So I'm 23 Years Old and Owe the IRS $81,000

[davew128]

I think it so hilarious the both of keep supporting each others spouting of ludicrous garbage and massaging the incorrect info you each provide.

There is a form of massaging going on here.

If I was not here to correct both of you, everyone would think you both actually know what you are talking about.

When you correct me, let me know.

I never disputed IRS interest rates. Please show me one place I said anything about them being high!!!

We could start with your reference to amortization schedules or and

It coincides with my opinion the debt should be paid off as quickly as feasible in correlation to other loans OP might have. You generally start maxing payments on loans having the highest rates, unless you are trying to lower your overall monthly nut by paying off lower amounts of indebtedness.

Which of course is ludicrous when you consider the interest on the tax debt is 3-4%.

OK I agree it is a payment agreement not a repayment agreement, I misspoke.

Understatement.

Regardless of which he has affirmed the commitment to pay.

No, he is simply making equal periodic payments. Nothing was affirmed.

He can make additional payments.

You don't know that.

It should not take twenty lines of arguing to get to the correct answers.

I had it right in one.

We reached the facts of OP's situation several posts ago.

Who is this "we" you refer to. I and several others posted unanswered questions regarding material facts, all of which went right over your head.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Just for kicks, I went ahead and dug up the info which seems to be the core of the argument presented by FIC and dave while they yammer how wrong I am. If you read it, you will determine OP's installment agreement came from A. Filing past returns or B. Accepting an offer in compromise. I have provided Publication 594 which covers this. As you can see from reading in the thread, OP did not file his prior returns, therefore he submitted a from 656 or 656L for an offer in compromise. If you go to those forms, which I have also linked, you will see form 656 (i) says ") Once the IRS accepts my offer in writing, I have no right to contest, in court or otherwise, the amount of the tax debt." Form 656l says "h)Once the IRS accepts the offer in writing, I/we have no right to contest, in court or otherwise, the amount of the tax debt. Pending status of an offer and right to appeal i)The offer is pending starting with the date an authorized IRS official signs this form. The offer remains pending until an authorized IRS official accepts, rejects, returns, or acknowledges withdrawal of the offer in writing. If I/we appeal an IRS rejection decision on the offer, the IRS will continue to treat the offer as pending until the Appeals Office accepts or rejects the offer in writing. If I/we do not file a protest within 30 days of the date the IRS notifies me of the right to protest the decision, I/we waive the right to a hearing before the Appeals Office about the offer in compromise. Therefore both LDiJ and dave are completely wrong about his ability to successfully file old tax returns and dispute the final number. LDiJ and dave128 are professional tax preparers, they do tax returns for a living. They do not represent people in actions like we have people coming here with questions for on a regular basis. In fact, I may actually have more of a college tax education than either of them, even though I do not have more tax prep experience which I have never denied.

The point here is not to make LDiJ and dave128 look bad. They are both valuable members who contribute much to this site. Their problem is they do not want to be questioned and provide accurate sources when I or possibly another questions the position they present. Not everyone can have all the answers. We as members should politely discuss and debate the issues to arrive at the correct answer based on consolidating all of our knowledge. Instead, it sometimes seems to degrade into a series of progressively snarky and personal attacks that really are not necessary. No one here is perfect. We should all pull our knowledge and work together.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p594.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f656.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f656l.pdf

 

[LdiJ]

Just for kicks, I went ahead and dug up the info which seems to be the core of the argument presented by FIC and dave while they yammer how wrong I am. If you read it, you will determine OP's installment agreement came from A. Filing past returns or B. Accepting an offer in compromise.

This is incorrect. An installment agreement (note that is the exact name of the item in question) can come from either the filing of returns, (past or current) or an IRS assessment of tax due based on information they received from outside sources.

I have provided Publication 594 which covers this. As you can see from reading in the thread, OP did not file his prior returns, therefore he submitted a from 656 or 656L for an offer in compromise. If you go to those forms, which I have also linked, you will see form 656 (i) says ") Once the IRS accepts my offer in writing, I have no right to contest, in court or otherwise, the amount of the tax debt." Form 656l says "h)Once the IRS accepts the offer in writing, I/we have no right to contest, in court or otherwise, the amount of the tax debt. Pending status of an offer and right to appeal i)The offer is pending starting with the date an authorized IRS official signs this form. The offer remains pending until an authorized IRS official accepts, rejects, returns, or acknowledges withdrawal of the offer in writing. If I/we appeal an IRS rejection decision on the offer, the IRS will continue to treat the offer as pending until the Appeals Office accepts or rejects the offer in writing. If I/we do not file a protest within 30 days of the date the IRS notifies me of the right to protest the decision, I/we waive the right to a hearing before the Appeals Office about the offer in compromise.

This information would be correct if the OP had submitted an offer in compromise...that was ACCEPTED by the IRS. However there is nothing in this thread that indicates that the OP had submitted an offer in compromise that was accepted by the IRS. In fact, since the OP has significant equity in a home, there is little likelihood that the IRS would accept an offer in compromise. The fact that he is on an installment agreement of 200.00 a month is absolute proof that he has not had an OIC accepted by the IRS because an OIC does not result in that kind of payment plan. The entire purpose of an OIC is to get the IRS to accept a lump sum, or a short series of lump sum payments that total LESS that then original debt.

Therefore both LDiJ and dave are completely wrong about his ability to successfully file old tax returns and dispute the final number. LDiJ and dave128 are professional tax preparers, they do tax returns for a living. They do not represent people in actions like we have people coming here with questions for on a regular basis. In fact, I may actually have more of a college tax education than either of them, even though I do not have more tax prep experience which I have never denied.

Therefore Ohioroadwarrior is absolutely and completely wrong in how he is interpreting the information that he is reading and applying it to the OP's case. Even if a tax attorney were involved, the fundamental, basic, first step in dealing with a tax issue is to reconfigure the tax returns to ensure that they are correct, and then to either submit actual returns (if the tax was determined by the IRS) or to submit amended returns to correct the originals. Again this is FUNDAMENTAL. For him to attempt to state otherwise is ludicrous.

I have been a tax professional for almost 30 years now. Not only do I have an enormous amount of college education in taxation, I also do many hours of continuing education on a yearly basis, as I am sure that Dave does as well. There is no possible chance that you have more education on the subject than either of us. On top of that my company's entire practice from April 15th to January 15th each year (the off season) is devoted to assisting people with these types of tax problems. I have dealt with literally thousands of these cases over the years.

The point here is not to make LDiJ and dave128 look bad. They are both valuable members who contribute much to this site. Their problem is they do not want to be questioned and provide accurate sources when I or possibly another questions the position they present. Not everyone can have all the answers. We as members should politely discuss and debate the issues to arrive at the correct answer based on consolidating all of our knowledge. Instead, it sometimes seems to degrade into a series of progressively snarky and personal attacks that really are not necessary. No one here is perfect. We should all pull our knowledge and work together.

Attempting to make us look bad was your entire point. You are completely in the wrong and you are deliberately misinterpreting/mispresenting tax information in order to back up your inaccuracies and you are doing a grave disservice to anyone who would actually attempt to act upon your information.

 

[tranquility]

I don't do much work regarding collections. I have to look everything up whenever a client has an issue so I will not wade into the miasma of claims of what the IRS can and cannot do. I know I assumed there is some agreement out there and that would require tax years to be filed or assessed.

As to the large amount of taxes, perhaps the OP inherited IRA's.

 

[LdiJ]

I don't do much work regarding collections. I have to look everything up whenever a client has an issue so I will not wade into the miasma of claims of what the IRS can and cannot do. I know I assumed there is some agreement out there and that would require tax years to be filed or assessed.

As to the large amount of taxes, perhaps the OP inherited IRA's.

The OP has threads on other forums as well. Its not IRAs.

 

[davew128]

Just for kicks, I went ahead and dug up the info which seems to be the core of the argument presented by FIC and dave while they yammer how wrong I am. If you read it, you will determine OP's installment agreement came from A. Filing past returns or B. Accepting an offer in compromise. I have provided Publication 594 which covers this. As you can see from reading in the thread, OP did not file his prior returns, therefore he submitted a from 656 or 656L for an offer in compromise. If you go to those forms, which I have also linked, you will see form 656 (i) says ") Once the IRS accepts my offer in writing, I have no right to contest, in court or otherwise, the amount of the tax debt." Form 656l says "h)Once the IRS accepts the offer in writing, I/we have no right to contest, in court or otherwise, the amount of the tax debt. Pending status of an offer and right to appeal i)The offer is pending starting with the date an authorized IRS official signs this form. The offer remains pending until an authorized IRS official accepts, rejects, returns, or acknowledges withdrawal of the offer in writing. If I/we appeal an IRS rejection decision on the offer, the IRS will continue to treat the offer as pending until the Appeals Office accepts or rejects the offer in writing. If I/we do not file a protest within 30 days of the date the IRS notifies me of the right to protest the decision, I/we waive the right to a hearing before the Appeals Office about the offer in compromise. Therefore both LDiJ and dave are completely wrong about his ability to successfully file old tax returns and dispute the final number. LDiJ and dave128 are professional tax preparers, they do tax returns for a living. They do not represent people in actions like we have people coming here with questions for on a regular basis. In fact, I may actually have more of a college tax education than either of them, even though I do not have more tax prep experience which I have never denied.

The point here is not to make LDiJ and dave128 look bad. They are both valuable members who contribute much to this site. Their problem is they do not want to be questioned and provide accurate sources when I or possibly another questions the position they present. Not everyone can have all the answers. We as members should politely discuss and debate the issues to arrive at the correct answer based on consolidating all of our knowledge. Instead, it sometimes seems to degrade into a series of progressively snarky and personal attacks that really are not necessary. No one here is perfect. We should all pull our knowledge and work together.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p594.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f656.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f656l.pdf

Remind me again where the offer in compromise was made. Remind me again how the IRS could legally enforce a payment schedule in full for several DECADES. Remind me again how an OIC would even be considered with unfiled tax returns.

Oh and as for the work I do? Other preparers in the area send COLLECTIONS work to me. Why? Because I don't just prepare tax returns.

 

[davew128]

The OP has threads on other forums as well. Its not IRAs.

OHRW was wrong on that other forum as well.

 

[tranquility]

There are OTHER forums? Why would anyone go somewhere else when we have the answers here?

 

[LdiJ]

There are OTHER forums? Why would anyone go somewhere else when we have the answers here?

I also forgot to mention that if the IRS simply assess other taxes, either originally because no tax was filed, or due to a CP-2000 or other issues, that the IRS will set up a payment plan if the taxpayer asks for one, and that is no admission that the taxes are correct...nor bar to correcting them later. It's only once an OIC is submitted and accepted that its too late to challenge the taxes.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Just to clarify, LDiJ is wrong again. Not surprising, however, I need to bring it to everyone's attention since she is posting more incorrect information. If you refer to the payment form 9465 she is referring to, you will see to use the form, the IRS specifically requires you file the past returns or the 9465 will be denied for ongoing purposes and the OIC is necessary. I am sorry LDiJ and dave insist on presenting poorly researched, incorrect and misleading information, however, they elect to attack me, when I correct them, instead of politely engaging in a discussion of the issues. Before LDiJ comes back and says it does not specifically reference the prior returns needing to be filed, refer to the link regarding the initial type of notice OP would have received and it will advise he needs to file the or go via OIC.

By approving your request, we agree to let you pay the tax you owe in monthly installments instead of immediately paying the amount in full. In return, you agree to make your monthly payments on time. You also agree to meet all your future tax liabilities. This means that you must have enough withholding or estimated tax payments so that your tax liability for future years is paid in full when you timely file your return. Your request for an installment agreement will be denied if all required tax returns have not been filed. Any refund you are due in a future year will be applied against the amount you owe. If your refund is applied to your balance, you are still required to make your regular monthly installment payments.

Since we are still playing child's games. Even the IRS agrees with my initial financial assessment about paying off the loan quicker.

However, before requesting an installment agreement, you should consider other less costly alternatives, such as getting a bank loan or using available credit on a credit card.

http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Understanding-your-CP59-Notice
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i9465.pdf


[Apparently neither dave28 or LDiJ have an accredited accounting degree. I could have elected to be a CPA however I first became disabled in college. As my health continuously declined over the years, I got out of being an accountant and into management. Then from management to a very high paying, low physically and mentally demanding job where I only worked about 8 - 9 months a year.]

 

[Proserpina]

I'm terrifically sorry to break up this party, but has the OP even been back?

 

[anteater]

I'm terrifically sorry to break up this party, but has the OP even been back?

Nah... The OP just wanted someone to tell him/her that he/she wasn't responsible.

 

[davew128]

Since we are still playing child's games. Even the IRS agrees with my initial financial assessment about paying off the loan quicker.

Imagine that. A collection agency telling you that its in YOUR best interest to pay THEM first.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Interest-Rates-Remain-the-Same-for-the-Fourth-Quarter-of-2013
Interest Rates Remain the Same for the Fourth Quarter of 2013

IR-2013-74, Sept. 5, 2013
WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that interest rates will remain the same for the calendar quarter beginning Oct. 1, 2013. The rates will be:
three (3) percent for overpayments [two (2) percent in the case of a corporation];
three (3) percent for underpayments;
five (5) percent for large corporate underpayments; and
one-half (0.5) percent for the portion of a corporate overpayment exceeding $10,000.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, the rate of interest is determined on a quarterly basis. For taxpayers other than corporations, the overpayment and underpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 3 percentage points.
Generally, in the case of a corporation, the underpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 3 percentage points and the overpayment rate is the federal short-term rate plus 2 percentage points. The rate for large corporate underpayments is the federal short-term rate plus 5 percentage points. The rate on the portion of a corporate overpayment of tax exceeding $10,000 for a taxable period is the federal short-term rate plus one-half (0.5) of a percentage point.
The interest rates announced today are computed from the federal short-term rate determined during July 2013 to take effect Aug. 1, 2013, based on daily compounding.

So if all your OTHER debts have an interest rate lower than 3 percent, you'd actually be correct.