MARY D. FRANCE, Bankruptcy Judge
Debtor filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 on April 16, 2003. On Schedule "I" he reported no monthly income. On the Statement of Financial Affairs he stated that he received no income in the two calendar years preceding the filing of his petition. On Schedules `A" and "S" he stated that he had no assets, real or personal — no home, no furnishings, no cash and no clothes. What he did report on Schedule F, however, was $64,128.06 in credit card debt.
An informal inquiry by the Office of the United States Trustee (UST) revealed that, Contrary to the representations in his schedules and statements, Debtor did own same personal assets and received bath wages and unemployment compensation in the two years preceding the filing. On the basis of these revelations and other factors, the UST filed the instant motion to dismiss the case "for cause" pursuant to 11 U.S.C 707(a) alleging that Debtor had fled his petition in bad faith.
Section 707(A) states in relevant part:
The court may dismiss a case under this chapter only after notice and a hearing and only for cause including —
(1) unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors;
(2) nonpayment of any fees or charges required under chapter 7.23 of Title 2 S; and
(3) failure of the debtor in a voluntary case to file ___., the information required by paragraph (1) of section 521. . . .
11 U.S.C. § 707(a)
11 U.S.C. § 521 (a) requires a debtor "to file a list of creditors, and unless the court orders otherwise, a schedule of assets and liabilities, a schedule of current income and current expenditures, and a statement of the debtor's financial affairs."
While Section 707(a) does not explicitly state that bad faith is a basis for dismissal, the Third Circuit clearly has held that it is. In re Tamecki, 229 F.3d 205, 207 (3rd Cir. 2000). Tamecki explained the operation of Section 707(x), as follows:
Section 707(a) allows a bankruptcy court to dismiss a petition far cause if the petitioner fails to demonstrate his good faith in filing . . . Although the Code does not define "good faith," courts in this circuit have uniformly held that "[at] the very least, good faith requires a showing of honest intention. [ ] Courts have cautioned, however, that:
Dismissal based on lack o good faith . . . should be confined carefully and is generally utilized only in those egregious cases that entail concealed or misrepresented assets and/or sources of income, lavish lifestyles, and intention to avoid a large single debt based upon conduct akin to fraud, misconduct or gross negligence,
In re Zick, 931 F.2d 1124, 1129 (6th Cir. 1991). Courts can determine good faith only on an ad hoc basis and must decide whether the petitioner has abused the provisions, purpose, or spirit of bankruptcy law. ___. Once a party calls into question a petitioner's good faith, the burden shifts to the petitioner to prove his good faith. Tamecki, 229 F.3d at 207 (citations omitted).
The UST has called Debtor's good faith into question by filing the instant motion. Moreover, it presented a prima facie case of had. faith when it showed that Debtor's schedules falsely stated that he had no assets and no income. It thus became Debtor's burden to prove his good faith. To sustain his burden, Debtor introduced recent tax returns and numerous monthly statements_torn credit card companies. He also testified about his work history, income and expenditures. But Debtor's evidence was insufficient to prove good faith, as I will discuss below.
Debtor's tax returns supported the UST's case, rather than proving Debtor's good faith. They plainly showed that he had earned income, including unemployment compensation, during the three years before he filed and that he knew he had earned income. A debtor is not excused from reporting his income simply because the amount is modest. The Official Forms for the Statement of Financial Affairs and Schedule "I" do not suggest that small amounts need not be reported. Schedule "I plainly asks far Debtor's current monthly income_The Statement of Financial Affairs asks for the gross income earned to the date of the filing of the petition and the amount earned far the prior two years. When Debtor answered `none' while aware that he had earned wages in each period, his answer was false. His answer was not an arithmetical miscalculation or an inadvertent orulssion of an secondary source of income. Either Debtor intended to misrepresent his situation, or he displayed a cavalier disregard for the significance: of filing a document under penalty of perjury. This false hood negates the "honest intention" that Tamecki requires far a showing of good faith. It also demonstrates the concealment or misrepresentation of sources of income to which Tamecki refers.
Debtor attempts to cure the false statements in his original documents by arguing that he provided the correct income information to the UST in response to an informal inquiry before the Motion to Dismiss was fled. Therefore, he concludes, the "Trustee's allegation of non-reported unemployment compensation is simply untrue." (Debtor's Brief at p. 3.) This argument suggests that Debtor and his attorney misapprehend the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code_Bankruptcy relief is a privilege that may be obtained if a debtor provides a full and honest disclosure of assets and liabilities. The bankruptcy system is not a game of cat and moose when: the UST chases debtors but must release them after they are caught. it is the responsibility of debtors and their counsel to ensure that the information reported in schedules and statements is accurate and complete. The Court expects accurate reporting of assets, income and expenses on the original schedules, not later when deficiencies have been identified by the UST or some other party. Debtors are not expected to be perfect; errors will be made. But even a cursory review of the schedules and statements fled in the instant case would have revealed to an honest and forthright debtor that the information was' grossly inaccurate.
While Debtor might assert that it was his attorney who prepared the schedules, Debtor cannot foist responsibility on his attorney for his own failure to properly review them. See, In re Thornton, 203 B.R. 648, 653 (Dkrtcy.S.D.Ohio, 1996) (Even if misrepresentations in petition were result of unilateral conduct by attorney, which is not clear, debtors still responsible for acts of their counsel); citing, Taylor v, Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 416, 108 S.Ct. 646, 657, 98 L.Fd.2d 798, rch g denied, 485 U.S. 983, 108 S.O. 1283, 99 L.Ed.2d 494 (1988) (holding a criminal defendant liable for the attorney's failure to manage witness disclosures).
The Court in U.S. v. Johmston, 267 B.R. 717 (N.DJex.2001) set forth an excellent discussion of the bankruptcy system vis-a-vis honesty and accuracy in the filing of one's schedules The bankruptcy code requires that debtors "file . . . a schedule of assets and liabilities." 11 U.5.C.A. 521(1) (West 1993). This provision "imposes upon bankruptcy debtors an express, affirmative duty to disclose all assets." In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F_3d 197, 208 (5th Cir. 1999). The debtor is required "to fully disclose his property and his financial affairs, since `a discharge is a privilege granted the honest debtor, and is not a right accorded all bankrupts.'" In re Dies, 95 B.R. 419, 421 (Bankr.N.D.Tex. 1988) (quoting In re Robinson, 546 F.2d 1184, 1189 (2d Cir. 1974). Indeed, the Code is designed to require complete disclosure at the outset of the proceedings:
The statutes are designed to insure that complete, truthful, and reliable information is put forward at the outset of the proceedings, so that decisions can be made by the parties in interest based on fact rather than fiction. As we have stated, "[t]he successful functioning of the bankruptcy act hinges both upon the bankrupt's veracity and his willingness to make a full disclosure." Neither the trustee nor the creditors should be required to engage in a laborious tug-of-war to drag the simple truth into the glare of daylight. Baroff v. Tully, 818 F.2d 106, 110 (1st Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); "[T]he integrity of the bankruptcy system depends on full and honest disclosure by debtors of all of their assets. . . . The interests o both the creditors, who plan their actions in the bankruptcy proceeding on the basis of information supplied in the disclosure statements, and the bankruptcy court, which must decide whether to approve the plan of reorganization on the same basis, are impaired when the disclosure provided by the debtor is incomplete." Coastal Plains, 179 F.3d at 208. The debtor's duty to make full disclosure is a continuing one. Id. Johnston, at 722-23
Rather than demonstrating good, faith, Debtor's monthly credit card statements further hinder his case. The statements were introduced to support Debtor's assertion that he was not using his credit cards to purchase luxuries with no intent to pay. Debtor asserts that he simply used credit cards to acquire basic necessities. Neither assertion demonstrates that his bankruptcy petition was filed in, good faith, and the first assertion is only partially true_ The monthly statements show frequent and regular indulgences that call for same justification when one's earnings are so meager. Debtor's testimony gave only a vague explanation for his frequent travels to New York, where he often dined out, sometimes spending more than $100.00 at a single restaurant. Debtor gave no explanation for his regular visits to what appears to be a hair salon, where he paid $90.00 or more for what his attorney refers to as "haircuts"_ (See Debtor's Brief, p. 17) Thus, while Debtor may not have purchased luxury items of excessive value, he clearly indulged himself in extravagances that he did not need and that were far beyond his means.
At the time of the hearing, Debtor lived with his mother. He stated that she "provides my means of having a roof over my head and provides food and daily sustenance." (N.T. 15.)
Finally, Debtor's testimony failed to affirmatively establish his good faith. He did not describe overwhelming financial pressure or the need for a fresh start_Indeed, he implied that the only reason he filed for bankruptcy was because the credit card companies "shut [him) off," (N.T. 17.) From his point of view, by paying the minimum balance each month he was "paid up" each month even though he had made additional purchases during the preceding month. (N.T. 17.) If this perspective were correct, a credit card holder could incur greater monthly charges far an infinite period as long as he made the preceding month's minimum payment. Debtor did not file his Petition because he was drowning in debt. He filed because the well of seemingly endless credit finally ran dry.
For all of these reasons, I conclude that Debtor has failed to prove that his petition was filed in good faith. Therefore, IZ am compelled to sustain the UST's motion to dismiss under Section 707(a).
It is hereby ORDERED that the instant Petition is dismissed.