Is it really tax fraud to write someone off as a "profit and loss writeoff" to the tune of $7856 and then keep accepting payments from them? See, I thought that even though they do write you off, technically you still owe them the money. I guess what I am asking is when they report to the Cra's that I have been written off, doesn't that mean that they are not receiving any money from that debt? If so, they wrote me off in November 1998 on TU and I have been paying them $250 a month since then. I just don't know what direction to take this and my lawyer, well, I don't know what to do...If I had my wishes, it would be off my credit report totally. I mean, they can have the stupid car. It's not worth $7856 and I don't owe them that much.
Yes, they can still accept payment(s). Their beancounters will perform their magic later, but they can/will still accept $$ for a charged off account. Just because it's charged off doesn't mean you don't owe it. And if you owe it, they can collect it, no matter what they have to do (P&L-wise) down the road. No, reporting to the CRA that something was written off does NOT mean 'they are not receiving any money on that debt'. It's a snapshot, not an on-going report (to the CRA). If everybody had their wishes, alot of things would just 'be off' their credit reports. They don't want the car. They want thier $7856.
True! The company gets a tax write-off (charged on Profit and Loss) but that does not relieve you of the debt. When you make payments, the money is usually charged or coded(in accounting speak)to bad debt recovery. This money is accounted for when P&L write-offs are calculated and reduces the bad debt burdon.
You raise an interesting point in that they are definitely double dipping the system. Take another example: your car goes delinquent, they take the p&l writeoff, they sell your account to a collection agency... the collection agency continues to try and collect in full, they collect some, sell it again, etc etc. Also, what if you had bought credit insurance. The company would've received compensation on that too. Yes, they double dip all the time. I don't know about tax fraud but when they sell your account to a collection agency YOU then have an accord and satisfaction defense against the creditors. There is now case law supporting that, once your debt is sold, you now have affirmative defenses. You're very intelligent to start thinking along this line. Here's some info for you to chew on: It looks like you're still w/the original creditor but if it goes to collection this will save your hide. Here's the basic idea: With regards to assignments: "Case law tells us that even though a creditor can legally assign an account to a collector, it is not enforceable unless the debtor agrees to the assignment. The collector has no standing to collect without your consent. The agreement can be established by making a payment to the collector. This is called "consideration." In order for you to be obligated to any assignee, you must have derived some benefit from the assignee, or paid a bill to them, or signed a new written agreement (a novation). You must agree to the assignment or it is not enforceable. The affirmative defenses include "accord and satisfaction," "statute of frauds (no contract in writing)," and "failure of consideration," for most of these types of cases. These defenses are to be used when the "debtor" is sued by one of the assignees (it doesn't matter if the original creditor ends up as one of the assignees). The first is "failure of consideration" which means, there is no evidence that an agreement was made, no payment, no exchange of any benefit or detriment to any party. The second is "statute of frauds" which means there is no contract in writing between the parties. Because the original creditor never actually named the new collector as an assignee in the credit agreement, the assignee can never be a party to that agreement unless permitted by both the debtor and creditor. The third used is "accord and satisfaction" which means the debt has been satisfied in full. The analogy is if you owed your neighbor $100 and a friend paid the debt for you and your neighbor accepted $75 in satisfaction of the debt, neither your friend nor your neighbor can sue you for the $25 because they accepted another amount in lieu of the original debt. It can also be called a "novation." This also happens because of an assignment. If a debt is assigned to a third party collector, it is no longer legally enforceable because the creditor has waived his standing or rights to collect. The same applies to the third party collector. No one can put himself in harms way (incur a debt knowingly and voluntarily) and then expect to be awarded damages for his losses. In any case, these defenses don't need to be spelled out when addressing a collector (not the creditor) with a request for validation. The statute takes care of all that for you. Keep it simple. Most of these cases are won, in my opinion, because of the collector's poor record keeping and the incompetence of collector employees. I always recommend that you don't discuss a collection with anyone over the phone, but request that all correspondence about the dispute be done in writing. Always get the name, phone number and company name from the caller and tell them not to call you anymore. If they do,they can be fined by the FTC. I got all this free from: Mirrored at: http://mix6.com/credit or http://www.primenet.com/~kielsky/credit READ THIS STUFF FIRST! then you'll have basic info. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/credit-repair is a group that discusses this approach. Finally, there is a guy names "due process" on that board who sells very specific info on this method. His website is www.dueprocess.org
I see where you are going with this Marie and believe me, from reading your post I do agree it would be better if I was dealing with another collector beside my original creditor, but this is the original creitor. This bank has screwed me royally. I cannot begin to tell you how angry I am..(Read Charge off auto loan posting) (Yes, I just realized I need to use the same name.) Anyway, I have asked multiple times for a payment history on this account, beginning way back in 1998 after they wrote me off. On the TU report, it shows one bank (the bank was bought out) reporting me as paying as agreed, never late in 8/98 and then when they were bought out by another bank in 11/98, they wrote me off as a "p&l." Immediately, I wrote them asking for a payment history so I could compare their records with mine, they told me that would be difficult, but they would try.*&^?!@ Anyway, I have asked repeatedly for three years now for a payment history and I am still paying them, but they have never worked with me. Here is where I stand in all of this...(Correct me if I am wrong...) 1. I have applied for two house loans during this three years and have been turned down because they are reporting that I am a "p&l" write-off. Their information and balance on the loan is incorrect and has been incorrect for three years, but they will not show me how and why they believe I owe $7856. I believe I owe $2250. 2. As I said in a letter to them, "How is it that you can tell me I owe this balance you all have figured out, yet you cannot give me a payment history?" This is absurd. If I tell you that you owe me $500 and you believe you owe me only $200, then don't I have an obligation to show you WHY you owe that debt 3. I truly believe that these people have nothing on me... Why do I say that? Because Bank A has been bought out by B and then C. When C bought them out, they actually called me and asked me what my terms were on the loan and when the loan was to end. Huh? Yes, this actually happened. What do I want out of all of this? I want my good credit to be restored, I want to pay the $2250 and say GOODBYE to this financial instituion forever... Also, my lawyer is not helping me. He sent out a letter in early February and hsa still not heard from them... Any suggestions? I want to end this three year battle. Marie wrote: > > You raise an interesting point in that they are definitely > double dipping the system. > > Take another example: your car goes delinquent, they take the > p&l writeoff, they sell your account to a collection > agency... the collection agency continues to try and collect > in full, they collect some, sell it again, etc etc. > > Also, what if you had bought credit insurance. The company > would've received compensation on that too. Yes, they double > dip all the time. I don't know about tax fraud but when they > sell your account to a collection agency YOU then have an > accord and satisfaction defense against the creditors. > > There is now case law supporting that, once your debt is > sold, you now have affirmative defenses. You're very > intelligent to start thinking along this line. Here's some > info for you to chew on: It looks like you're still w/the > original creditor but if it goes to collection this will save > your hide. > > Here's the basic idea: > > With regards to assignments: "Case law tells us that even > though a creditor can legally assign an account to a > collector, it is not enforceable unless the debtor agrees to > the assignment. The collector has no standing to collect > without your consent. The agreement can be established by > making a payment to the collector. This is called > "consideration." > > In order for you to be obligated to any assignee, you must > have derived some benefit from the assignee, or paid a bill > to them, or signed a new written agreement (a novation). You > must agree to the assignment or it is not enforceable. > > The affirmative defenses include "accord and satisfaction," > "statute of frauds (no contract in writing)," and "failure of > consideration," for most of these types of cases. These > defenses are to be used when the "debtor" is sued by one of > the assignees (it doesn't matter if the original creditor > ends up as one of the assignees). > > The first is "failure of consideration" which means, there is > no evidence that an agreement was made, no payment, no > exchange of any benefit or detriment to any party. The second > is "statute of frauds" which means there is no contract in > writing between the parties. Because the original creditor > never actually named the new collector as an assignee in the > credit agreement, the assignee can never be a party to that > agreement unless permitted by both the debtor and creditor. > > The third used is "accord and satisfaction" which means the > debt has been satisfied in full. The analogy is if you owed > your neighbor $100 and a friend paid the debt for you and > your neighbor accepted $75 in satisfaction of the debt, > neither your friend nor your neighbor can sue you for the $25 > because they accepted another amount in lieu of the original > debt. It can also be called a "novation." This also happens > because of an assignment. If a debt is assigned to a third > party collector, it is no longer legally enforceable because > the creditor has waived his standing or rights to collect. > The same applies to the third party collector. No one can put > himself in harms way (incur a debt knowingly and voluntarily) > and then expect to be awarded damages for his losses. > > In any case, these defenses don't need to be spelled out when > addressing a collector (not the creditor) with a request for > validation. The statute takes care of all that for you. Keep > it simple. Most of these cases are won, in my opinion, > because of the collector's poor record keeping and the > incompetence of collector employees. I always recommend that > you don't discuss a collection with anyone over the phone, > but request that all correspondence about the dispute be done > in writing. Always get the name, phone number and company > name from the caller and tell them not to call you anymore. > If they do,they can be fined by the FTC. > > > I got all this free from: > Mirrored at: http://mix6.com/credit or > http://www.primenet.com/~kielsky/credit READ THIS STUFF > FIRST! then you'll have basic info. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/credit-repair is a group that > discusses this approach. > Finally, there is a guy names "due process" on that board who > sells very specific info on this method. > His website is www.dueprocess.org
