IRS Can Now Seize Your Tax Refund To Pay a Relative's Debt 632
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.'"
Over 18 (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?
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Interesting)
The IRS doesn't recognize incapacity to make agreements.
Re:Over 18 (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.
Re:Over 18 (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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
That's the point. While you are busy attending to the debt left to you by the previous generation, you aren't concerned with matters of democracy to lobby against things like this.
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite. Now, who added the single line spoken of to the farm bill that opened the door for this?
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Informative)
the offending language in Sec. 14219 of the farm bill seems to first appear in H.R. 6124, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 [house.gov] which was sponsored by Rep. Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn.
Send him a message here: http://collinpeterson.house.go... [house.gov]
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, multi-generation debt is totally illegal in the private sector. For evil of this mind-numbing intensity, you need a government.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the federal debt, but inherited debt?
Re: (Score:3)
You don't owe the federal debt, actually, the entity known as the United States of America does. You are only affected insofar as the US might be unable to provide its current level of services at their current price, and are free to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.
Federal debt operates just like limited liability corporations debt would, in this sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The entire reason for the IRS and the income tax was to restore slavery. Sure the slaves are different, but interestingly and unsurprisingly the slave holders are largely the same group.
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Interesting)
This is far worse than inheretence of debt. They are seizing these people's refunds based on debts that they claim their parents have incurred. Yet when the woman in the article demanded proof of the debt they were unable to produce any. She was supposed to get a due process review before they seized her money but all of the notices of that right just happened to go to a PO box she hadn't had in decades. Yet when it came time to collect they suddenly had her right address. From the article this pattern is not uncommon. So basically we have the IRS collecting a debt that they can't even prove is a debt and doing so, either through intent or incompetence, in a way that deprives the victims of their due process rights to challenge it. Even if you accept the premise of a child inhereting the parents debt, which I really fail to see any legimate basis for, this method of collecting those debts stinks on ice. I mean with they way they have this setup they could just declare anybody owed any amount that they desired to collect. After all they are not providing any proof and are simply siezing your money with no due process. I hope the lady in the article prevails in her court case. Because if she doesn't the rest of us will never know when some "old debt" will appear.
I noticed a couple of other disturbing things in this article. Ms Grice's father only owed, by their unsubstanitated claim, $2,996. Yet they seized her entire refund of $4,462 and only released the difference to her after the Washington Post started questioning it. So in addition to making her pay a debt that isn't hers, that they have no proof of and that they deprived her of her due process rights for, they also helped themselves to an additional $1,466 of her money that they only released under pressure from the press. Some of the other cases seem to be for fairly token amounts. Makes you wonder if what we are seeing here is the IRS adopting the tactic of demanding money from people that is just a bit less than what they can afford to fight for. Hopefully the courts will strike this whole thing down.
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully the courts will strike this whole thing down.
All of the IRS? I agree.
I think funding for the federal government should come out of the states' treasuries instead. That way federal spending decisions will be weighed against the lost opportunity to fund state programs.
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't you know, the $4,462 was seized. Because of interest. That's right, when they find a debt like that they charge compounding interest. And they charge it at a rate no one can get on their savings accounts.
So I wager that they consider Ms. Grice to actually owe about $20,000 still.
***
Please note that I had a friend who was taxed on a million dollars in stock options that he never sold, and never made money from (dot com bust). Mortgaged house to pay taxes. Took it to court, won as it was deemed unconstitutional. IRS was ordered to pay it back. And they are....in increments over 20 years.
That's right, they demanded it now. And are paying it back slowly.
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but at least you could forgo it and deny inheriting it. In this case, you inherit your relatives' debt without a chance to avoid this.
Re: (Score:3)
In the article...
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The estate [wikipedia.org] is the remaining assets and liabilities of the deceased. Once assets are inherited, they no longer belong to the deceased's estate (as the estate, a legal construct, ceases to exist once liabilities are settled and assets are transferred).
In the US, at least, the only time you have the appearance of inheriting debt is if you inherit property that is collateral for a debt (eg, a house with a mortgage). The bank could take the collateral from the estate, as it is entitled to do, but can let you kee
Re: (Score:3)
The estate [wikipedia.org] is the remaining assets and liabilities of the deceased. Once assets are inherited, they no longer belong to the deceased's estate (as the estate, a legal construct, ceases to exist once liabilities are settled and assets are transferred).
You're missing a key logic point there (or misstating your point). If there are debts, any debts except federally secured student loans, the estate is responsible for paying them off. You only inherit stuff once all debts are paid. Therefore, if you've inherited anything, it is only because all debts were satisfied: either paid, forgiven, or assumed by the inheritor.
Belmolis has it nearly correct. The last sentence fragment ", but they never inherit any debt." is the only misleading portion. Inheritor
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Reading back through the thread, it looks like most everyone is thinking the same thing but disagreeing because of different terminology. The key misunderstanding in this thread relates to the situation where the liabilities are equal to, or larger than, the assets and the heirs-to-be want some of the assets.
You and Cyberax are calling the situation "inheriting debt", whereas I think it's more realistically described as accruing new debt in exchange for certain assets otherwise owed to the creditors. If you
Re:Over 18 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Ex post facto limitations apply to criminal cases, not civil cases.
2. Bills of attainder applies to a specific person or group of persons. I.e. a law saying Joe at 123 Maple Street has to pay 50% of his money to Small Town DPW. In England they were used to execute people, i.e. the govt would pass a law saying Bill will be executed such and such a day.
3. The problem here is due process IF they can't show you the records to justify the seizure. That's really really bad news.
Re: (Score:3)
1. Ex post facto limitations apply to criminal cases, not civil cases.
While I appreciate the sentiment, I have known legislators who specifically write in "grandfather clauses" even for purely civil legislation because of the principle of ex post facto concepts applying to civil law. It may have more applicability to state laws, and especially legislatures controlled by the opposite party from the party which appointed the judge or currently runs the Department of Justice. This separate clause (independent from the congressional ex post facto clause) might also apply:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. -- Article I Section 10
This c
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually for debts to tax authorities due process can be suspended if the government can show they believe providing you with notice of their collections efforts will cause you to hide the money, spend the money, or otherwise dispose of the funds.
I found this out the hard way. The state of MA, due to an error, believed I never filed a tax return and owed them money. When I found out, I told them I was going to dispute it, and a few days after I filed an abatement my accounts were frozen, and I had a tax lien in my name.
Technically, this is illegal (they're supposed to let me dispute the charges and there is supposed to actually be a judgement as to whether or not my case had merit). However, when I tried to get legal help, I found out the reason they could do this because they simply told a judge they had to have the lien so I didn't run away with my money. (Which is funny because I'm unemployed and just on this side of broke -- the judge should have laughed them out of town).
When I fought it, the lien and the frozen accounts were reversed promptly, but not without a big pain in the ass.
I'm afraid from what I understand, this is typical. Even if the IRS is wrong, the cards are stacked in their favor if they believe you're right (or incorrectly believe you to be an international man of mystery tax dodger). And until you convince them otherwise, they can make your life VERY miserable.
You need to get real legal advice and stop asking slashdot for help on your problems.
Re: (Score:3)
They can be held accountable because fuck you, that's why.
Since when does the government need to justify a shakedown? You got money. They got guns. Guess who wins.
Re:Over 18 (Score:4, Interesting)
False? (Score:5, Interesting)
Says you. Try having the IRS owe you a few grand. Still waiting on that check from several years back. In the IRS' defense, the mailman could have cashed it, since banks rarely do pesky stuff like read anymore. I've also had them unilateraly apply tax credits that I wasn't legally eligible for (thank heaven I can't be held liable for their mistakes... yet). That said, it was a big tax giveaway (making work pay act) in an election year so I can't say I'm too surprised. Their behavior can appear quite baffling unless you have looked deeply at the history of their actions.
Seriously, read a few Inspector General's reports before you defend an organization that you know little about. They regularly violate their own rules; especially the ones about not keeping an "enemies list" of tax protestors and not auditing because of RO's personal vendettas. Practically every administration since (and including) FDR have used them as a political weapon against their opponents. Judges and Jurors who decide against them get singled out for audit. Repeated studies by lawyers have shown the Revenue Code to be so self-contradictory that prosecution is effectively discretionary. As such "following the law" is basically whatever they feel like at the moment. Oh, and there's a special tax court that is exempt from due process if they so choose to subject you to it (usually reserved for aformentioned protestors).
But, you are right in saying it's not about the money. It's mostly about Revenue Officers and their self-aggrandizement. The way to get promoted is to maximize seizures, and that has been the case from the beginning. The money comes naturally with those incentives. The frequent strong-arm tactics they use to achieve said siezures (and the above bending of rules) is why they are considered little different from a private criminal organization running a protection racket. The things the tax money is spent on (international murder, political blackmail, crony arrangements) is also little different in practice, so you can forgive why a person could mistake the IRS for a mafia organization. Duck rule and all that.
Now I know some 'a youse are thinking -- "but the government does X charitable thing! They're not all bad, they're compartmentalized, blah blah..." Well, the Mafia runs charities too. Both organizations rely on the forebearance of their victims, so they gotta have some way to paint a positive image over the majority of their activities being rotten. And there will always be fools that believe they can join the Mafia to do good -- however, they will not achieve influence because of the incentive structure (the most rapacious get promoted).
Get over yourselves, people. It's a tough world out there, and a government funded by invoulntary contribution doesn't make any of that go away. Doing Evil that Good May Come (TM) doesn't work out in the long run, so either get used to doing things the hard way, or living in a world dominated by evil. By and large, we've chosen the latter, and we need to accept that rather than getting Stockholm Syndrome about the whole affair. Quit defending people who would kill you with your own money without thinking twice about it.
So, I hope you guys reading TFA realize what this is really about: A bunch of ROs got together and figured out a plausible enough justification to pull in more siezures (and hence more promotions/$$$). They win, the taxpayer loses, the Bureacracies doesn't really care because at the end of the day they have a printing press and whole lots of trigger-pullers. The politicians will continue to try and avoid the subject of the IRS altogether, as that makes people think too much about how the sausage is made rather than the delicious *free* sausage they want to offer up. The courts can be relied upon not to rein in the IRS, as they would prefer not to bite the hand that feeds them. The people (in general) cannot be relied upon because they are widely bamboozled that voting can somehow dislodge such ingrained corruption of incentives. The only person you can rely on is yourself -- If you want this to change, you have to be the change you want to see in others.
Re: (Score:3)
Not strictly true.
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals... [irs.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
I am a US citizen living in a foreign country, and I do indeed file two tax returns every year. I have no intent ever to renounce US citizenship. Even with all its bumps and warts, US citizenship is still my birthright, and something I cherish.
The US tax rules allow for lots of deductions,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a common myth, but no, if you owe no tax there is no criminal penalty for failing to file.
If you're owed a refund, you lose it after three years if you don't file.
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Over 18 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I think I see what's happening now. It's been sensationalized.
The news being distorted to make for a more paranoia-inducing headline? On my Slashdot? Unpossible!
Re: (Score:3)
10 year old debts DO NOT DISAPPEAR.
At 10 years in fact, the IRS is legally granted the power to charge you interest. 100%, PER DAY. Thank Al Capone for that one.
I see you subscribe to the "don't make me beat you any harder, kid" school of life.
Congress did that. Not Al.
This happened to my wife (Score:5, Interesting)
We had a $186.00 deducted from our tax refund this year for social security. Having never collected social security we called the SSA and was informed that the social securities benefits my wife received as a teen following the death of her father were overpaid as she had a part-time job at a pharmacy and they had deducted the amount. Mind you my wife is 53 years old now.
Re:This happened to my wife (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, they've cancelled the policy and are encouraging people targeted by it to contact them for a refund.
Re: (Score:3)
Nested in the bowls of the White House, and Evil Presence plotted an atrocity on the sainted American people who would never think to hide their income. He theorized, he inspected the tax code with a malicious mind bent on Total Domination. Let the American People eat IRS Death he sang to his sycophantic followers in a speechifying voice.
What kind of moron are you? Is it not possible the IRS was just following the law that Congress had passed and, given the death of tax money to cover the U.S. debt that Con
source needed (Score:3)
I'm going to second the request for a source...this sounds like something a redneck says at a dive bar in Charleston
Re: (Score:3)
Ex Post Facto Law (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ex post facto has always been held to apply in criminal cases only.
This isn't anything like what ex post facto limitations apply to.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet Article 1, Section 9 makes no distinction between civil and criminal. How did the 'precedent' (pronounced 'bullshit') get set that this only refers to criminal issues?
BTW, can you be jailed for failing to pay the IRS? Makes me wonder how 'civil' that infraction is then...
It kind of makes sense...but it doesn't (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The following might to tangential to this particular incident, but do keep in mind that a major part of today's case law is that the government can file a proceeding where the money itself is the defendant, i.e., no human person ("you") is recognizable in the case. Historically that was used in cases where the owner was unknown, but in the drug-war era it's used for asset forfeiture even when the owner is known. If I had to prioritize things to get upset about, it would be that ongoing nightmare in our lega
Re: (Score:3)
But if the money is in my possession, doesn't a fair reading of the Constitution mean they have to prove it never belonged to me?
The US Government abandoned any pretext of due process many years ago with the passing of various asset_forfeiture [wikipedia.org] laws. Now they pretty much seize anything that they can and require you to prove that you obtained it legally and that you used funds that were obtained legally.
Late to the party as usual.. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro... [forbes.com]
Re:Late to the party as usual.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't change the fact that they tried to and still are legally able to pursue these "debts" with no real recourse for those who are targeted. This stinks of a temporary hold to let the controversy die down so it can be reintroduced at a slower pace next time, if you're boiling frogs alive you bring the temperature up slowly so they don't jump out of the pot.
And they've already stopped (Score:5, Informative)
They cancelled this policy [nytimes.com] almost immediately after it was brought to light.
Re:And they've already stopped (Score:5, Interesting)
No... they SAID they cancelled this policy, immediately after it was brought to light. if they quietly reinstate in whole or in part... who would be the wiser? :)
Re:And they've already stopped (Score:5, Informative)
This has been going on for a while. And while it's stopped right now, it's only under review.
This sort of collection should be limited to the actual recipients, and have some sort of statute of limitations.
Commercial debt dies with the probate process. It's not passed on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They cancelled this policy almost immediately after it was brought to light.
I dunno. Are the 0.01%ers trying to figure out a new way to fuck over the middle class?
Since middle class wages have stagnated since the late '70s our share of the tax burden hasn't really been able to grow, and the rich have had their burden reduced quite a bit. So now we have massive debts. Gotta pay 'em somehow. I know, sounds kooky, right?! Look at the filial responsibility laws. [trustbuilders.com] Parent racking up huge debts to the state because of the care they need in old age? Think you won't have to pay for that? Thi [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I've heard plenty of "don't worry, they won't enforce that" from both parties and in almost always proves to be incorrect (as was intended from the start).
Re: (Score:3)
Logical Fallacy, ad hominem attack! Logical Fallacy, black or white! Don't tell people to use their real logins when you're posting as AC, you look like an idiot. And don't assume OWS folks are smell useless cunts. You probably also shouldn't assume they're all moneyless hippies. Also, I'm in my 7th year of college. I have to do it on my weekends. Nothing wrong with that either.
Also, at least the OWS people were actually fighting against real corruption. They didn't do a very good job, but man did they t
Re: (Score:3)
I understand that it can be difficult for self employed people with highly variable incomes, but most Americans don't fall into that group and should know their yearly tax liability to within a fifty dollars or so at the beginning of the tax year.
Since the tax codes and the taxation tables aren't finalized until the end of the year I've always found it difficult to predict what my end tax liability is going to be.
Pocket change (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
Re: (Score:3)
Am I the only person... (Score:2)
Who has a deep and abiding desire to beat the shit out of every Congressman who votes for a bill without fully understanding it?
Re: (Score:3)
A bonus would be that every sponsor of a bill would have to approve every amendment to a bill. That way you would always have at least one person who could be held personally accountable fore the whole bill (i.e. they wouldn't be able to
Re:Am I the only person... (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Then call up your congresscritter and ask them to support the "Read the Bills Act." [wikipedia.org]
Gotta pay the government bills somehow (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I have to agree. I tend to fall on the "reduce spending" side of things - but top priority should be balancing the damn books.
Re:Gotta pay the government bills somehow (Score:4, Insightful)
Liberals are tax and spend, Conservatives are spend and spend until they prove that the government is broken. Mission accomplished!
Re: (Score:3)
Taxation (Score:3)
I always make sure I never have a refund and that I "owe" taxes because the thieves that run the federal government simply cannot be trusted. All it takes is some pencil-pushing bureaucrat to decide that you were "overpaid" and they can steal your refund without so much as a trial, a hearing, or a chance to defend yourself.
Refunds indicate bad tax planning (Score:5, 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.
The US needs a constitution (Score:3)
Why do you let your politicians get away with such bullshit?
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you let your politicians get away with such bullshit?
You are mistaken if you think the people still (if ever) control the government.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me put it this way. I can about the national debt, generally following the Constitution, specifically allowing freedom of religion, illegal immigration, lowering spending, global warming, racism, NASA, good treatment of Amer
Re: (Score:3)
For example there are 3 viable parties in the state of Minnesota, the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Independence party. The Independence party really hasn't won anything since Jessie Ventura was governor starting back in 98, but are a large enough party that no side gets close to 50% and our last governor was elected narrowly with a 43.6% (Democrat) vs 43.2% (Republican) vs 11.9% (Independence) split. Our pre
No time limit != liability for debt (Score:5, 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.".
"the agency uses a private contractor" (Score:4, Interesting)
The SSA used a private contractor to make sure all parties were correctly notified about the debt before seizure proceedings were started, which would have allowed incorrect claims to be dropped. Of course, the private contractor screwed that up.
Re: (Score:3)
That can't be right, the private sector does everything better!
</sarcasm>
Talking of unpaid taxes ... (Score:5, Funny)
Now that the government of the USA has decided to remove the statue of limitations as regards taxation, might I remind Barack Obama of the little matter of unpaid taxes to King George III of England. These date back to your protest against the 1773 Tea Act [wikipedia.org]. Can I tell her Magesty's government that payment will soon be made ?
Not any longer (Score:3)
Victory! Social Security Suspends Stale-Debt Collection Program
http://overlawyered.com/2014/0... [overlawyered.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeessssss. Yeeesssss... let the childish, passive-aggressive comments flow through you!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Do you have any teeth left at all after your knee impacted your chin?
I don't get it?
He had a knee-jerk reaction. GP implies it was so severe that his knee made it all the way to his chin and knocked out some teeth.
Re: (Score:2)
Bush Vetoed this, apparently (Score:5, Informative)
I just checked Wikipedia, according to which Bush vetoed the linked "Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008" on May 21, 2008, and had the veto overridden the same day, by a Congress run by Nancy Pelosi and whoever was Senate leader then. (checking... oh, Harry Reid). While I am anxious to find out which Republicans did vote for that bill, it looks like Bush didn't.
If that's the wrong bill I'd like to know about it, since they seem to be linking to it in every story I see on this issue.
Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently (Score:5, 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.
Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently (Score:5, Interesting)
A majority of Republicans voted for it as well. The real question is who added this particular provision, and are they still in office? I'm not sure how to dig up that crucial bit of info.
Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently (Score:5, Informative)
The real question is who added this particular provision, and are they still in office? I'm not sure how to dig up that crucial bit of info.
This takes a bit of digging. I believe the provision in question is H.R. 2419, Sec. 14219. "Elimination of statute of limitations applicable to collection of debt by administrative offset."
It was added as part of a list of amendments suggested by a committee report (House Report 110-261 [gpo.gov]). The specific amendment regarding the statute of limitations was entered into the Congressional Record at H9049 [gpo.gov].
The slate of amendments (H.Amdt.714) from the report were introduced to a full house vote (see Congressional Record H8763) by Rep. Collin Peterson (Minnesota 7th), then chairman of the House Agricultural Committee. Rep. Peterson should probably not be taken to be the main proponent of this measure, since this was part of a slate of amendments introduced in the committee report, which were then offered up to the full house for approval. (A number of members of the Agricultural Committee spoke for this slate of amendments, though it doesn't seem anyone spoke in support of the specific provision for eliminating this statute of limitations -- this provision was included among a whole bunch of other random things in the bill.)
The specific amendment (the 29th on the slate to be considered) did not actually name the elimination of statute of limitations sections as its primary purpose (listed as Sec. 3005, the "Reauthorization of McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program"), so one might argue that this section was buried as an added clause within an amendment which was buried within a slate of amendments.
In any case, the house agreed to these amendments offered en bloc by voice vote on July 27, 2007, so there's no record of who voted for or against (though the assumption is it was more-or-less unanimous, since it was approving something recommended from the committee who was trying to produce a bill which could be passed by the full house).
(Of course, as is typical, the amendment was not actually read in full to the house, and only entered later into the Congressional record as an "omission" for the day, which is why the page number for the amendment is later than the page on which it is approved.)
It's possible you might find something about who actually wanted this provision by digging into records of committee meetings, but I somewhat doubt it. This slate of amendments was part of an ENORMOUS bill, and it looks like this list of amendments was a compiled list of crap the committee needed to put in just to get it to the next stage of legislation.
Re:Bush Vetoed this, apparently (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's why having bills cover lots of things at once (rather than being automatically restricted to the principal subject area of the bill) is a truly awful practice. It's beyond corrupt as it specifically enables effectively sidestepping oversight of the legislative process. The pork-barrel politics the practice enables are merely the most visible and least harmful parts of this.
Re: (Score:3)
All the provision does is lift the statute of limitations on collecting an unpaid debt. I really don't see the problem with that. The actual problem seems to be that they're going after the wrong people to get their money -- and that seems to be based on a policy that allows the government to go after children who may have benefited from overpayments.
The problem is that we have statutes of limitations for a reason. (There's also a related principle called laches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
The reason is that it's not fair to bring a legal action against someone after an unreasonable amount of time has passed. The person can't defend himself. He may not remember what happened. Records may have been lost, destroyed or missing. People, including witnesses, who could have given information may be unavailable or dead.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the same IRS that would automatically audit tea party groups even if they weren't suspected of doing anything wrong?
Re:This is what Republicans... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Dem congress passes and Rep pres signs it, Reps at fault.
Dem congress passes with veto-proof majority and Rep pres does not sign, Reps at fault.
Rep congress, Dem pres, Reps at fault.
Dem congress, Dem pres, Reps at fault.
Libs go on and on about how a certain amendment only applies to things invented at the time of its writing then complain about other amendments not automatically applying to modern things. Reps at fault.
See the pattern there.
Re:Joke's on you feds (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, the center you were raised at has unpaid tax bills. They've since shut down so we're recovering all debts from the orphans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If your parent or grandparent abused the system, I'm sorry but it's time for you to pay up.
I've never been a big fan of the "sins of the fathers" approach to punishment.
I have enough to do dealing with things I'm actually personally responsible for...I don't need to catch flak for shit I ain't done.
No it does not. (Score:4, Insightful)
You misunderstand this move. This isn't about the money. A drop in the bucket, utter symbolism.
This is just one small story in many decades of more and more changes to the lender-debtor relationship. In economics I learned that one of the most important reasons for US capitalism's success was that, unlike in other parts of the world until that time where debtor prison and other nasty things awaited anyone who didn't, most often couldn't pay their debts in the US you'd be freed from your debt and then could start over and try again. The invention of the corporation (16th century) was when that movement started that debts are not eternal and that one should be able to try again. It still is true for corporations, but for individuals the noose has been tightening more and more not just in the US. There have been (economic) articles about a growing disparity between economic teaching and reality in the area of lendor-debtor relationship and power for a long time. The power has slowly shifted ever more towards the lender. This story is just one tiny brick in a big wall that was started being built decades ago.