The House Ways and Means Committee Wednesday approved a bill that would strike language from the countryâ??s tax code that authorizes the IRS to hire private debt collectors. By a vote of 23-18, the committee Wednesday approved H.R. 3056, dubbed the â??Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007,â? that specifically removes the language in the Internal Revenue Code that gives the IRS permission to use private debt collection agencies for certain delinquent tax cases. The bill now goes to the full House for consideration.
Interesting.......I know this was a hot topic, for "reducing" IRS expenses, and (supposedly) increasing collections of owed taxes. However, I think the idea of "private debt collection" would open up such a legal issue that it would never be settled. As in, how does a "collection agency" prove they have the legal entitlement to collect what is a "voluntary contribution" (definition of levied tax!). I also fail to see how a debt collection agency would have more effectiveness than tax liens, and armed special agents seizing all your property?
It is interesting to note that one of the very first collection letters sent by one of the IRS Collection Agencies is a violation of FDCPA. How do I know? I was the recipient of that letter. Here are the facts: I am an Enrolled Agent licensed by the IRS to represent taxpayers. One of my clients' accounts was turned over to the CA. This client has dropped off my radar screen a couple of years ago and I am unable to contact him. The CA sent me a letter telling me in no uncertain language that I am now the responsible party for this client's tax debt. Transferring this concept to a Criminal Court, it would be like imprisoning the defense attorney whenever the defendant is found guilty. The CA's attorney is claiming this falls under the Bona Fide Error exception. I will give him a chance to prove that in Court.
Is there a (partial) claim here that you are responsible for the fines and possible errors (if you completed the client's tax return)?
First of all, what statute, rule or regulation makes you think that tax matters are consumer debt therefore falling under FDCPA? What statute, rule or regulation says the CA acting on the behalf of the IRS has any authority to take you to court? What statute, rule or regulation says that a tax preparer acting in his business capacity is a consumer who can avail himself of the protections of the FDCPA? What statute, rule or regulation states that FDCPA applies to anyone other than a consumer?
The other basic question here is: "are owed taxes a debt, per se?" As you used the term "consumer", this covers the implication of a commerce transaction, and an exchange of "equal value". Since the FDCPA in practice covers what are commercial transactions, and I do not believe payment of income taxes falls under this category. flyingifr's receipt of "notice" is (in my understanding) a practice to ensure awareness to the preparer, and their potential involvement. I also do not see how the FDCPA applies to taxes, as the tax law provides its own procedures, protectionary laws and procedures. For instance, a "CA" does not have to "legally" consider an "Offer In Comprimise", which the IRS does have to consider (for owed and unpaid taxes). The intent of the bill to allow past due tax collection to be performed by commercial collection agencies was one seeking to reduce the cost of the IRS, and expedite the backlog of uncollected taxes. I doubt this act will happen, a main reason being that these Tax CAs would have to conduct business in accordance with IRS statutes. Not an easy transition. I have dealt with the IRS, and their collection abilities are much more powerful than any CA!
I am not the preparer of the returns and had no hand in them. To this day I have never even seen them.
Did you ever "represent" this client? I'm a bit confused on how you would be provided notice, if you were not part of the preparation, or representation... Did this person "list" you as a preparer?
As I said - I represent this client. No chance of IRS thinking I am the preparer (besides, the preparer is never responsible for the taxpayer's tax debt - only Preparer penalties for fraudulent representation). The CA's letter plainly states that I am now responsible (in their eyes) for the client's tax debt. It is addressed to me personally and not as a Representative and clearly states "You are responsible for payment of this debt".
I'm not sure I understand this situation....was this an indivdual tax "owed", or a corporate tax liability? I'm puzzled by a "CA" contacting you, who are they claiming is the "OC"?
Silly me! Here I thought you had prepared the tax returns for the client since Enrolled Agents advise, represent, and prepare tax returns for individuals, partnerships, corporations, estates, trusts, and any entities with tax-reporting requirements. Since that is the official description of what an Enrolled Agent does, I thought you prepare tax returns for individuals, partnerships, corporations, estates, trust and any entities with tax-reporting requirements. Since you didn't prepare the tax returns for the client you would obviously not have first hand knowledge of the contents of the tax return prepared by someone other than yourself. Exact same thing as with a debt. An affiant must have first hand knowledge of the debt and in order to have that kind of knowledge about the debt the affiant must be the person who created the record in the first place. Or at least that is one of the favorite arguments of many so called legal experts. Be that as it may, the question I asked still remains unanswered. You allegedly (according to IRS) (or self admittedly) acted as an Enrolled Agent whose duty is to prepare tax returns advise or represent any or all of the above entities. Since you are not acting as a consumer while acting in the capacity of an Enrolled Agent how do you expect to be able to sue the CA who you allege violated FDCPA for that alleged violation? Now then, you claim to be a litigous something or other, but why is it that if you lay claim to being so litigous you have never filed a federal lawsuit against any debt collector yourself? Granted that you have hired attorneys to file lawsuits for you 3 times in federal court but let's look at the record. In two of the three cases you or your attorneys jumped ship and filed motions to dismiss your cases with prejudice. In the third case two attorneys were involved and one of them jumped ship. The other carried it to it's conclusion which was settled by agreement of the parties meaning that the Defendant essentially asked the following question. If I kiss you will you go away and leave me alone? The point being that the defendant got smart and realized that it was going to be cheaper to just pay you whether you had a legitimate beef or not. Many debt collectors take this approach when sued for FDCPA violations. Simply kiss the plaintiff with a few greenbacks to make them go away. So you have no experience in filing suits in federal court as you love to brag about having, don't even know that FDCPA only applies to consumers and not to business people in the course of plying their trade, and by your own admission don't even perform the tasks Enrolled Agents do. And you want people to go to yoiur message board and learn the FLYINGIFR METHOD OF AGRESSIVE CREDIT REPAIR? GIVE US A BREAK!!
I do, but I did not prepare THIS tax return for THIS person. The contents of the tax return is not the issue. Never was. Neither is any affiant. Simple - the CA is taking the position that I am the debtor. Even people who do not actually owe the debt are "consumers" as defined by FDCPA if the Collector takes the position they owe the debt. FDCPA section 803(3): (3) The term "consumer" means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt. Never had to. My suits have been filed in State Court so far. I have made several co0nvincing threats to file in Federal, and all have so far led to settlement. That day will eventually come. Your research is terribly flawed. The Motions to Dismiss were as a result of settlements that were quite favorable to me. No attorney of mine ever "jumped ship". The attorney I use is a personal friend who I am teaching the Flyingifr Method to, as he wants to start including that in his practice. In most cases it is much cheaper to settle than to go to trial - for both sides. Is there something wrong with that? It's called Using the Law as Both a Sword and a Shield (from the Flyingifr Method). Once again, you know not what you are talking about. My experience in Federal Court (or any Court for that matter) is simple: Approximately $20,000 in settlement money paid to me and $0 paid by me. Care to learn about my airplane (the one that my ex-creditors paid for?) N7047W is the tail number. The debt the CA is after me is not related to my business as an Enrolled Agent - it is not even mine and therefore cannot be related to my business as an Enrolled Agent. I do all tasks that an Enrolled Agent does, just not all tasks for all people. Snipe all you want - the Flyingifr Method works. If someone wants to come to Debtorboards to read it they are welcome to do so. If they choose not to, they are also welcome. Do you have a better way of obtaining credit repair? If so, where is it? If not, then maybe you should develop one. You seem to have a lot of irrelevant questions and innuendos and very few answers.
Yes, but taxes are not consumer debt. [/quote] It's called Using the Law as Both a Sword and a Shield (from the Flyingifr Method). [/quote] FDCPA was never meant to be a sword. I'll leave all such exercises in futility to you. Everybody knows or should know that if you don't pay your bills you will get sued eventually and that will ruin all the silly credit repair you ever wasted your time on. {quote] You seem to have a lot of irrelevant questions and innuendos and very few answers.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant questions? Time will tell how irrelevant they are. Trying to sue a collection agency working for the government for FDCPA violations is about the same as trying to plow a field with a team of pigs.
