Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oic ??

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
    #1

    Oic ??

    in 2004, single female claimed 2 children that belonged to a friend of hers. Due to that, she now owes IRS $6001.38 including interest & penalties. In 2006 she claimed 1 child that did not belong to her. The EIC portion of that refund was frozen, but she still owes $1138.97 for 2006. The total amount due is $7140.35. She has a job (minimum wage). She is single & lives with her parents. Her only asset is her vehicle (3500.00). She doesn't even have a bank account. Would this be a situation that might qualify for an OIC??

    I'm not sure that I would even try to initiate this for her, but want to at least try to give her a bit of advice.

    Thanks!
    Eli
    Tags: None
    #2
    She might qualify

    The best way to tell is to complete the 433a and see what the collection potential is. Are her parents willing to bail her out? The IRS will want 855 of the car's value plus the amount they could take from her paycheck for 7 years. Has she at least learned her lesson?
    In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
    Alexis de Tocqueville

    Comment

      #3
      Thanks, Dave!

      Originally posted by DaveO View Post
      The best way to tell is to complete the 433a and see what the collection potential is. Are her parents willing to bail her out? The IRS will want 855 of the car's value plus the amount they could take from her paycheck for 7 years. Has she at least learned her lesson?
      I hope she has, but you just never know. I've never done an OIC and certainly don't think I want to start with this one. The girl is 28 years old and still living at home. I'm beginning to think I know why lol

      Thanks again!!

      Eli

      Comment

        #4
        Without Everson, Will IRS Still Want Blood From This Turnip?

        File a Form 2848 and then call ACS on a slow afternoon, enjoy the music, and when they finally answer suggest they 53 the account. They may not know what you are talking about, or they may recognize that you're an old timer who knows how the game is played.

        Don't OIC's now require a 20% nonrefundable down payment? Unless the parents want to front the juice, I would think she's SOL with an OIC. (And I don't mean Statute of Limitations.)

        Comment

          #5
          I think I saw that on the..

          Originally posted by George Boutwell View Post
          File a Form 2848 and then call ACS on a slow afternoon, enjoy the music, and when they finally answer suggest they 53 the account. They may not know what you are talking about, or they may recognize that you're an old timer who knows how the game is played.

          Don't OIC's now require a 20% nonrefundable down payment? Unless the parents want to front the juice, I would think she's SOL with an OIC. (And I don't mean Statute of Limitations.)
          656 explanation. They request 20% of the offer + the application fee. I think I might go ahead (with her permission) set up an installment plan and let her pay her way out of it.
          Someone on the ATX board said it should be about $120.00 per month which she should be able to manage.

          She's also going to have to pay an additional $4536.00 to Santa Barbara Bank as she was given a RAL and the IRS only paid them (SBB) $1456.00. Oh well sh eplayed the game & lost!!

          Thanks for the info, George!!

          Comment

            #6
            Lost?

            >>she played the game & lost<<

            Lost? Didn't you just say she tricked the bank out of more than four grand?

            Comment

              #7
              Say What???

              What does it mean to 53 the account? I certainly don't know and I would want to before I suggested that they do it.

              Comment

                #8
                53

                Originally posted by erchess View Post
                What does it mean to 53 the account?
                (IRS Internal) Form 53, Report of Currently Not Collectible Taxes

                I think the transaction code on transcripts for "currently not collectible" is 530. But I don't do that much collection work, Allah be praised.

                Comment

                  #9
                  I'm sorry. But, from your description, the T/P has committed tax fraud two times. Even if you give her a pass for 2004 and say she didn't understand, she tried it again in 2006.

                  I'm not sure the IRS will want to do an OIC for fraud.

                  Make sure she pays your fee before you do anything. OIC's can take alot of time.
                  You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

                  Comment

                    #10
                    I don't see IRS Collections

                    >>I'm not sure the IRS will want to do an OIC for fraud<<

                    I don't see IRS Collections as that subjective, but maybe someone can tell us more. It seems to me they are not very emotional at all -- they don't feel sorry for anyone, but they don't get vindictive either. All they want is the money.

                    Contrary to popular opinion, an OIC does not let the taxpayer off the hook. The whole point is to find a way for the IRS to collect MORE than they otherwise would. For example, in the original post the TP lives with parents--maybe THEY will help pay some of the bill to clear their daughter's credit so she can become self-supporting and get her own place and leave them in peace again. Obviously they can not levy directly on the parents, so IRS might be interested in such an offer. Fraud notwithstanding.

                    Has anybody ever seen any statistics on how many OIC's default after payment? The taxpayer has to sign a five-year promise of good behavior, which this lady might forget, so technically they can resume collections if she pulls another stupid stunt like claiming someone else's kids.

                    Comment

                      #11
                      The more I think about this the

                      more I am amazed that the IRS does not seek a conviction for Tax Fraud here. If a middle or upper class person deliberately lied on his or her tax return and claimed an amount equal to say a third of annual income, would the service not seek jail time in addition to collecting the original money plus penalty and interest?

                      Comment

                        #12
                        soft on crime

                        >>I am amazed that the IRS does not seek a conviction for Tax Fraud here<<

                        Based on what? I don't want to come across as soft on crime, but all we have "here" is a third-party summary repeated on the Internet.

                        Comment

                          #13
                          Erewhon

                          Originally posted by jainen View Post
                          >>I am amazed that the IRS does not seek a conviction for Tax Fraud here<
                          I am amazed that someone doesn't realize IRS and the Justice Department prosecute less than 1/10 of 1% of potential tax-fraud cases. That's why there are civil penalties that don't require a grand jury indictment and a unanimous jury conviction.

                          It's like thinking that the government has the resources to prosecute more than a handful of immigration cases.

                          Comment

                            #14
                            In the town where I started

                            in the tax business there was a substantial climate of opinion that one's children should not be "wasted" by not being on the tax return of someone who could get EIC. It was common practice to sell the right to list one's children to a friend, or give the right to a close relative, if one had been out of work most of the year. Also, couples would get married in a religious ceremony but not have a marriage license. Once they had two children, both parents would file Head of Household at the same address. Then one year the word got out that one of the two needed to use a Post Office Box. The thing that impresses me is that most of these individuals would never have stolen anything from any individual and perhaps not even from a company, and they didn't generally lie and certainly didn't commit fraud in any other way. But like a lot of otherwise honest people of greater wealth, they saw no harm in defrauding the government.

                            Comment

                              #15
                              'in the town' -

                              sounds like it could have been an episode from 'The Twilight Zone'.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next

                              Disclaimer

                              Collapse

                              This message board allows participants to freely exchange ideas and opinions on areas concerning taxes. The comments posted are the opinions of participants and not that of Tax Materials, Inc. We make no claim as to the accuracy of the information and will not be held liable for any damages caused by using such information. Tax Materials, Inc. reserves the right to delete or modify inappropriate postings.

                              Working...
                              X