Slashdot Mirror


IRS Can Now Seize Your Tax Refund To Pay a Relative's Debt

Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Just in time for the April 15 IRS filing deadline comes news from the Washington Post that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers expecting refunds are instead getting letters informing them of tax debts they never knew about: often a debt incurred by their parents. The government is confiscating their checks, sometimes over debts 20—30 years old. For example, when Mary Grice was 4 (in 1960), her father died ... 'Until the kids turned 18, her mother received survivor benefits from Social Security ... Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family in 1977. ... Four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. ... "It was a shock," says Grice, 58. "What incenses me is the way they went about this. They gave me no notice, they can't prove that I received any overpayment, and they use intimidation tactics, threatening to report this to the credit bureaus."' The Treasury Department has intercepted ... $75 million from debts delinquent for more than 10 years according to the department's debt management service. 'The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.'"

16 of 632 comments (clear)

  1. Over 18 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the kids were not over 18 - could the benefit received by the mother not be considered a contract between the govt and the mother and therefore since the kids were too young to be signatories how could they be held accountable?

    1. Re:Over 18 by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But they seem to recognize inheritance of debt.

      I thought that inherited debt was something that was used in medieval times and in some third world countries to effectively create slavery.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Over 18 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are right, and that is effectively what they are attempting now. A way to increase revenue and have a class of people that are eternally in poverty with no recourse.

    3. Re:Over 18 by Duhavid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quite. Now, who added the single line spoken of to the farm bill that opened the door for this?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    4. Re:Over 18 by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, multi-generation debt is totally illegal in the private sector. For evil of this mind-numbing intensity, you need a government.

    5. Re:Over 18 by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. The heirs are not responsible for the debts of the estate. The debts are paid by the executor out of the assets of the estate.

      I think I see what's happening now. It's been sensationalized. What's happened is that the estate was settle and the heirs were paid. What the IRS is going after is not the daughter's assets per se but the inherited assets paid to her improperly out of the estate because the estate didn't settle its debts with the IRS.

    6. Re:Over 18 by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. The heirs are not responsible for the debts of the estate. The debts are paid by the executor out of the assets of the estate.

      I think I see what's happening now. It's been sensationalized. What's happened is that the estate was settle and the heirs were paid. What the IRS is going after is not the daughter's assets per se but the inherited assets paid to her improperly out of the estate because the estate didn't settle its debts with the IRS.

      It's been double-sensationalized. The headline would lead one to believe that the IRS could steal your refund to pay for what your brother-in-law owes.

    7. Re:Over 18 by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well YES! That's the Democrat (the politicians, not the voters) Party for you. Rules for them, and rules for everyone else. They actually believe in a caste based system. The idea being that if you accept your position in life, you'd be less inclined to fight for a higher standard of living. It makes management of a serfdom much easier along with the ease of accumulation of power.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  2. Ex Post Facto Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just what good is a Statute of Limitations when it can be raised after the fact?
    Can they lift the Statute on 40 year old Federal crimes and go out and arrest people?
    And this is beside the fact that you are not your parents. Once you are an adult you are an individual.

  3. Pocket change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The Treasury Department has intercepted ... $75 million from debts delinquent for more than 10 years"

    Let's put this into perspective:

          $ 75,000,000 collected
    $1,386,100,000,000 last year's revenue from individual income tax

  4. Re:Late to the party as usual.. by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what? How about I go over your house and beat your face in. Hey, I've stopped now! Let's not let that get in the way of a good criminal rant!

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  5. Refunds indicate bad tax planning by eric31415927 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A large refund is a sign of poor tax planning. You are getting your own money back without interest. In light of this story, you may not even get your own money back if the feds take it.

    Arrange your source deductions and installment payments so that you don't get a refund.

    It would be better to owe $2K each year than to expect refunds.

  6. No time limit != liability for debt by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because the time limit has been raised, that doesn't incur a liability for the debt on the part of anyone who isn't already liable for it. And generally children aren't liable for their parent's debts unless their signature's on the contract. The parent's estate might be liable, but good luck collecting from that once the estate's finalized and closed out. I suspect this'll be what any competent attorney will raise as an issue if the victims get one: "Regardless of anything else, this is not my client's debt and the debt being collectible doesn't on it's own make my client liable for it.".

  7. Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently by Phil-14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Senate and the House both were Democrat at the time. But I want to see the list of Republicans who voted for it too, because primaries are coming up.

    --
    (currently testing something about signatures here)
  8. Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Liberals are tax and spend, Conservatives are spend and spend until they prove that the government is broken. Mission accomplished!

  9. Re:Am I the only person... by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not just read out. The Congressmen/Senators should be forced to take a quiz about the contents of the bill afterward. If they are unable to pass it with 100%, they are not allowed to vote for the bill.