If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
"agrich" wrote in message
hlink.net... Hello, I have been lurking here on and off since 97' History: Paternity suit victim, child 14 years old. State of Arkansas. Stipulated to paternity after DNA testing 6 months ago. Mother awarded 5 years retro-active support. Retro support to be paid weekly in addition to current support. Fines, fees and testing cost awarded to state. Fines, fees and testing were paid off in allotted 6 months. Current and retro support paid 2 weeks in advance thru child support clearinghouse. Got a pre-tax intercept notice in OCT ($230.00). Wrote letter to local OCSE requesting admin hearing, They did not answer. called after 14 days, they could not explain how the came up with the amount. I requested that they send me something in writing, 10 days past and I then wrote them another letter requesting that they explain how they came up with the arrearages and if they were going to certify the debt or not. Still no answer. Should I write my congressman or governor? or both? While the amount is small, a capture will just screw things up. and besides I feel they are making me out to be a deadbeat, I have perfect payment record. That's what really sucks. Somehow they put a flag on your account showing you owe back support. At this time it doesn't matter *how* it happened, but the fact that they clear this mess up with the federal government. Give them a call tomorrow and request verification they have removed that flag, then contact the IRS department and explain to them there must be some sort of problem - because you *don't* owe back support. Ask the IRS what you need to provide them to show you don't owe back support. Record who you spoke with, exact date & times, etc. If this doesn't get cleared up (with verification) within a few weeks, then yes email your congressman. Good luck, Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
D, there is no interest per the agreement prior to stipulation Also state is
allowed to collect interest. but doesn't (yet) They threw out the number and I agreed to pay it, I have done so. I expect them to uphold their end of the deal. I'm sure the CP is just giddy since OCSE has notified her what to expect. "The Dave©" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: Taxes - You mentioned the tax tip, and I'll assume that means you know as a never married father you have the right to take the child as an exemption if you meet the IRS test of paying more than 50% of the defined expenses. Also, I would recommend adjusting your withholding exemptions so you have a small tax to pay at the end of each year. That way there is no tax refund to intercept. As long as you pay 90% (IIRC) of the tax due, there is no penalty for underpaying taxes due through withholding. You can also do what you suggested, i.e. apply any refund to your next year's taxes due, and that will protect any refund from being intercepted. If a person owed the money, and didn't need the tax refund, wouldn't it be better to let them take it, thus reducing the balance and interest and paying it off sooner? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
D, there is no interest per the agreement prior to stipulation Also state is
allowed to collect interest. but doesn't (yet) They threw out the number and I agreed to pay it, I have done so. I expect them to uphold their end of the deal. I'm sure the CP is just giddy since OCSE has notified her what to expect. "The Dave©" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: Taxes - You mentioned the tax tip, and I'll assume that means you know as a never married father you have the right to take the child as an exemption if you meet the IRS test of paying more than 50% of the defined expenses. Also, I would recommend adjusting your withholding exemptions so you have a small tax to pay at the end of each year. That way there is no tax refund to intercept. As long as you pay 90% (IIRC) of the tax due, there is no penalty for underpaying taxes due through withholding. You can also do what you suggested, i.e. apply any refund to your next year's taxes due, and that will protect any refund from being intercepted. If a person owed the money, and didn't need the tax refund, wouldn't it be better to let them take it, thus reducing the balance and interest and paying it off sooner? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
"agrich" wrote in message . net... D, there is no interest per the agreement prior to stipulation Also state is allowed to collect interest. but doesn't (yet) They threw out the number and I agreed to pay it, I have done so. I expect them to uphold their end of the deal. I'm sure the CP is just giddy since OCSE has notified her what to expect. There seems to be little or no consistency in how never married fathers are assessed arrearage support once an order is finalized. What reasoning did the state/court use to set your arrearage retroactively at 5 years? Did they use your wages at the time the order was set to establish the retro amount, or did they adjust for what you actually made during the preceding 5 year period? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
"agrich" wrote in message . net... D, there is no interest per the agreement prior to stipulation Also state is allowed to collect interest. but doesn't (yet) They threw out the number and I agreed to pay it, I have done so. I expect them to uphold their end of the deal. I'm sure the CP is just giddy since OCSE has notified her what to expect. There seems to be little or no consistency in how never married fathers are assessed arrearage support once an order is finalized. What reasoning did the state/court use to set your arrearage retroactively at 5 years? Did they use your wages at the time the order was set to establish the retro amount, or did they adjust for what you actually made during the preceding 5 year period? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
I think my attorney *offered* them 5 years at minimum weekly amount. the attorney is another complete story. This suit is 14 years old. In 97 they sued in Fl. and didn't show up for DNA testing that the court ordered and I payed for. Motioned to dismiss with prejudis, no luck. Also this is one of the cases that was caught up in the Ar CS scandle where the FBI raided local attorneys and OCSE office. I told the Lier^^^^^ lawyer that I was concerned about back support, he came back from chambers he came back with "a good deal" 5 years. he argued that they could have gone back 14 years and that if we went before the judge that is most like what would have happened. I should have fired him on the spot. Typical backwoods southern lawyer. I have sent a letter to the CP requesting that the retro-active arrears be forgiven, but she's I doubt if she will, It's all about money for her. "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message .net... "agrich" wrote in message . net... D, there is no interest per the agreement prior to stipulation Also state is allowed to collect interest. but doesn't (yet) They threw out the number and I agreed to pay it, I have done so. I expect them to uphold their end of the deal. I'm sure the CP is just giddy since OCSE has notified her what to expect. There seems to be little or no consistency in how never married fathers are assessed arrearage support once an order is finalized. What reasoning did the state/court use to set your arrearage retroactively at 5 years? Did they use your wages at the time the order was set to establish the retro amount, or did they adjust for what you actually made during the preceding 5 year period? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
I think my attorney *offered* them 5 years at minimum weekly amount. the attorney is another complete story. This suit is 14 years old. In 97 they sued in Fl. and didn't show up for DNA testing that the court ordered and I payed for. Motioned to dismiss with prejudis, no luck. Also this is one of the cases that was caught up in the Ar CS scandle where the FBI raided local attorneys and OCSE office. I told the Lier^^^^^ lawyer that I was concerned about back support, he came back from chambers he came back with "a good deal" 5 years. he argued that they could have gone back 14 years and that if we went before the judge that is most like what would have happened. I should have fired him on the spot. Typical backwoods southern lawyer. I have sent a letter to the CP requesting that the retro-active arrears be forgiven, but she's I doubt if she will, It's all about money for her. "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message .net... "agrich" wrote in message . net... D, there is no interest per the agreement prior to stipulation Also state is allowed to collect interest. but doesn't (yet) They threw out the number and I agreed to pay it, I have done so. I expect them to uphold their end of the deal. I'm sure the CP is just giddy since OCSE has notified her what to expect. There seems to be little or no consistency in how never married fathers are assessed arrearage support once an order is finalized. What reasoning did the state/court use to set your arrearage retroactively at 5 years? Did they use your wages at the time the order was set to establish the retro amount, or did they adjust for what you actually made during the preceding 5 year period? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
You are right - they play games with the CS accounting to justify
their existence. They bill CS accruals one month in advance and credit your payments one month in arrears. Aha ! That is why my account has an "arrears" balance, even though I am fully paid up and always have been, and why the former welfare recipients who answer the phones at DR can never tell me whether I am really in arrears or not. I get a "yes" one day and a "no" the next, and sometimes a yes and a no from the same former welfare recipient on the same day. I hope those communist lesbos all go straight to Hell. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
You are right - they play games with the CS accounting to justify
their existence. They bill CS accruals one month in advance and credit your payments one month in arrears. Aha ! That is why my account has an "arrears" balance, even though I am fully paid up and always have been, and why the former welfare recipients who answer the phones at DR can never tell me whether I am really in arrears or not. I get a "yes" one day and a "no" the next, and sometimes a yes and a no from the same former welfare recipient on the same day. I hope those communist lesbos all go straight to Hell. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Tax Intercept
"Lecher9000" wrote in message ... You are right - they play games with the CS accounting to justify their existence. They bill CS accruals one month in advance and credit your payments one month in arrears. Aha ! That is why my account has an "arrears" balance, even though I am fully paid up and always have been, and why the former welfare recipients who answer the phones at DR can never tell me whether I am really in arrears or not. I get a "yes" one day and a "no" the next, and sometimes a yes and a no from the same former welfare recipient on the same day. I hope those communist lesbos all go straight to Hell. Every CS case file has what I call the "2 month gap." The system bills what is owed prior to the first of the month when the CS monthly amount accures. Then they don't credit the obligors payments until after the end of the month when the CS payments have been taken through wage withholding. The net affect is a "2 month gap" between the billings and application of CS payments. This BS is why every NCP needs to do a monthly audit of their account. That is the only way for an NCP to counter how the CS system sets up obligors to appear to not be paying as agreed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|