Social Security won't seize tax refunds to collect old debts

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

WASHINGTON (AP) — People who owe old debts to the Social Security Administration are getting a reprieve this tax season: The federal government won't be seizing their tax refunds.

Acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn Colvin suspended a debt collection program last spring in which thousands of people had tax refunds seized to recoup overpayments that happened more than a decade ago. Members of Congress complained that some people were being forced to repay benefits they received decades ago as children.

Following a review, the agency said Monday it will continue suspending the program this tax season while officials explore possible changes.

"The commissioner is concerned about the public perception about the way we're running this program," said Pete Spencer, Social Security's deputy commissioner for budget, finance, quality and management.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150112/us--social_security-old_debts-1cd05c9e0d.html

[7962]

1. Some of those stories were absolutely ridiculous.

Taking money from a woman who was a child when her relative died. Dont know if that was in this article, but it was on a network news show last year

[merrily]

3. That does seem ridiculous--and ILLEGAL. Minors are not liable for debts they incur.

So I learned, to my great relief, after I signed up, as a minor, for a bunch of magazine subscriptions being sold door to door when I was the only one home.

If the SSA wants to go after anyone on that one, it would be the parent of the minor.

[7962]

5. Here's what I was referring to:

This article from just a few weeks ago.
"In March, the U.S. government intercepted Mary Grice’s tax refunds from both the IRS and the state of Maryland. It turned out that after Grice’s father died in 1960, when she was 4, her mother got survivor benefits to help feed and clothe her five children. Social Security says it overpaid someone in the Grice family — it’s not sure who — in 1977. With Grice’s mother long since dead, the government came after Mary to pay the debt."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-continuing-to-pursue-claims-against-family-members-for-old-debts/2014/12/13/4fbdc1f4-7fc7-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html

This is the kind of enforcement that turns people against government. Kind of "reverse fraud"

[merrily]

6. Again, minors are not liable for their debts so that

went well beyond enforcement.

If anyone had ANY legal obligation at all to repay alleged overpayments, it was the mother, not the person who is now an adult, but was a minor when the obligation to repay allegedly came into existence. I guess, when the mother died, the IRS could have made a claim against the estate of the mother, if any, though.

Minors are not civilly liable for debts, even if they personally incurred them. And proving criminal intent to defraud on the part of a four year old when it was the SSA that probably made the error would be impossible. Also, though I did not mention it in my original post, what about the statute of limitations on this debt?

No matter how one slices it, the action of the IRS was illegal, unless there are important facts not being given. I can't even imagine what those might be, though.

[7962]

8. Then the problem becomes getting justice against the government

And how hard it is to first, get them to actually admit they were wrong, and then getting them to remedy the situation. I had a friend who was paying the IRS monthly for a tax issue. One day they put a lien on all his property because they said he missed a pmt. He showed them his cancelled check, they admitted that he paid on time. But then they said well, we're jus tgoing to go ahead and leave the liens in place just to make sure you pay on time. I was co-owner on 2 of the properties. I didnt think the IRS could levy against ME when I had nothing to do with the problem!!

[merrily]

9. I am getting way out of my depth here, but I think the IRS has a legal right to lien property

if you owe them money, whether you missed a payment or not, without saying a single word to you or arranging a payment plan.

I have no clue if the IRS's saying that it put a lien on the property only because of a missed payment alters that legal right in any way or not.

Also have no clue what your rights are as co-owner of a property that has a tax lien on it. Have you seen the wording of the lien?

Whether you talk to a tax lawyer about that or not is up to you. If your portion of title is affected, is it important to you to clear it ASAP for any reason? Are you thinking of selling soon, before your co-owner pays off is or her arrearage? Do you fear th elien will affect your credit? (You can try to clear up the latter with credit reporting companies. The IRS may even be willing to give you a statement that the lien was not placed because of your actions--though it probably will NOT be willing to say that you don't owe them anything. Even a bank will not do that, figuring that, somewhere in its bowels may be a debt of some kind.

If you do decide to consult a lawyer and the charge is by the hour, I would recommend talking to a tax lawyer, rather than any other kind. IMO, any good tax lawyer should be able to answer those questions off the top of his or her head and make a recommendation and also give a reasonably accurate estimate of what the cost of recommended action would be, along with the likelihood of success.

Beyond the above, I please ignorance of the law, even though, as the saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[7962]

10. Hey, sounds to me like you've got a good grasp of it!!

This was a few years back and he's paid it off so the liens have been lifted, as far as I know. But I do want to find out about the law regarding dragging ME into it.

[merrily]

11. Knowing if the liens were lifted is the ballgame. Check the Registry of Deeds. Some

registries have their info online.

To encourage you to act soon, here's a horror story: The IRS put a lien on the home of an acquaintance and her husband. They paid off the taxes, but did not know to ask for a discharge or release of the lien. Yadda yadda, many years pass. They want to retire to the South. They sell the home, but they can't close the deal because, oops, the lien is still on the property.

The IRS can't find the info, which is very old now (the payoff was done before the records would have been computerized). So, they have to provide proof to the IRS. But, oops, some years earlier their basement had flooded. All the correspondence and cancelled checks they would have needed to prove payment to the IRS are gone. They don't have the money to pay the lien off twice, but they do manage to buy a townhome in the South. They have a huge family, so there are always kids or grandkids up north who can make use of the home. But, as best I know, the home will be in the family literally forever.

Look into that registry of deeds!

[merrily]

2. Concerned about public perception? What about Constitutional due process rights against the feds?

[jtuck004]

4. Return posted to your account, short a few hundred with no explanation. You look

at the details, deduction was for some code number. No explanation. Call the IRS, they say that code number has something to do with SS. Call SSA, literally almost impossible, go to the office. Sit around with a bunch of folks that have pull tabs, everyone wins, the prize being you get to speak to someone. (Used to meet interesting people in places like this years ago, now a lot seem out of sorts).

My fella can't find the info on the code or any authorization, but explains that it had something to do with an over payment in 1972, when my father was handling the money. Never got any details other than that, and dad's been dead a long time.

Ignorant and disrespectful way to do business, but the accounting was probably right. The public perception is completely accurate.

[merrily]

7. I don't even play a lawyer on TV, but please see replies 2, 3 and 6.

A few hundred bucks are not worth legal fees and a lawyer is unlikely to take a case for such a small amount on contingency. Also, your fella's objections are time limited. But, if the time limit has not passed, it may be worth a pro se appeal.

[Enrique]

12. they needed that money to give to the Nazis