• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts

The government made a mistake that is clear but did Mary Grice ever attempt herself to fix it. Personally I don't think they should be coming after the daughter but the blame goes both ways. I mean if an cashier gave me more change back then I was suppose to get, my own values should prompt me to return it.

How would she have any idea that the IRS over paid her mother when she was a child at the time?
 
What?

Something seems waaaaay off about this.

How can it possibly be legal to take money from someone who had nothing to do with the original issue?
 
Mystery solved! The IRS used to have a 10 year statute of limitations on collecting on debts. The latest Farm bill eliminated that statute.

Because, you know, farming....
 
Heard on the radio this morning that the SSA will no longer go after debts older than 10 years, even if they can legally.

Still doesn't satisfy me, though. If they cannot provide solid evidence/proof, regardless the reason, then they shouldn't even go after the person to begin with.
 
You're right. If that's the law, that's the law; but we wouldn't need to worry about limitations if the government had the resources to keep good records. We'd know immediately what happened and could resolve the issue.
Why are you so quick to let the government off the hook? If they cannot prove their claim, they should go forward to begin with.
 
Why are you so quick to let the government off the hook? If they cannot prove their claim, they should go forward to begin with.

The policy does seem unfair but it wouldn't had the proper procedures been available.
 
Why are you so quick to let the government off the hook? If they cannot prove their claim, they should go forward to begin with.
The policy does seem unfair but it wouldn't had the proper procedures been available.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I mis-typed. I meant to say... If they cannot prove their claim, they shouldn't go forward to begin with.
 
Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts - The Washington Post

"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.
"

I have a sneaking suspicion that this will cost the Government far more in legal fees then they actually collected....

I wish this happened to me so I could sue the govt. I imagine some lawyer would be chomping at the bit to take this case on commission, assuming the details are as simple as the appear. Then again I cant imagine the govt paying legal fees of someone suing the them.
 
The government made a mistake that is clear but did Mary Grice ever attempt herself to fix it. Personally I don't think they should be coming after the daughter but the blame goes both ways. I mean if an cashier gave me more change back then I was suppose to get, my own values should prompt me to return it.

The correct metaphor is that the cashier gave someone else more change back, and then charged you extra because of it.
 
Someone please clarify this for me...

As I understand it, the government is going after Person B for Person A's old debt. Is that correct?

Person B being the daughter of Person A.
 
Exactly. The fact that the government is trying to bill someone on incomplete information is just asking to be sued. What can they offer in discovery other than an "I have no idea"?

But most people won't sue because they can't afford a lawyer. I am sure the IRS knows this.
 
I wish this happened to me so I could sue the govt. I imagine some lawyer would be chomping at the bit to take this case on commission, assuming the details are as simple as the appear. Then again I cant imagine the govt paying legal fees of someone suing the them.

Are you sure any lawyer would want to make an enemy of the IRS?
 
The correct metaphor is that the cashier gave someone else more change back, and then charged you extra because of it.

The correct metaphor is that the cashier gave someone else more change back 37 years ago, and then charged you extra because of it.

There, fixed it for you.
 
I wish this happened to me so I could sue the govt. I imagine some lawyer would be chomping at the bit to take this case on commission, assuming the details are as simple as the appear. Then again I cant imagine the govt paying legal fees of someone suing the them.

Probably not - government is very good at protecting government from lawsuit, and limiting the payouts. Add to that functionally unlimited resources aligned against you when you sue the Feds, these are tough cases to win and make money on.
 
Are you sure any lawyer would want to make an enemy of the IRS?
Litigation is incredibly expensive. And whether it's the feds, or the state, or a local government that is effecting questionable laws, they all know this. I have no proof, but I believe they knowingly go ahead anyway because the chances of them actually being called on it are pretty slim, odds-wise.
 
Probably not - government is very good at protecting government from lawsuit, and limiting the payouts. Add to that functionally unlimited resources aligned against you when you sue the Feds, these are tough cases to win and make money on.

True, and even if they paid out, theyre paying you with your own money.
 
Litigation is incredibly expensive. And whether it's the feds, or the state, or a local government that is effecting questionable laws, they all know this. I have no proof, but I believe they knowingly go ahead anyway because the chances of them actually being called on it are pretty slim, odds-wise.

That was my point in an earlier post. A lot of people do things knowing it is too expensive to get sued. I am sure the government knows the same, plus they can sick the IRS on you and your family.
 
That was my point in an earlier post. A lot of people do things knowing it is too expensive to get sued. I am sure the government knows the same, plus they can sick the IRS on you and your family.
Plus, the government already has attorneys at their disposal. Just throw another one (lawsuit) into the hopper.
 
Back
Top Bottom