Stimulus Check Received For Deceased Spouse

[dtlee]

Think you misunderstood. Never said anything about 2017 as you mentioned above. Please reread the reply post.

I may have misunderstood your post, but I am talking about people who are no longer alive in 2018. I am not considering the possibility that they would be revived in a subsequent year, hence if they are not alive in 2018, they cease to be alive afterwards. You may have thought I was talking about people not yet born in 2018, but the concept we are discussing is returning the payment because of death. A death in 2017, would mean they are not alive in 2018 and I feel it is a valid assumption that they will stay deceased. You asked me to describe why I felt that someone who is not alive at any time in 2018 should not have received a check. I assumed that implies that they did not survive past 2017. I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

If someone was alive for a certain amount of time in 2018, had income and received a tax refund or owed tax, a 2018 tax 1040 return would be filed. Is that correct? As a result receives a stimulus check.

According to my reading of the law, that is correct, my interpretation of the law indicates that they will use 2018 if 2019 has not been filed (regardless of the reason). Hence, my belief that someone who did not survive into 2018 should not receive a payment.

[TAXNJ]

I may have misunderstood your post, but I am talking about people who are no longer alive in 2018. I am not considering the possibility that they would be revived in a subsequent year, hence if they are not alive in 2018, they cease to be alive afterwards. You may have thought I was talking about people not yet born in 2018, but the concept we are discussing is returning the payment because of death. A death in 2017, would mean they are not alive in 2018 and I feel it is a valid assumption that they will stay deceased. You asked me to describe why I felt that someone who is not alive at any time in 2018 should not have received a check. I assumed that implies that they did not survive past 2017. I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

According to my reading of the law, that is correct, my interpretation of the law indicates that they will use 2018 if 2019 has not been filed (regardless of the reason). Hence, my belief that someone who did not survive into 2018 should not receive a payment.

You keep talking about 2017. Again, never mentioned that year 2017 in the reply posts.

Was originally responding to your point # 1 “Alive at any time during 2018“ in one of your reply posts “

You are not reading the reply posts correctly. If a person died in 2018 not 2017, then a 2018 tax 1040 return would be filed for the period of time alive in 2018.

AGAIN, If a person died in 2018 not 2017, then a 2018 tax 1040 return would be filed for the period of time alive in 2018.

Why do you keep mentioning 2017? You are the only one mentioning that year.

Please read this reply post before you reply to it

But thanks for all your comments.

[dtlee]

I now understand what you are talking about.

I never picked that (nor anything else) out of my "extensive listing."

The statement "alive at any time during 2018" is not equivalent to the statement you attacked which was, "I certainly think that anyone who was not alive at any time in 2018 should not have received a check based on the way the law was written."

That is certainly not the same as what you accuse me of saying and the reason why I keep referring to 2017 is that, if we ignore births during 2018 and subsequent years (which is not the point of this thread), a person who was not alive at any time in 2018 either died in 2017 or in a year prior.

Please clarify if I am still misunderstanding you.

[TAXNJ]

I now understand what you are talking about.

I never picked that (nor anything else) out of my "extensive listing."

The statement "alive at any time during 2018" is not equivalent to the statement you attacked which was, "I certainly think that anyone who was not alive at any time in 2018 should not have received a check based on the way the law was written."

That is certainly not the same as what you accuse me of saying and the reason why I keep referring to 2017 is that, if we ignore births during 2018 and subsequent years (which is not the point of this thread), a person who was not alive at any time in 2018 either died in 2017 or in a year prior.

Please clarify if I am still misunderstanding you.

Was not an attack. Why do some reply posters use that phrase when a reply poster disagrees or comments on their reply post?

It was a reply post comment to your post, specifically ....”Here are a few:[LIST=1][*]Alive at any time during 2018[*]Alive at any time during 2019.....”

Must say you have put a lot of effort to this Original Post.

[dtlee]

Yes. That is the list of things I have seen people say here and elsewhere to explain what they think a person needs to achieve to qualify to keep the funds.

I have seen nothing in the law that says failing one of those means you need to return the funds and nothing in your comments (which I have read more than four times) convinces me that the funds must be returned under current law just because someone fails one of those criteria.

You keep saying that you disagree with "alive at any time during 2018" and thus, the phrase you are saying you are disputing can be restated as:

The individual might be perceived as being "entitled" to keep the funds at the point where the individual is alive at any time during 2018.

and yet you keep asking me why I believe that the IRS was not supposed to send checks to people who were not alive at any time during 2018.

Thank you for helping me beat this dead horse.