Social Security, Treasury Target taxpayers..

[The Captain]

For their parents decades old debts.


www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-treasury-target-hundreds-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-for-parents-old-debts/2014/04/10/74ac8eae-bf4d-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

"A few weeks ago, with no notice, the U.S. government intercepted Mary Grice’s tax refunds from both the IRS and the state of Maryland. Grice had no idea that Uncle Sam had seized her money until some days later, when she got a letter saying that her refund had gone to satisfy an old debt to the government — a very old debt.

When Grice was 4, back in 1960, her father died, leaving her mother with five children to raise. Until the kids turned 18, Sadie Grice got survivor benefits from Social Security to help feed and clothe them."


Wow, I'm pro IRS but even I can't support this.  Dayyyum...

[Deleted]

i like the idea of paying down the debt, but collecting from children of parents who owed the debt?

i dont think so

bad idea....

another example of government getting it wrong

[wvugurl26]

I'm guessing they aren't hampered by a statute of limitations?

I hope she gets a lawyer because I can't even stand by their awful handling of this. SSA screwed up in 1977 but they aren't sure to who and they randomly select 1/5 siblings to collect from? I don't support that kind of garbage and abuse of power.

[NastyWoman]

Apr 11, 2014 9:56:57 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

i like the idea of paying down the debt, but collecting from children of parents who owed the debt?

i dont think so

bad idea....

another example of government getting it wrong

Actually, without any records to backup their statements, this is even worse: they are taking money from people based on say-so debt. Where is the proof there actually was a debt? It's not like therre has never been a clerical error or anything? Just because there was a payment means absolutely not that there was an error with that payment.

[wvugurl26]

Ah per my reading there was a statute of limitations that was lifted 3 years ago. That was probably their first mistake. I don't see why other agencies get unlimited time to correct their screw ups. They should have to abide by a statute of limitations like the rest of us.

[Bonny]

I can't find the item in the bill. That is a looooooong document.

I better not be responsible for paying my mother's IRS debts that were aged-off in 2008 and 2010. I forget the term Collection Expiry Date?

Hopefully there will be a hue and cry and this item will be repealed and/or modified. I'd also like to see some reform where you can't sneak substantially unrelated items in a bill. I KNOW it's done all the time but I think it's dirty business.

[wvugurl26]

The scary part of the elimination is its apparently retroactive. There is apparently one sentence in a 2011 farm bill that eliminated the 10 year statute and nobody will claim responsibility for it.

[Bonny]

Apr 11, 2014 10:36:23 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

The scary part of the elimination is its apparently retroactive. There is apparently one sentence in a 2011 farm bill that eliminated the 10 year statute and nobody will claim responsibility for it.

Exactly, the retroactive bit is the killer.

But I think the original statute of limitations of ten years was created as a cost saving item for the benefit of the government. There's point when everyone needs to acknowledge that something is a bad debt and move on.

[973beachbum]

There was a line in the article that said the gov hires a contractor to find the people with the debt or responsible.  Maybe I'm cynical but that soundsa little like a debt collector who buys old debt and brings it back to life and gets to keep what they find.  There is almost never a reason for those companies to admit the person they find shouldn't pay them what the debtor owes.

This is so bad I would actually consider donating to a legal defense fund type of thing, to help them get this fought and changed.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Apr 11, 2014 10:47:08 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

There was a line in the article that said the gov hires a contractor to find the people with the debt or responsible.  Maybe I'm cynical but that soundsa little like a debt collector who buys old debt and brings it back to life and gets to keep what they find.  There is almost never a reason for those companies to admit the person they find shouldn't pay them what the debtor owes.

I was thinking along those lines too. 

I also liked the line that said it was hard to fight because people followed the IRS schedule for how many years of tax paperwork to keep too. 

[wvugurl26]

The one lady mentioned, they don't have records to prove what is owed and why. The government should be subject to the same standards as all other debt collectors especially if we are eliminating the statute of limitations for them.

[phil5185]

One way to avoid having your refund confiscated for who-knows-what is to never get refunds, don't overpay your withholding during the year, make certain that you always still owe something on April 15. Then the IRS would have to come to you with a bill and ask you for money - and the bill would need to contain explanations (Disclosure - I haven't had a tax refund in 20 or 30 years, maybe more).

[Bonny]

I just sent a link to one of my Senators.

Since I acted as Trustee for my mother's upside down estate which included $40k of IRS debt back in 2008. I think I could be personally vulnerable since after I worked with all of the creditors I transferred title of her condo to me. I acted in good faith based on the CED.

Knowing this I probably would have walked away and let the creditors fight it out. I'm sure six years later they would STILL be fighting it out.

[Bonny]

Apr 11, 2014 11:18:22 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

One way to avoid having your refund confiscated for who-knows-what is to never get refunds, don't overpay your withholding during the year, make certain that you always still owe something on April 15. Then the IRS would have to come to you with a bill and ask you for money - and the bill would need to contain explanations (Disclosure - I haven't had a tax refund in 20 or 30 years, maybe more).

I think seizing refunds is the low hanging fruit.

The governmental agencies have the ability to seize your other assets as well including garnishing wages, bank accounts and filing liens in the county where you live or own property. For enough money, they will spend the effort and money to do it.

[Deleted]

This certainly scares ME.  My mother received survivor benefits for me and my sister for three years after my father's death.  Then various relatives received them as our legal guardians.

If there was an overpayment, what does it really have to do with me?  The people who cashed the checks got the $$$, not me.  I had no knowledge of how much should have been paid and/or how it was controlled.

I think I will write my members of Congress as well.  

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

Apr 11, 2014 12:28:45 GMT -5 @southernsusana said:

This certainly scares ME.  My mother received survivor benefits for me and my sister for three years after my father's death.  Then various relatives received them as our legal guardians.

If there was an overpayment, what does it really have to do with me?  The people who cashed the checks got the $$$, not me.  I had no knowledge of how much should have been paid and/or how it was controlled.

I think I will write my members of Congress as well.  

This is the part that is even worse.... I thought you can't make a legal contract with a minor.  She was a minor when she received the survivor bennies, right?  Is the govt saying that they had a contract with a minor through the payment of these benefits?  If this was any other creditor, they'd be told to pound sand- you can't contract with a minor, right? (I thought there was some exception in some states for things like food/shelter but wouldn't that be on the creditor/govt to prove it was spent on?  They send her mother a check.  They have no proof how it was spent 40 years ago... Mom could have used it to keep her in Barbie dolls and Disney trips)... 

[wvugurl26]

They are claiming the benefits were provided for the minors which is why they are collecting from them even though the benefits were paid to someone else. There is of course zero proof that the children got the benefit of those payments. Supposedly their policy is to start with the oldest child and work their way down.

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

Apr 11, 2014 13:08:16 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

They are claiming the benefits were provided for the minors which is why they are collecting from them even though the benefits were paid to someone else. There is of course zero proof that the children got the benefit of those payments. Supposedly their policy is to start with the oldest child and work their way down.

WVU, that makes the situation even worse.  From my extensive watching of Judge Judy/the People's Court    and my business law class, I remember them saying that you can't contract with a minor.  In business law, they mentioned an exception for "necessaries" (food/shelter/etc) but, in the this case, the govt didn't have a contract for food/shelter.  They just sent $$ for the "benefit of the minor".  Wouldn't they have to prove that the money was used specifically for necessaries and not for luxuries?  But even they could "prove" that (Subpoena bank records?  Not from that long ago), if I was a judge, I would say that they didn't have a CONTRACT for the money to be used for that...it just was used for that so they don't have to pay back. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Apr 11, 2014 13:08:16 GMT -5 wvugurl26 said:

They are claiming the benefits were provided for the minors which is why they are collecting from them even though the benefits were paid to someone else. There is of course zero proof that the children got the benefit of those payments. Supposedly their policy is to start with the oldest child and work their way down.

And yet Ms. Grice is the 3rd of 5 kids and is the 1st to be contacted. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

And yet Ms. Grice is the 3rd of 5 kids and is the 1st to be contacted.

We don't know that.  Maybe the older two are deadbeats and didn't have refunds coming.  She could have just been the first one they came to with a bit of money.

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

I guess I'm wondering if the govt is really saying what it looks like they are saying

1. We get to be the only creditor with no statute of limitation despite the fact that we have more options for recoupment of debt (Refund garnishment, etc) than mere mortal creditors

And

2. We are the only creditors who CAN have a legally binding/enforceable contract with a minor.

And 
3. We are the only creditors who can have a legal contract with a person who has no knowledge/understanding of the contract (a three year old doesn't have an understanding of the contract or may not have knowledge of it).  I guess they could argue that the parent/guardian is that person's "agent" and spoke for them.  However, I would say that if the minor didn't sign a power of attorney for the parent, they shouldn't be held responsible for what the parent received.

This third point could then be extended to creditors where parents do ID theft on their children. Things like parents setting up utility accounts in the child's name and doesn't pay. i guess the child gets the "benefit" of the utility and the parent is the child's "agent" but would this ever hold up in court?  I doubt it...

That's a dangerous precedent to set.  

[Wisconsin Beth]

Apr 11, 2014 13:25:46 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

And yet Ms. Grice is the 3rd of 5 kids and is the 1st to be contacted.

We don't know that.  Maybe the older two are deadbeats and didn't have refunds coming.  She could have just been the first one they came to with a bit of money.

Last paragraph of the OP's link.  "Grice, the middle of five children, said neither of her surviving siblings — one older, one younger — has had any money taken by the government. When Grice asked why she had been selected to pay the debt, she was told it was because she had an income and her address popped up — the correct one this time."

so yep. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

Her siblings didn't have any money taken, but that doesn't mean the IRS didn't target them first.  

When Grice asked why she had been selected to pay the debt, she was told it was because she had an income and her address popped up — the correct one this time."

If her other siblings have no income and no refund coming, obviously they aren't good choices for collection measures.  If the IRS came after my siblings and I for overpayments to my mom they'd probably skip my older sister and start collection measures with me because my older sister is broke.  Doesn't mean they wouldn't look at her first, just that they probably wouldn't pursue collections on her.

The whole thing still stinks to high heaven, but I see no proof they didn't start with the oldest surviving child like their written info says they do.  Her older sibling, from the sounds of it, has no income, so they didn't pursue collections and went down the list.

[Deleted]

When I received SSDI for my kids every year we had to fill out a form stating how much of the money was used for the kids care, how much was saved and where, etc...  We were advised early on by DH's attorney not to save it, or ever claim we saved it to look like better parents or anything. 

When my kids turned 18 I got a letter stating that all money ever claimed as "saved" was to be sent via check to the SSA. They said they would then transfer it to the adult because it belonged to them!

The advice made sense then.

I still think this is a HUGE problem with the ACA as well.  If you receive Medicaid and are over 55, they lien your estate/property to reclaim whatever they can. 

More people are being pushed into Medicaid programs and this will allow the states to suck back a lot of asset cash over the years that otherwise would have been inherited because the person would have had individual insurance which can't do this.

[Deleted]

My birth father had a stroke when I was an early teen and died not long after.  My mom never went to the government for any benefits.  Can I make a claim against the government for those benefits 25 year later?  

[Sum Dum Gai]

More people are being pushed into Medicaid programs and this will allow the states to suck back a lot of asset cash over the years that otherwise would have been inherited because the person would have had individual insurance which can't do this.

I have no problem with this.  Why should you (general you, not you specifically) get to rely on taxpayer support for years and years while squirreling away cash to give to your kids?  If you have the cash you should have used it to support yourself, or it goes to paying back the support you got from the taxpayers.  Seems fair to me.

[Deleted]

Boo. Boo. Rubbish. Filth. Slime. Muck. Boo. Boo. Boo.

[Deleted]

Apr 11, 2014 15:00:49 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

More people are being pushed into Medicaid programs and this will allow the states to suck back a lot of asset cash over the years that otherwise would have been inherited because the person would have had individual insurance which can't do this.

I have no problem with this.  Why should you (general you, not you specifically) get to rely on taxpayer support for years and years while squirreling away cash to give to your kids?  If you have the cash you should have used it to support yourself, or it goes to paying back the support you got from the taxpayers.  Seems fair to me.

I have no problem with estate claims.

But, when you grow Medicaid you also grow the number of those claims.  If the lower income folks had regular insurance this wouldn't be an issue.  ACA dictates you use Medicaid now if you are lower income or get no subsidy.

[wvugurl26]

Apparently only certain agencies have no statute of limitations. In my agency, we damn well have one and have to follow it. Oh you just discovered that overpayment from six years ago? Too bad, so sad you can't collect on it.

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

After re-reading the article, the timeline from the govt doesn't make sense.  It says the overpayment was in 1977.  Ms. Grice would have been 21 in 1977 (She was 4 when her father died in 1960).  The payments stopped when the child reached 18 (1974 for her personally).  So, the overpayment COULDN'T have been for her (maybe for her younger siblings or her mother but not her).  I don't hear SSA saying the overpayment was from 1974- 1977, just 1977.

So, this case isn't even about her.  This is even stupider than first thought.  She has no responsibility for payments made on her siblings behalf (or her mother's behalf).  The judge in this case needs to shut the SSA down and give the lady back her tax return PLUS interest and a penalty for acting so egregiously in denying her due process and violating her rights