IRS Fraud is Likely Reason to Vacate Bankruptcy Order

IRS debt is a reason for many bankruptcy filings. Although bankruptcy can permit debtors to escape massive tax debt, if the IRS discovers the debtor willfully failed to pay the debt, misrepresented income or expenses or otherwise attempted to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, it is highly likely that the debt will not be avoided. Additionally, if IRS debt is expunged, reduced or modified and the IRS learns of fraud relating to the debt there will likely be a dispute as to the dischargeability of the debt and any reduction or modification. In the recent matter of In re Clemente, the United States filed a motion for reconsideration of the order permitting the Chapter 7 trustee to expunge, reduce and modify 2 proofs of claims. The court found that the debtor did willfully refuse to pay taxes due and also levied penalties and interest. The order to expunge and reduce the claim of the IRS was vacated as the priority claim was nondischargeable. If you have been carrying the burden of IRS or other substantial debt, you can also obtain relief through bankruptcy. If you are considering bankruptcy you should consult with an experienced bankruptcy attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information regarding foreclosure, bankruptcy or other consumer debt matters in New Jersey visit TheNJBankruptcyAttorney.com. This blog is for information purposes only and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. Our law firm is a debt relief agency and helps people file for bankruptcy relief.

Dionne Warwick Seeks IRS Relief Through Chapter 7 Filing

Singer Dionne Warwick's affiliation with the Psychic Friends Network provided her with no known warning of her future bankruptcy or the need to cut back on her spending. Dionne Warwick filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in March 2013 stating her income and expenses to be equal at $21,000 per month and leaving her with nothing to pay outstanding debts. Dionne Warwick's stated expenses may have been substantial but, based on her outstanding unpaid tax burden of approximately $10,000,000 they were not substantially deductible. Dionne Warwick owes $7,000,000 to the Internal Revenue Service which accumulated from 1991 to 1999. There is a potential dispute as to the portion of this debt attributable to penalties and interest. IRS debts are dischargeable in the event the debtor meets all of the following criteria: 1) the taxes are only income taxes; 2) the debtor properly filed all returns; 3) the debtor did not attempt to evade payment of the taxes; 4) the debt is at least 3 years old; and 5) the debt was assessed at least 240 days before the debtor files the bankruptcy petition or was not yet assessed. Representatives for Dionne Warwick say she filed all returns and paid the debt leaving only interest and penalties to make up the $10,000,000 outstanding debt. If this is true, because of the age of the delinquent taxes, Dionne Warwick will likely find herself free of this substantial debt she has carried since 1999. If you have been carrying the burden of IRS or other substantial debt, you can also obtain relief through bankruptcy. If you are considering bankruptcy you should consult with an experienced bankruptcy attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information regarding foreclosure, bankruptcy or other consumer debt matters in New Jersey visit TheNJBankruptcyAttorney.com. This blog is for information purposes only and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. Our law firm is a debt relief agency and helps people file for bankruptcy relief.

FDCPA Offers Protection From Harassing Creditors

The Federal Trade Commission released a study on January 30, 2013, discussing the shady actions harassing creditors take to unfairly collect debts. Many of these debts are usually from credit cards and can be discharged if the debtor files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The FTC found that debt buyers, usually collection agencies or law firms who have bought the debt from the original creditor, often lack basic information about the debt they are trying to collect. Many times they do not even know if the debt is valid, whether the consumer has disputed the debt or even when the statute of limitations has run on the debt. The FTC requires that creditors have a reasonable basis for believing a debtor lawfully owes the debt they are trying to collect on, yet some creditors cannot even establish that much when they file judgments against debtors! The FTC concluded that the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) should be updated to better protect debtors from unscrupulous debt collectors. In the meantime, if you are considering filing for bankruptcy and are receiving harassing communications from creditors who may not even have a legitimate claim against you, remember filing for bankruptcy will stop the harassment and allow you time to scrutinize your debts. If you are considering filing for bankruptcy you will be addressing many issues concerning protection from creditors and should consult with an experienced bankruptcy attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on how to protect yourself from creditors, foreclosure, other consumer debt or bankruptcy law matters in New Jersey visit TheNJBankruptcyAttorney.com. This blog is for information purposes only and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. We are a Debt Relief Agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief.

FDCPA Provides For 30-Day Dispute Period

In a recent consumer debt matter Stokes v. Transworld Systems Inc., an individual, Pamela Stokes, brought a class action suit against Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc. (TSI) for claimed violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) following her receipt of collection letters she received. Stokes claimed that reference to the 30 day FDCPA dispute period in a second collection letter and reference to a legitimate debt in a third collection letter were misleading and deceptive and would confuse the "lease sophisticated consumer" about how to dispute the validity of the alleged debt. The first letter from TSI set forth an amount due and informed Stokes of a 30 day notice to dispute the debt and how to do so. The second letter explained that, if the debt was not disputed within the 30 day dispute period set forth by the FDCPA, it would be assumed valid and collection efforts would continue. After the 30 day FDCPA dispute period expired, Stokes attorney sent a letter via facsimile, certified and regular mail pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1592c(c) demanding TSI cease and desist all collection efforts immediately, cease direct communications with Stokes, disputing the debt, demanding verification of the debt and the name and address of the original creditor. The following day, TSI sent a letter directly to Stokes seeking payment in order to avoid transfer of the matter to telephone collectors. The purpose of the FDCPA is to protect consumers by eliminating abusive practices by debt collectors, protect debt collectors using legal collection methods. The courts, in effecting the acts intent, have reviewed the creditors' actions under the "least sophisticated debtor" perspective. Communication is deceptive within the FDCPA if it can reasonably be read with 2 or more different meanings and one would be considered inaccurate. The primary question in determining FDCPA violations is whether the "notice fails to convey the required information clearly and effectively and thereby makes the least sophisticated consumer uncertain as to the meaning of the message" Weiss v. Zwicker, 664 F. Supp. 2d 214, 216 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) Not every letter sent from a debt collector within the 30 day dispute period violates the Act. A follow-up letter need not restate the rights set forth in the initial validation notice, nor must it set forth the expiration date of the 30 day dispute period. Simply put, follow-up letters must not confuse the least sophisticated debtor as to their rights under the FDCPA. Therefore, the actions of TSI were held to be valid and Stokes matter was dismissed. If you are facing mounting debt or believe a debt collector is pursuing you inappropriately, you should consult with an experienced bankruptcy attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information regarding how the FDCPA can protect you from harassment and unfair collection practices or for information regarding bankruptcy, foreclosure or other consumer debt matters in New Jersey visit TheNJBankruptcyAttorney.com. This blog is for information purposes only and in no way is intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. We are a Debt Relief Agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief.