stimulus check for inmates in Texas

[tinaerwin]

I carried my son as a dependent on my 2018 taxs , he was incarcerated for all of 2019 and did not have income and did not file tax's as he was incarcerated. Now the IRS is allowing the inmates to file for stimulus checks is he eligible if he files the short form for the EIP . I am unsure since he was carried on my 2018 but not on my 2019 and he did not file any tax forms in 2019 .

 

[quincy]

I carried my son as a dependent on my 2018 taxs , he was incarcerated for all of 2019 and did not have income and did not file tax's as he was incarcerated. Now the IRS is allowing the inmates to file for stimulus checks is he eligible if he files the short form for the EIP . I am unsure since he was carried on my 2018 but not on my 2019 and he did not file any tax forms in 2019 .

How old is your son?

 

[Just Blue]

@Taxing Matters

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to the Cares Act Prison Case Organization with information on the stimulus checks for those who are incarcerated (check the “frequently asked questions” to determine eligibility):

https://caresactprisoncase.org

And here is a link to a Washington Post article on the federal ruling that challenged the IRS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/06/federal-ruling-incarcerated-people-stimulus-payments/

 

[Taxing Matters]

I carried my son as a dependent on my 2018 taxs , he was incarcerated for all of 2019 and did not have income and did not file tax's as he was incarcerated. Now the IRS is allowing the inmates to file for stimulus checks is he eligible if he files the short form for the EIP . I am unsure since he was carried on my 2018 but not on my 2019 and he did not file any tax forms in 2019 .

In my view incarcerated persons do qualify for the EIP. Nothing in the statute that sets out who is eligible and who is not excludes prisoners from qualifying for the EIP. Thus, he would only be disqualified if he failed to meet some other requirement of the statute. For example, he's not eligible to get the payment if he is your dependent. Assuming that he's over age 18 and has been in prison all of 2019 and all of 2020 to date he would not qualify as your dependent. He should carefully look over the basic EIP eligibility requirements to see if there is some other reason he'd not qualify for it. If he does qualify for it, then read on below for how things currently stand.

The problem here is that your son has a very short window to file to claim the EIP. If he needs to file his 2019 return by paper, as things stand now he's got to do that by October 30. He'd follow the instructions the IRS provides for filing a simplified paper return to do that. Note that this page says that the deadline for filing the simplified paper return is October 15. And it is for most people. But for incarcerated persons the deadline has been extended to October 30 as a result of the court decision. More on that court case below. If he has access to a computer, can get to the IRS web site, and is not required to file a tax return (i.e. his income is below the filing requirement) then he can use the nonfiler payment information page to enter his information to apply for the EIP. He has until midnight Nov 21 to do that. Again, if he is either required to file a return or needs to file a paper return to get the EIP because he does not have computer access he needs to get that return postmarked by October 30. It is possible that a further extension for filing the paper return might yet occur but so far the plaintiffs and IRS have not reached agreement on that issue, and the court has not entered any more orders regarding that.

As for the lawsuit, a little more explanation is needed to understand where things stand. The Court entered an order granting class action certification and granting a preliminary injunction against the IRS and Treasury. The injunction required the IRS and Treasury to stop denying EIP refunds to incarcerated persons and directed the IRS and Treasury to take certain steps to notify prisoners of the Court's ruling and get the prisoners information on applying for the EIP. The IRS also had to update its website on the issue of whether prisoners qualify for the EIP. The IRS and Treasury do not agree with the Court's decision and have already appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit. However, until the Ninth Circuit stays the order, or the district court reverses the order after the hearing on the permanent injunction, the IRS must comply with the order, which they doing at the present time. The IRS web site reflects this. It has just updated its site on the issue of eligibility of incarcerated persons to say the following:

Q A14. Does someone who is incarcerated qualify for the Payment? (updated October 8, 2020)​

​

A14. Pursuant to a preliminary injunction entered in Scholl v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-05309 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2020), appeal docketed, No. 20-16915 (9th Cir.), the IRS cannot deny a payment to someone who is incarcerated if they meet the criteria described above in the response to Q A1. Information can be provided to the IRS by using the Non-Filers: Enter Payment Info here online tool by November 21, 2020. Or, you may mail us a 2019 simplified paper tax return following the procedures at File a Simplified Paper Tax Return by the court-ordered deadline of October 30, 2020.​

​

The government has filed an appeal and request to stay the preliminary injunction. Any updates regarding the appeal will be posted on this webpage.​

Note that the IRS comment on incarcerated persons spells out the deadlines I mentioned above. Because of mail back up at the IRS I would not wait until October 30 to file if at all possible. The earlier he can get the paper return in (if he has go the paper route), the better.

While I think it unlikely, if the appeals court were to stay the district court's injunction or overturn the district court's determination that incarcerated persons are not eligible for the payments it could mean those prisoners will not get the payments and that those who did would have to pay them back. So just be aware that things are not final on this issue yet.

 

[davew9128]

FWIW, the 9th Circuit ruled last week in an emergency appeal that IRS needs to follow the order of the District Court. Bear in mind, IRS lost on summary judgement in 75 days on this matter. The odds of them prevailing anywhere else are between slim and none.

 

[Taxing Matters]

FWIW, the 9th Circuit ruled last week in an emergency appeal that IRS needs to follow the order of the District Court. Bear in mind, IRS lost on summary judgement in 75 days on this matter. The odds of them prevailing anywhere else are between slim and none.

Not summary judgment. It was a preliminary (temporary) injunction. The standard for that is different than for summary judgment, though a win for a plaintiff on preliminary injunction doesn't usually bode well for the defendant when the case moves to determine if a permanent injunction should be issued. The speed of the ruling doesn't necessarily tell you the strength of the parties positions, though in this case the position of the government is quite weak and I agree the odds of the government winning are quite low. It is my understanding that this was not the legal position of IRS or its counsel, but rather that Treasury got upset that prisoners were getting checks, which it thought had a bad look. (And in an election year, I imagine Trump was not pleased.) It is not IRS counsel representing the government in this action, but DOJ tax division.

 

[davew9128]

Not summary judgment. It was a preliminary (temporary) injunction. The standard for that is different than for summary judgment, though a win for a plaintiff on preliminary injunction doesn't usually bode well for the defendant when the case moves to determine if a permanent injunction should be issued. The speed of the ruling doesn't necessarily tell you the strength of the parties positions, though in this case the position of the government is quite weak and I agree the odds of the government winning are quite low. It is my understanding that this was not the legal position of IRS or its counsel, but rather that Treasury got upset that prisoners were getting checks, which it thought had a bad look. (And in an election year, I imagine Trump was not pleased.) It is not IRS counsel representing the government in this action, but DOJ tax division.

It was indeed a summary judgement. http://procedurallytaxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Scholl_et_al_v._Mnuchin_et_al_95.pdf

 

[Taxing Matters]

It was indeed a summary judgement. http://procedurallytaxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Scholl_et_al_v._Mnuchin_et_al_95.pdf

Thank you. That I had not seen yet as the Court entered it only yesterday. The judge converted her preliminary injunction (which is what I had read before) into a summary judgment ruling and permanent injunction (and which repeats much of what was in the earlier ruling). The government's appeal concerned the preliminary injunction; it will probably now add appeal of the summary judgement and permanent injunction to its appeal. However, I don't see the appeal getting the government anywhere. The statute simply does not support the Treasury's view. The best that the government could have hoped for was a stay pending the appeal so the checks wouldn't go out before election day, and its not getting that either.