Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Friday, April 11, 2014

The Long Arm Of The Federal Government

There is something very creepy about this.

Whatever happened to the filing of and IRS's acceptance of the estate return — and the 10 year limit on liabilities such as those explained in the article?  Read an excerpt from the article below the fold.
Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts

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.

Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family — it’s not sure who — in 1977. After 37 years of silence, four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. Why the feds chose to take Mary’s money, rather than her surviving siblings’, is a mystery.

Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who are expecting refunds this month are instead getting letters like the one Grice got, informing them that because of a debt they never knew about — often a debt incurred by their parents — the government has confiscated their check.

The Treasury Department has intercepted $1.9 billion in tax refunds already this year — $75 million of that on debts delinquent for more than 10 years, said Jeffrey Schramek, assistant commissioner of 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.

[...]

Social Security officials told Grice that six people — Grice, her four siblings and her father’s ex-wife, whom she never knew — had received benefits under her father’s account. The government doesn’t look into exactly who got the overpayment; the policy is to seek compensation from the oldest sibling and work down through the family until the debt is paid.

The Federal Trade Commission, on its Web site, advises Americans that “family members typically are not obligated to pay the debts of a deceased relative from their own assets.” But Social Security officials say that if children indirectly received assistance from public dollars paid to a parent, the children’s money can be taken, no matter how long ago any overpayment occurred....

[...]

Many...taxpayers whose refunds have been taken say they’ve been unable to contest the confiscations because of the cost, because Social Security cannot provide records detailing the original overpayment, and because the citizens, following advice from the IRS to keep financial documents for just three years, had long since trashed their own records....
Read the entire article HERE. Mary Grice's case is not the only case!

Let me get this straight....

Now there's no limit as to who can be held accountable for defrauding the U.S. Treasury to the point that descendants are responsible for their ancestors' debts — or suspected debts — if those debts — or suspected debts — involve the U.S. Treasury?

6 comments:

  1. Saw this comment at the WaPo: it was Democratic Rep [Collin Peterson] who added the clauses at behest of Obama Admin

    I haven't verified this information about Collin Peterson. Does anyone know if the information is true?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know about Rep. Peterson, but I do know that the entire issue is a disgusting abuse of power and it does NOT surprise me that it started with obummer. He'll do ANYTHING to get more of OUR money to waste! What an asshole! I hate that SOB more and more every day!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Amazing how they come up with better ways to finish us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd like to know who put that clause in the "farm bill"

    This is disgusting. But you have to pay for Mitt's tax breaks so he can create jobs.
    Gonna take a revolution, folks. Or not if you don't figure catch a clue.

    Hi to the folks in Room 101 at Fort George Meade.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting...At the WaPo web site, the article has received 2031 comments (as of this moment). The article posted yesterday evening. Quite a firestorm going on there at the WaPo web site!

    I'm unable tog get all the comments to load. From what I've seen, however, the Left is blaming the Right, and the Right is blaming the Left.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective