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) in Burden v. Seafort (In re Seafort) (437 B.R. 204, 210 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2010)).
  • The hanging paragraph excludes from the debtor's disposable income the average amount she contributed to her 401(k) plan each month in the six months preceding her bankruptcy. This is based on the exclusion of pre-bankruptcy petition contributions from the calculation of the debtor's "current monthly income," or CMI, which is part of the Section 1325(b)(2) disposable income calculation. Therefore, this is referred to as the CMI interpretation (see In re Anh-Thu Thi Vu, , at *4 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2015)).

Decision

The Sixth Circuit applied this legal framework to the question of whether the exclusion in the hanging paragraph in Section 541(b)(7)(A) encompasses the continued monthly 401(k) plan contributions that the debtor sought to exclude from her disposable income in her proposed bankruptcy plan. Applying several canons of statutory construction to the statute, the Sixth Circuit held that the hanging paragraph excludes from disposable income in the debtor's post-bankruptcy petition her 401(k) plan contributions in the dollar amount that the debtor's employer withheld from her wages before her bankruptcy.
According to the Sixth Circuit, its interpretation is entirely consistent with the pre-petition focus of Section 541 of the BAPCPA, and the hanging paragraph's express reference to Section 1325(b)(2) (the definition of disposable income) indicates that Congress intended to allow a debtor to exclude from her disposable income the 401(k) plan contribution amount withheld from her monthly wages before bankruptcy.
The Sixth Circuit described its holding as a narrow one, and it did not choose between the Seafort BAP and CMI interpretations of Section 541(b)(7)(A) because it concluded that the result would be the same in this case, since the debtor's employer withheld from the debtor's wages $220.66 in 401(k) plan contributions each month for at least six months before her bankruptcy. Rather, the Sixth Circuit held only that a debtor in like circumstances as the debtor in this case may deduct her monthly 401(k) plan contributions from her disposable income under Section 1325(b)(2).
Under the good faith analysis required by Bankruptcy Code Section 1325(a)(3), a bankruptcy court may not confirm a Chapter 13 plan unless the debtor proposed it in good faith. The Sixth Circuit wrote that its interpretation of Section 541(b)(7)(A) in this case may require a deeper good faith analysis to minimize the risk that a debtor considering bankruptcy might begin making 401(k) plan contributions before filing for bankruptcy to lower the amount she must repay her creditors.
The dissenting judge would have applied the holding from the Sixth Circuit's decision in Seafort v. Burden, to hold that the debtor in this case cannot exclude 401(k) plan contributions from post-petition disposable income, even if the debtor began making contributions before filing for bankruptcy.

Practical Implications

Following In re: Davis, in the Sixth Circuit, Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitioners may exclude 401(k) plan contributions from disposable income in their post-bankruptcy petitions in the dollar amount that their employer withheld from their wages before bankruptcy.