Friday, October 15, 2004

E. Normis




Joined: 12 October 2004
Location: United States



There is an article posted on another forum, the content of which I felt worthy of comment. The article is entitled "Collecting for the IRS" by Bill Lindala

The authors excessive use of "I" and "my", are clear indicators of pomposity. That, in and of itself, wouldn't be a problem for me if he understood what he was writing about, but he self-admittedly doesn't.

For example, he uses as a source of reference the IRS Restructure and Reform Act of 1997. But later goes on to say "I didn’t actually take the time to look at this Act..... Why? Because I don’t care!"

It gets even better. He then goes on to say "Granted, the IRS can still be sued based on the Reform Act". He admittedly didn't read it, doesn't care about it, but somehow feels qualified to make references to legal remedies provided by it?

If that weren't enough, he then has the audacity to state, " but what I really care about is (sic) the agencies that are working the accounts." One would think that if the author really were as passionate about the agencies as is implied in his writing he would, at the very least, take the time to understand the implications agencies face attempting to procure contracts under the new legislation. He admittedly hasn't.

Now, let's examine the authors obvious lack of knowledge of basic legal principles, no less the FDCPA, but willingly comments on both in this article.

He states: "807(4).......This section mentions threatening to take a consumer’s tax refund when the agency has no authority to do so and if the collection agency threatens that action, it would be a violation. Although it’s a known fact that if you owe back taxes, then the IRS will take your refund and apply it to any amount due, is the collection agency allowed to say that and use that as a collection lever? It is a known fact that the IRS applies any refunds to taxes due. What the FDCPA addresses is a CA threating to take action they cannot legally take, and a CA cannot take a consumers refund. Not now, nor when they are collecting back taxes. The IRS, however can, has a system in place to do so, and will continue to do so even if it has contracted with a CA to attempt collection. Much like the system in place to collect due child support that CA's already contract to collect. It would not be a violation of the FDCPA for the CA to indicate the IRS will apply any refund to their taxes due, anymore than it's a violation to say that if they report a collection account to the CRA's it will ruin the debtors credit. These are true statements, something apparently the author, as a former collector, is unfamiliar with.

I could continue with more inaccuracies, conjecture, and just plain nonsense propagated by the author of this article. However, that would involve quoting the entire article. Knowing the litigious mindset of its author, I prefer to stay within the confines of the fair use doctrine of copyright law.