{"id":9835,"date":"2012-05-26T02:00:55","date_gmt":"2012-05-26T07:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/?p=9835"},"modified":"2016-09-25T23:10:48","modified_gmt":"2016-09-26T04:10:48","slug":"jennifer-mckinney-mckmama-bankruptcy-fraud-alleged-by-trustee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/jennifer-mckinney-mckmama-bankruptcy-fraud-alleged-by-trustee\/","title":{"rendered":"Jennifer McKinney MckMama Bankruptcy: Fraud Alleged by Trustee"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/mckmama-jennifer-mckinney-bankruptcy-fraud.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"lazyload alignright wp-image-9841\" title=\"mckmama-jennifer-mckinney-bankruptcy-fraud\" src=\"data:image\/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%27%20width%3D%27145%27%20height%3D%27179%27%20viewBox%3D%270%200%20145%20179%27%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%27145%27%20height%3D%27179%27%20fill-opacity%3D%220%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E\" data-orig-src=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/mckmama-jennifer-mckinney-bankruptcy-fraud.jpg\" alt=\"MckMama Bankruptcy\" width=\"145\" height=\"179\" \/><\/a><a href=\"http:\/\/legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com\/fraud\">What is fraud?<\/a> <em>A false representation of a matter of fact\u2014whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed\u2014that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Yesterday in the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Minnesota, the trustee in the bankruptcy of <a href=\"http:\/\/www.mckmamatruths.com\">Israel McKinney and Jennifer Sauls McKinney<\/a> (known as mommy blogger MckMama, blogging at mycharmingkids.net) filed Case 12-06024, objecting to the discharge of the bankruptcy. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/2012\/04\/mckmama-fraud-jennifer-mckinney-bankruptcy\/\">Last month I published a lengthy article about the MckMama bankruptcy fraud<\/a>, and today we&#8217;re going to compare what I showed you and what trustee Gene Doeling (my new hero!!!) has alleged.<!--more--><\/p>\n<p>This filing contains strong language. The trustee uses words such as<em> manipulated, destroyed, concealed, falsified, false, and intentionally<\/em>. The one key word you will see over and over is <strong>undisclosed<\/strong>. The bankruptcy laws in the United States give people a chance to start over, without regard to whether the debts were incurred through recklessness or through no fault of the person filing bankruptcy. But in order to have your slate wiped clean, you must make a full and complete disclosure according to the rules.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/2012\/05\/bankruptcy-fraud-staying-out-of-trouble\/\">Proper disclosure in bankruptcy isn&#8217;t hard<\/a>. All you do is fill out the forms truthfully. It&#8217;s a fill-in-the-blanks exercise with which most people elect to have an attorney&#8217;s help. But at the end of the day it is the debtor&#8217;s responsibility to &#8216;fess up to all assets, income and transfers during the time periods specified on the forms.<\/p>\n<p>Jennifer and Israel McKinney haven&#8217;t been proven guilty in a court of law yet, but they will be. There is documentation and testimony that proves MckMama lied in the bankruptcy filing. And it wasn&#8217;t one or two isolated instances. There were multiple lies that are now proven false by underlying documentation, and (coincidentally enough) Jennifer&#8217;s own writings on her My Charming Kids blog and her Facebook page.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/mckinney-complaint-denial-of-discharge.pdf\">Here is the complaint in the new case<\/a>, which may otherwise be called Time to Pay the Piper, Jennifer McKinney! I&#8217;m going to go through the complaint against Jennifer and Israel McKinney, and then refer back to what I wrote in my original post.<\/p>\n<p>To skip to relevant sections of this article, please use these links:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"#request\">What is the trustee asking the Bankruptcy Court to do?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#next\">What happens next?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#support\">UPDATE #1 &#8211; What about child support?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#irs\">UPDATE #2 &#8211; What about the IRS?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#domain\">UPDATE #3 &#8211; What about Jennifer&#8217;s domain name change?<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>From the Complaint:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>4. The debtors appeared at an initial 341 meeting on January 9, 2012. A continued 341 meeting was held on March 5, 2012, at which time the trustee questioned the debtors regarding several undisclosed assets, including an undisclosed PayPal account, undisclosed receivables, undisclosed travel trailer and undisclosed domain names. Between 11\/22\/11-12\/27\/11, the debtor deposited over $10,000 into Well Fargo Account no. 9246. Those deposits occurred as follows; 11\/22 of $1,140; 11\/25 $1,105; 12\/6 $6,087 and a 12\/27 deposit of $2,060. The codebtor disclosed her self employment income on Schedule I as $1,500 per month.<\/p>\n<p>5. The co-debtor had a Google AdSense account which reflected a balance owing her as of November 30, 2011 of $2,060.16. The co-debtor withdrew these funds from her Google account on December 23, 2011, ten days after she filed bankruptcy. The Google account was not disclosed on the debtors\u2019 bankruptcy schedules.<\/p>\n<p>6. The trustee, on information and belief alleges that the co-debtor had one or more PayPal accounts which had cash in them on the date she filed bankruptcy, which were not disclosed.<\/p>\n<p>7. The co-debtor had income coming in from New Media Consultants, which was not disclosed. The co-debtor received a payment from this entity into her PayPal account on December 23, 2011 of $500.<\/p>\n<p>8. The co-debtor had income coming in from Burst Media which was not disclosed. The debtor had an account receivable from Burst estimated to be around $400 at the time the bankruptcy was filed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From Fraud Files:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>So Jennifer claims she was making $1,500 per month with Google, which would appear to correlate with the monthly income she reported in the bankruptcy filing. But the trustee finds her<strong> actual<\/strong> income in the documents. The real income received in December 2011 was:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>$500 from New Media Consultants<\/li>\n<li>$824 from Burst<\/li>\n<li>$6,387 from BlogFrog and another $500 from an unknown source<\/li>\n<li>Undisclosed income from Amazon.com and other affiliate programs<\/li>\n<li>Potentially other undisclosed income<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This is a total of <strong>at least<\/strong> $7,711 in December 2011 alone, when Jennifer reported in the December 2011 bankruptcy filing that her total income (blog, photography, deals, the whole works) was going to be $1,500 per month. A simple peek at her own accounts would have clearly told her that her income was going to be more than $1,500 per month.<\/p>\n<p>[snip]<\/p>\n<p>One bank deposit of $3,497 in November 2011 alone again shows\u00a0the falsity of Jennifer\u2019s statement that she was going to make $1,500 per month.<\/p>\n<p>[snip]<\/p>\n<p>So Jen earned $2,884 of income from certain advertising alone in December 2011, yet in that same month, she put on her bankruptcy paperwork that she was going to earn $1,500 per month total from the website, photography, and deals. Liar, liar, pants on fire.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From the Complaint:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>9. The debtors had a travel trailer which they purchased in the spring of 2010 for $900 and which they still possessed at the time of the bankruptcy filing. The debtors sold that asset after their bankruptcy filing to a friend for $400. This trailer was not disclosed on the debtors\u2019 bankruptcy schedules.<\/p>\n<p>10. The debtors purchased a 34 foot Jayco Jayflight camper in early 2011 for $12,000. They sold this camper in May 2011 and received $9,000 from the sale. The debtors did not disclose the transfer or sale of this asset in their bankruptcy schedules or at the initial 341 meeting. The debtors claimed at the continued creditors meeting they did not have to disclose this transaction because they were holding an open title when it was sold, and therefore they never owned the camper.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From Fraud Files:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Obviously this camper was a substantial asset that was sold prior to the bankruptcy and should have been included in the bankruptcy schedules.\u00a0 Jennifer tries to wordsmith and say that since the title wasn\u2019t in their name, she didn\u2019t think they had to disclose it. That doesn\u2019t ring true.<\/p>\n<p>And Jennifer seemed to have a hard time remembering how much the camper was sold for, or when it was sold. Maybe Facebook can refresh her memory. On August 19, 2011, she posted the following in response to a question from a reader:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/mckinney-facebook-2011-08-19.png\"><img class=\"lazyload\" decoding=\"async\" title=\"mckinney-facebook-2011-08-19\" src=\"data:image\/svg+xml,%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%27%20width%3D%27398%27%20height%3D%27249%27%20viewBox%3D%270%200%20398%20249%27%3E%3Crect%20width%3D%27398%27%20height%3D%27249%27%20fill-opacity%3D%220%22%2F%3E%3C%2Fsvg%3E\" data-orig-src=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/mckinney-facebook-2011-08-19.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"398\" height=\"249\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Did you catch that? She said \u201c\u2026.getting back what we had spent on it.\u201d\u00a0 You see Jennifer said in the creditors meeting that she used her PayPal account to purchase the camper in March 2011 for <strong>$12,000<\/strong> from a man in Madison. If they \u201cgot back what they spent on it,\u201d then that would mean that they sold it for $12,000, $3,500 more than Jennifer admitted to in the creditors meeting or the amended bankruptcy filing. <em>(All of Jennifer\u2019s August 2011 Facebook posts have been *mysteriously* deleted, but this screenshot exists thanks to the long memory of the internet.)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From the Complaint:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>11. The co-debtor is a website blogger who earned over $148,000 in blogging and ad revenue in 2011 through her website domains. The co-debtor blogged on and owned the following domains at the time the bankruptcy was filed, which were not disclosed in the debtors\u2019 bankruptcy schedules:<br \/>\nA. www.JenniferMckinneyphotography.com<br \/>\nB. www.mycharmingkids.net<br \/>\nC. www.mckmama.com<br \/>\nD. www.mycharmingkids.net\/deals<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From Fraud Files:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>What\u2019s interesting about the domain names, is that Jennifer would have us believe that they are worth $100, as shown on the amended bankruptcy schedules. She has an interest in lowballing that, and she claimed in the creditors meeting that the value was the $10 annual fee she pays for the domain name. The fact is, the actual asset is the <strong>domain name plus the blog<\/strong>. And as we have seen, that asset is very valuable.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From the Complaint:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>12. The debtors made the following transfers of cash from the bank accounts which were not disclosed in the Statement of Financial Affairs.<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px;\">A. February 1, 2011- donation of $1,000 to friend\u2019s international adoption.<br \/>\nB. February 1, 2011-donation of $1000 to GNHI, reported by the debtor to be an African humanitarian organization<br \/>\nC. October 3, 2011- Gift of $300 to Nancy Lee Brady, the debtor\u2019s mother.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From Fraud Files:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>So $2,000 given away but not reported on the bankruptcy schedules as required, with Jennifer claiming she didn\u2019t think it was a transfer. And that she \u201cdidn\u2019t put it in the right spot.\u201d Not quite. Jennifer didn\u2019t put it in <strong>any<\/strong> spot. It was completely undisclosed, in apparent violation of the bankruptcy laws.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From the Complaint:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>13. In the statement of financial affairs the co-debtor disclosed her 2011 self-employment income as $55,000, <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">when she knew at the time she filed her bankruptcy that her gross income from self-employment was approximately $148,000.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From Fraud Files:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Jennifer and Israel McKinney disclosed that 2011 income from Jennifer\u2019s business was $55,000, in both the original filing and the amended filing. This is patently untrue. The income the trustee found included:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>PayPal \u2013 $67,086<br \/>\nGoogle AdSense \u2013 $21,303<br \/>\nDeposits at Bank Branch \u2013 $59,736<br \/>\nTOTAL \u2013 <strong>$148,125<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Note that this does not include income Jennifer received from Amazon.com and other affiliate programs (from which she likely has been receiving monthly payments since at least April 2011, but for which Jennifer claimed in the creditors meeting that she has received nothing).<\/p>\n<p>The total of $148,125 in 2011 is obviously a far cry from the $55,000 income for 2011 that Jennifer is <strong>still<\/strong> claiming in the amended bankruptcy schedules.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From the Complaint:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>14. Transfer \/ preference to John Sauls, the co-debtor\u2019s father, of $1,200 within one year of the debtors\u2019 bankruptcy filing.<\/p>\n<p>15. The trustee, upon information and belief, alleges that <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">the co-debtor has manipulated her income downward during the two month period prior to her bankruptcy filing<\/span>. She switched off ads on her website\/domain to manipulate and lower ad revenue from her website, from which she drew income. Since the debtors\u2019 bankruptcy filing, those ads have been turned back on and the co-debtor is again earning money from those ads.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From Fraud Files:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/mckinney-bankruptcy-amended-filing-041212.pdf\">You see also in the amended bankruptcy filing<\/a>, Jennifer McKinney changes the monthly income for the means test from $5,039 to $9,750, almost <strong>twice as much<\/strong> as originally reported. Yet in Schedule I, Current Income of Individual Debtor(s), Jennifer\u2019s gross income from her business (blog, photography, deals) is still listed as only $1,500 despite the bankruptcy trustee showing the falsity of that number in the creditors meeting.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From the Complaint:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>COUNT I<br \/>\n11. U.S.C. \u00a7 727(a)(2)(B)<br \/>\n16. The trustee realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 in support of this claim. The <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">debtors have transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated or concealed or have permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated or concealed, property of the estate after the date of the filing of the petition<\/span>, namely the funds in the PayPal and Google accounts were undisclosed and have been used by the debtors; the debtor sold the enclosed travel trailer that was not disclosed and which was property of the estate, to a third party.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>COUNT II<br \/>\n11 U.S.C. \u00a7 727(a)(3) DENIAL OF DISCHARGE<br \/>\n17. The trustee realleges paragraphs 1 through 16 in support of this claim. The <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Debtors have concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books<\/span>, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtors\u2019 financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained. The debtors failed to keep adequate books and records from which their financial transactions could be ascertained. <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">The co-debtor was receiving cash payments from photography clients that were not disclosed and for which she has been unable to provide an accounting<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From Fraud Files:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Yes, MckMama <strong>did<\/strong> hold online photography prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. <strong>Lots of them<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/september-photography-workshops.jpg\">She started with face-to-face workshops in September 2011<\/a>, with a cost of $250 per person for a 1\/2 day, or $400 for the whole day. There were 14 attendees for the morning Dallas workshop alone, which would mean income of about $3,500 for the morning, and around $5,000 or $5,500 for the whole day.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/online-classes-september.jpg\">On September 30, 2011, Jennifer McKinney announced she was starting online photography classes<\/a>. She advertised 6 classes for October 2011. With 10 participants per class, and a fee of $40 per person,\u00a0 that\u2019s $2,400 in revenue. She also offered hourly one-on-one help for $50 per hour.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/online-photography-classes.jpg\">And on October 31, 2011, MckMama repeated that she had done a bunch of online photography workshops, and was promoting four more sessions for November 2011<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From the Complaint:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>COUNT III<br \/>\n11 U.S.C. \u00a7 727(a)(4) DENIAL OF DISCHARGE<br \/>\n18. The trustee realleges paragraphs 1 through 17 in support of this claim. The debtors knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case (A) made a false oath or account. T<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">he debtors failed to disclose the PayPal account, the Google AdSense account and the domain names through which the debtor was blogging<\/span>. The debtors failed to disclose the camper, which was sold post-bankruptcy filing. The co-debtor intentionally underrepresented her income on Schedule I, having deposited in excess of $7,000 in the month prior to her bankruptcy filing, yet reporting monthly income of $1,500. <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">The co-debtor also failed to disclose income from Amazon and other affiliate programs from her blog.<\/span><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">The Trustee, upon information and belief, believes that the co-debtor has income and\/or incentives from Groupon, Logical Media, Eversave, Commission Junction, Double Click and other possible affiliate programs.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>From Fraud Files:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The information provided here is incomplete and false. Jennifer began offering her \u201cDeals\u201d portion of the site in March 2011, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/04\/deals-march-2011.pdf\">as shown here<\/a>. Not only does she receive income from Amazon.com, she also receives income from <strong>Groupon, Logical Media, Eversave, Commission Junction, Doubleclick, and likely other affiliate programs.<\/strong> And what about the possibility that Jennifer meant that only the Amazon deals started in December 2011? Below is just one deal from <strong>August 2011<\/strong> that has an Amazon link and is clearly tagged as \u201camazon.com.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a title=\"request\" name=\"request\"><\/a><strong>From the Complaint:<\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>WHEREFORE, the Bankruptcy Trustee respectfully requests that the Court issue an<br \/>\nOrder granting the following relief:<br \/>\n1. <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Denying the debtors a discharge<\/span> pursuant to 11 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 727 (a)(2)(B), (a)(3)<br \/>\nand (a)(4).<br \/>\n2. Granting the plaintiff <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">a judgment against the debtor in the amount of $3,360<\/span>&#8211; the<br \/>\nvalue of the undisclosed PayPal and Google accounts and the trailer sold postbankruptcy filing. The plaintiff also <span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">requests a judgment against the debtors for<\/span><br \/>\n<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"> the value of any other undisclosed assets<\/span> yet to be discovered and proven at trial.<br \/>\n3. For such other and further relief that is just and proper.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a title=\"next\" name=\"next\"><\/a>What does this all mean? The bankruptcy trustee is calling out Jennifer McKinney and Israel McKinney for lying about their income and assets, and for spending money that they did not disclose (money which could have been used to pay creditors). He is asking the court to NOT allow the McKinneys to discharge their debts via bankruptcy, meaning they would still be on the hook for all of their debts.<\/p>\n<p>Whether the bankruptcy goes through or not, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/2012\/04\/mcmama-bankruptcy-update-trustee-files-motion-objecting-to-exempt-property\/\">the non-exempt assets of the McKinneys<\/a> will still be taken and sold, with the proceeds going to creditors.<\/p>\n<p>While the McKinneys would still be allowed to file for bankruptcy again after waiting several months (typically 6), the debts in this case would likely not be dischargeable in a new bankruptcy. The trustee is asking that the debts not be discharged under <strong>11 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 727 (a)(2)(B)<\/strong>, <strong>(a)(3)<\/strong> and <strong>(a)(4)<\/strong>. According to the Bankruptcy Code,\u00a0 Jennifer and Israel <a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/11\/523\">cannot get debts discharged in a future bankruptcy if denied a discharge under section 727 (a)(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), or (7)<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Nicely done, Mr. Deoling. Nicely done.<\/p>\n<p><a title=\"support\" name=\"support\"><\/a><strong>UPDATE #1 &#8211; Child Support:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For those wondering what will happen regarding child support, a good summary of Wisconsin&#8217;s law is found here: http:\/\/www.dadsdivorce.com\/component\/content\/article\/336\/<\/p>\n<p>The first consideration is placement of the children. If custody is awarded 50\/50, there is not necessarily any child support due from either parent to the other. Child support MAY be due in such a case if there is a great disparity in the incomes of the parents.<\/p>\n<p>If placement is unequal, the party with the lesser share of time generally will have to pay child support. From the article linked above:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Child support is determined by DCF 150.\u00a0 If the party with less placement has less than 25% of placement with the children, or less than 92 overnights per year, the party will pay child support to the other parent a percentage of his or her gross monthly income as follows:\u00a0 17% for one child, 25% for 2 children,\u00a0 29% for 3 children,\u00a0 31% for 4 children and\u00a0 34% for 5 or more children.\u00a0 If the party with less placement has more than 25% of placement or more than 92 overnights per year, support is determined by a shared placement formula which takes into consideration the earnings of both parties and the number of overnights.<\/p>\n<p>Although typically the party with less placement pays support, in a shared placement scenario,<strong> the party with more placement may be the payor considering the formula is based on the earnings of both parties<\/strong>.\u00a0 DCF 150 also provides for alternative formulas in the event a payor is a high wage earner or earning below poverty.\u00a0\u00a0 The use of DCF 150 provides an amount of child support that is presumed to be correct, but the court may deviate from these guidelines in appropriate circumstances. The award is subject to change so long as the obligation to support remains. It may be increased or decreased if a substantial change occurs in the circumstances of either or both of the parents of the child.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to child support, the court may make orders relative to health insurance, uninsured medical expenses, variable expenses and daycare expenses for the minor child.\u00a0 The court may order the parties to share the expenses equally or may order the parties to pay proportionate to their respective placement percentage.\u00a0 The court may also order who gets to deduct the children for tax purposes on an annual or bi-annual schedule.<\/p>\n<p>In cases for child support and maintenance, the court may impute income to a party if the court finds that he or she is not working to his or her earning capacity and such decision is unreasonable in light of the circumstances.\u00a0 The parties may combine maintenance and child support into one payment of family support.\u00a0 Although child support is not tax deductible, family support is tax deductible to the payor and taxable to the payee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a title=\"irs\" name=\"irs\"><\/a><strong>UPDATE #2 &#8211; Income Taxes:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For those wondering about the Internal Revenue Service, the information uncovered in the bankruptcy could lead the IRS to look closer at Jennifer Howe Sauls McKinney.\u00a0 If the IRS is made aware of substantial discrepancies in reporting income that were discovered in the bankruptcy, they could easily audit her for at least the past three years (and up to seven years if there is suspicion of tax fraud). This would entail the IRS digging through all of Jennifer&#8217;s records to prove her actual income and expenses, and if she has poor records (which Mr. Doeling seems to think is the case), she could be in a world of hurt.<\/p>\n<p>In tax cases in which the taxpayer has failed to keep adequate records, the IRS often uses bank deposits as the measure of income. So the total deposits could be considered her income for the year. What about the business expenses? She would only be allowed deductions for those items which she can prove. In cases with poor documentation, the taxpayer often ends up being taxed on a high amount of income, since the taxpayer is unable to prove otherwise.<\/p>\n<p><a title=\"domain\" name=\"domain\"><\/a><strong>UPDATE #3 &#8211; Domain Name Change:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Some are wondering if Jen&#8217;s domain name change happening soon is legal. She is legally able to register a domain name at any time, and start a website at any time. The bankruptcy court cannot stop her from doing that.<\/p>\n<p>However, I do NOT believe that Jennifer owns the content on her current website (the bankruptcy court does), so she should NOT be allowed to move that to a new site. Up to this point, the bankruptcy trustee has been saying that the asset is the domain name. I believe the assets arereally the domain name <strong>plus<\/strong> the content. Those two together are what have value to the bankruptcy estate, and so the bankruptcy court should seize both of them immediately, if it can.<\/p>\n<p>If action is not taken to seize the domain and the content (yes, including all of the pictures Jennifer has taken and posted on the site), she could simply register a new domain, copy all the content to the new site, and redirect the old URL to the new site. It would be a seamless transition. People accessing a URL for the old site would automatically go to the same page on the new site (if it&#8217;s set up correctly), and they&#8217;d never know the difference. This would defeat the whole purpose of the bankruptcy court seizing the asset.<\/p>\n<p>The court should take the domain and the content NOW, thereby having possession of these valuable assets and not allowing Jen to do a redirect to her new site. They should make her start from scratch without the assets owned by the bankruptcy court. Whether the bankruptcy court will do this is anyone&#8217;s guess, but we can hope.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>What is fraud? A false representation of a matter of fact\u2014whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed\u2014that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[872],"tags":[1933,1982,1981,1942,1926,1980,1979,1941],"class_list":["post-9835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-government-fraud","tag-bankruptcy-fraud","tag-jennifer-mckinney-bankruptcy","tag-jennifer-mckinney-fraud","tag-jennifer-sauls","tag-mckmama","tag-mckmama-fraud","tag-mckmama-scam","tag-mcmama"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6Z0e-2yD","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9835","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9835\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sequenceinc.com\/fraudfiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}