This is not accounting advice, by the way. There's some wrinkles if the debt was caused by your principal residence, due to some of the recovery measures passed two years ago. If its, say, CC or medical debt, though...
This is not accounting advice, by the way. There's some wrinkles if the debt was caused by your principal residence, due to some of the recovery measures passed two years ago. If its, say, CC or medical debt, though...
Our tax lawyer has written some technical langue for our website. The bottom line is that we will be purchasing debt of people who are most likely insolvent and if you are insolvent there is no tax implications. Period. Even if they are not insolvent the chain of events that would have to take place to result in this counting as taxable income is highly unlikely. It's not impossible, but it's very very very (lots more verys) unlikely.
The long answer is much longer and more technical but rest assured, we are aware of the tax implications and it's not a problem.
What the OP is offering seems to be a nice alternative.
Student loans is a good cause though, indeed it is very hard to get rid of. But since they carry government guarantees (unless it's a private ones) - why would one be willing to sell it for cents on a dollar instead of just getting the money back from the state?
A BK is a unique event from other delinquent accounts on one's credit report that carries extra weight. As do foreclosure and repo.
There's also the notion of rent - people who've always had good credit don't really know how different renting is like for people who have bad credit. I came to this country a few years ago with zero US credit rating, and even with a high salary, offer letters, etc, had one hell of a time finding a place to live. Many landlords simply will not consider you, while others charge exorbitant deposits to cover the risk.
The recently bankrupt are also the least able to afford a security deposit several times higher than what everyone else pays.
The reality of credit in the US is that your life gets exponentially harder as your credit worsens, and the difficulty in turning that ship around increases dramatically. People who've never had to suffer from bad/no credit really need to examine this before clucking judgmentally.
I guess maybe in the Silicon Valley everybody is used to immigrants so nobody is surprised when the person with no credit shows up, especially if they have the actual money. If you have no money that's different, but then the primary problem is not credit.
If a person with no credit history in the USA (like a naturalized alien) is added as an authorized user to an existing credit account the credit history of this account is 'cloned' to the new addition.
I wonder how my move to Singapore will play out.
But should I ever come to the US, I'll make sure I have plenty of money.
The USA is a great place if you want/need the rule of law to protect property.
Overall, the US civil legal system is not corrupt. In many places in Asia and E. Europe corruption is systemic. It is much more difficult to keep a successful business in such an environment.
One example is real estate escrow services with title insurance.
1. buy low & sell high 2. defer personal gratification 3. save a % of everything you earn
you can gradually grow wealthy.
The world is in recession, and the US might be starting to recover. It is a hard market right now. But it will recover and boom (and then crash) again.
I have traveled in Russia and Mexico and made friends with regular people who live there. I also studied economics at university. I am thinking about what I am writing here.
edit: I was born and raised in the USA
Two inspirational books to get started:
The Richest Man in Babylon
Andrew Carnegie and the Rise of Big Business
And you have the means to travel to Russia and Mexico with enough depth to get to know people there, and went to a university.
Travel is beyond the means of most people in the US, both in time (can't get time off) and money (living paycheck to paycheck is common). That's if you're fortunate enough to be in the upper range of the middle class. Much lower and you're lucky to see a movie once a year, or participate in the broader culture at all.
What seems to matter most is an area's social and physical infrastructure. A person in the poorest part of NYC can scrape together enough for a subway ride to a better part of town to look for opportunity. They might even have access to a charity transportation service.
A person in the suburbs is doomed if their car breaks down, unless they can afford to fix it or know someone with the time to shuttle them around.
These are understandings derived from my experience and the experiences of people I know. I only took an introductory economics class at a community college, but I've also known plenty of well-educated, well-traveled people with no perspective. It seems like depth of education and experience matters more than breadth.
Consider the possibility that your studies and travels didn't open your eyes wide enough to the situation in your own country.
The world is moving in the right direction--especially away from suburban nests of roads that require a car, which is highly relevant to my own obstacles--, so I don't see a point in elaborating.
> 1. buy low & sell high 2. defer personal gratification 3. save a % of everything you earn
What if you start with nothing, in a place with little or no physical mobility? If you're lucky, someone you have access to has connections and is willing to work with you.
> I have traveled in Russia and Mexico and made friends with regular people who live there. I also studied economics at university. I am thinking about what I am writing here.
How much time have you spent in the US? I'm assuming you don't live here from the way you write.
As a male WASP child of educated, professional parents I have had almost every advantage possible. I know this.
Having watched many small businesses owned and operated by 'new' Americans has made me appreciate what is possible here, in a big city at least.
I see your point that a useful thing can be abused.
Some people still have land line phones and don't know how to fire bill collectors.
A BK also costs several hundreds of dollars now.
I think there is a psychological block for a lot of people too. It takes a certain point-of-view and education to be able to enter into lending arrangements with creditors with the perspective: "I believe I am going to make a profit and we will both win. But there is a chance I will not be able to. The lender is self-consciously taking a risk, which they are being compensated for via interest (same basic principle with an investor). If things go badly and I need to declare bankruptcy, then well, yes, it sucks. But I have done nothing morally wrong."
Fun fact: Henry Ford, Abraham Lincoln, and Walt Disney declared bankruptcy.
If that's not what you are getting at, I don't get your comment? Unless we are talking of a foolish lender?
Edit: Durr. Just got it. You are talking about the return the lender receives, the reason he lends instead of consumes. Yes, part of interest is risk compensation.
>Now, after many consultations with attorneys, the IRS, and our moles in the debt-brokerage world...
I'm guessing they know what they're doing.
A bank will make a loan, after 120 (or 180) days of no payment the loan becomes "charged off", this means it's now tax-exempt
The purpose of making such a declaration is to give the
bank a tax exemption on the debt
Then a debt buyer will purchase the value of the debt for a percentage A debt buyer is a company [..] that purchases delinquent
or charged-off debts from a creditor for a fraction of
the face value of the debt.
with the pricing generally being Depending on the age and history of the debt, a buyer
typically pays between 3 and 16 percent of the face
value of the debt.
Does this mean that the debt buyer than becomes in possession of the value of the debt for tax purposes, even after it has been charged-off by the company that initially granted the debt? or do they become in possessions of the amount paid (eg: buying $1,000 debt for $100, do they now own $1,000 for tax or $100?). Wikipedia isn't clear.quotes taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_buyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-off
The debt collector's tax basis is the price they paid for the debt. If they fail to collect the debt, there is a net loss equal to what they paid for the debt. This tax loss can be set against other debts that are recovered (profits).
If the full face value of the debt is recovered, the debt collector owes tax on the difference between their basis (what they paid for the debt) and the amount collected from the debtor. Of course, this profit is set against the losses on the remainder of the debt portfolio, so the net tax owed is the cumulative debts collected above the basis, less the loss on uncollected debt.
Full value and take an income loss on not collecting all of it.
Income of what amount you DO collect.
So in a sense occupy will have a tax shelter on their hands :-)
1. The executive branch has broad discretion about bringing people to the judiciary branch for sanction. For example, district attorneys do not prosecute every case brought to them.
2. Occupy has excellent legal council. At the local, state, and federal level the few (none?) of the cases that have been brought to court have resulted in a conviction. I cite the victory record as proof of their skill and occupy's integrity, not of a lust for litigation.
Don't hate the players, hate the game.
The IRS has pretty wide latitude in these kinds of cases - I think the tax code is the only area of law where the government pretty much wins unless you prove your innocence.
When the shit hits the fan, suddenly there's nothing under that tablecloth...
And now that OWS has announced they're buying up debt and forgiving it, the IRS is going to have a pretty good idea what's going on...
whom did you talk to at the IRS - what's their seniority and pay grade and did they reply in writing?
This is not our first rodeo.
Or OWS would buy from person A and, by some weird tax provision, doesn't have to pay agency A the entire amount?
Or...how does this actually work?
Yeah, I know nothing about money.
Each time I say "fruitlessly" read "They autodialed them between 2 and 5 times per week plus sent biweekly dunning letters."
For your added edification, while MegaBank, Agency X, and Agency Y all have no interest in the debt after it is sold to Z, many of them have very terrible recordkeeping practices, so it is entirely possible that e.g. Agency X will attempt to collect on the debt even after selling it, and potentially even after it is cancelled by OWS. Person A may not notice that this has happened, because Person A is likely a) delinquent on more than a dozen similar debts and b) Person A very likely has a very different level of personal responsibility as compared to many people in your reference set.
Now I'm wondering what kind of business model Agency Y and Z operate on
So in that subset of cases no one even legally owns the debt, (but the banks still tried to assert control. IIRC the judicial system didn't take too kindly to their assertion)
It could alternatively be characterized as a gift, in which case it is not income to the recipient (but could incur gift taxes to the "gifter").
If you don't inform the IRS that you forgave the debt, via a 1099-C, you're going to get wrist-slapped mightily if they think it is an honest mistake or, if you're, say, doing it as a political statement, you will be afforded the opportunity to make your political statement in front of a judge hearing your case for criminal tax evasion.
No. If it is treated as a gift--gifts under a certain size do not need to be declared. If it is not treated as a gift, only a creditor that is a financial institution is required to file a Form 1099-C. loan. 1099-C is only required for financial institutions or entities engaged in the business of lending money. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099ac.pdf. Moreover, the IRS does exercise discretion over pursuing cases--as the OP has already indicated, they have provided their blessing to these transactions and it is unlikely that any negative tax consequences will accrue (especially in this political environment).
(CPA in Texas)
Alternatively, OWS would purchase the loan itself and then forgive the loan. OWS is a non-profit entity, so there would not appear to be any tax issues arising from this (or at least, if there are, the IRS has already indicated that such issues will ignored).
If this doesn't happen then the government loses revenue and it also opens up the possibility of people using loan forgiveness to dodge taxes.
Well, yes. And the IRS will certainly pursue cases where it is clear that loan forgiveness is used to dodge taxes. But that is not what is happening here. OWS is purchasing loans to help people get out from crushing insolvency. The alternative is the debtor's declaring bankruptcy, in which case no one--not the government, nor the private creditors--gets anything. Note also that OWS is a non-profit entity, so issues of tax revenue loss are generally irrelevant.
Rule of law. Who needs that old thing anyway?
You have to admit that the upside of this is greater than the downside. Lets focus on that.