Available at (ABI membership may be required):
Show Me the Money: The Chapter 13 Trustee Audit Process
https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/show-me-the-money-the-chapter-13-audit-process
Effective Chapter 13 Trustee Audits
https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/effective-chapter-13-trustee-audits
Over the course of several monthly issues, the ABI Journal recently published an interesting point-counterpoint regarding the annual audits of Chapter 13 trustees. The first article, written by three long-serving Chapter 13 trustees—including Montana Standing Chapter 13 Trustee Bob Drummond—argues that the current audit process has become unnecessarily expensive and inefficient. Several months later, senior officials from the U.S. Trustee Program (USTP) responded with a detailed defense of the existing system while acknowledging that reforms have already been implemented to improve efficiency.
For consumer bankruptcy practitioners, this exchange provides an unusually candid look behind the curtain at how standing Chapter 13 trustees themselves are supervised.
Summary
The March 2026 article, "Show Me the Money," argues that while independent audits are entirely appropriate, the current USTP-administered process imposes unnecessary costs that ultimately reduce creditor distributions and are indirectly borne by Chapter 13 debtors.
The trustee-authors identify several concerns. They argues that audit firms are selected by the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, yet the trustees themselves pay the audit costs without meaningful participation in selecting the auditors or negotiating the contracts. They contend that some auditors lack meaningful Chapter 13 experience, leading to repetitive document requests and inefficient audits. The authors also question why in-person field work remains the norm when remote auditing proved successful during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, they note that annual audit costs average roughly $12,000 per trustee and estimate that the current five-year audit cycle will cost approximately $10.8 million nationally. They also point out that, unlike Chapter 7 trustees and Subchapter V trustees, Chapter 13 trustees bear these audit costs themselves. (It isn't clear, however, whether reducing this cost would meaningfully impact the Trustee's commission on disbursements, let alone save debtors any money by lowering their plan payment or- not that I care- resulting in a greater dividend to unsecured creditors.)
The authors proposes several reforms, including greater trustee involvement in selecting audit firms, broader use of remote audits, better bankruptcy-specific training for auditors, geographic assignment of auditors to reduce travel costs, and having the USTP fund Chapter 13 audits just as it funds audits in other trustee programs.
The July 2026 response, "Effective Chapter 13 Trustee Audits," comes directly from senior USTP officials and offers a comprehensive defense of the current system.
The USTP emphasizes that independent CPA audits are an essential component of statutory oversight of Chapter 13 trustees. It notes that audit costs represent only about 0.04% of annual Chapter 13 disbursements and approximately 0.64% of trust operating expenses. The Program also explains that new audit contracts implemented in 2024 already streamlined procedures by reducing field work, expanding remote auditing, and incorporating trustee feedback obtained through consultation with the National Association of Chapter Thirteen Trustees (NACTT). Finally, the USTP stresses that audits have uncovered significant internal-control failures in the past—including misuse of trust assets, diversion of estate funds, and even criminal conduct—demonstrating why comprehensive independent oversight remains important.
The USTP therefore disagrees that audits should be limited largely to financial statements, disputes that audit costs meaningfully reduce creditor recoveries, and concludes that the existing funding structure appropriately treats audit expenses as part of operating a Chapter 13 trust.
Commentary:
One of the healthiest aspects of the bankruptcy system has always been its willingness to debate administration openly. It is refreshing to see experienced Chapter 13 trustees publicly criticize aspects of the audit process and equally refreshing to see the U.S. Trustee Program respond with a thoughtful and detailed defense rather than bureaucratic silence.
In many respects, the two sides agree far more than they disagree. Both recognize that independent audits are necessary. Both want competent auditors with meaningful bankruptcy experience. Both favor making the process more efficient. Indeed, the USTP explains that several changes implemented under the 2024 audit contracts—including reduced field work and expanded remote auditing—were adopted after consultation with NACTT and trustee feedback.
From a consumer bankruptcy perspective, however, one argument deserves a bit more scrutiny.
The trustee-authors understandably express frustration that they have too little input into selecting the auditors who review their operations. Yet consumer debtors and their attorneys are likely to view that complaint somewhat differently. Debtors have no say whatsoever in selecting the auditors who may review their financial affairs. They generally have no ability to choose the Chapter 13 trustee assigned to administer their case. And they certainly have no ability to choose the mortgage servicer with whom they may spend the next three to five years attempting to resolve payment disputes, escrow shortages, and Rule 3002.1 issues.
In other words, random assignment and independent selection are not unique burdens imposed on Chapter 13 trustees—they are fundamental characteristics of the bankruptcy system itself. They exist precisely because independence promotes public confidence and reduces concerns that regulated parties are selecting their own overseers.
That does not mean the trustees' concerns are misplaced. They make persuasive arguments that auditor qualifications matter, that unnecessary travel should be minimized, that experienced bankruptcy auditors produce better audits, and that avoidable administrative costs should be reduced whenever possible. Those are worthwhile discussions regardless of who selects the auditors.
Likewise, the USTP makes a compelling case that comprehensive audits serve an important public purpose. Bankruptcy professionals occasionally encounter embezzlement, accounting failures, and misuse of estate funds. Independent oversight that detects those problems before they become larger scandals benefits everyone—debtors, creditors, trustees, courts, and the public.
Thoughts from Bankruptcy Administrators and Chapter 13 Trustees in North Carolina (and Alabama)?
As the March article itself recognizes in a footnote, its criticisms are directed at the U.S. Trustee Program and "are not applicable in North Carolina and Alabama, which are not under U.S. Trustee jurisdiction."
That raises an obvious question for those of us practicing in North Carolina.
How are trustee audits conducted under the Bankruptcy Administrator system? Are there meaningful differences in scope, cost, auditor selection, or the balance between remote and on-site review? Do Bankruptcy Administrators and Chapter 13 trustees here view the process differently than their counterparts operating under the USTP?
Those would be fascinating questions to explore. These Chapter 13 Trustees were willing to publicly engage and critique the USTP audit process, and the U.S. Trustee Program responded with an equally candid defense. That sort of professional dialogue benefits the entire bankruptcy community. Hopefully Bankruptcy Administrators and Chapter 13 trustees in North Carolina—and, I suppose, Alabama as well—might also be willing to discuss how audits function outside the USTP. Comparing the two systems could reveal best practices that improve efficiency while maintaining the accountability and public confidence that every bankruptcy system depends upon.
Blog comments