New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Statute of Limitations & Bank Risk Student Loans
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Statute of Limitations & Bank Risk Student Loans

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/September/2013 at 12:01pm

Just because it is not on a credit report it doesn't mean the debt disappears. It just means that it is not reported on the credit report, that'a all. If he owes a CSL4, and it is in default, then he can call CRA non-tax collections (eityher in Surrey BC or Belleville Ontario) and they will tell him what he owes.  Unfortunately, it is the only way you are going to find out.

If you want me to do it for you it is a client service. There is no risk of what you fear, and it is low cost. Like $99.00.
The Canadian Financial Wellness Group (CFWG)



www.cfwgroup.ca
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
demakasha View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 05/September/2013
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote demakasha Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/September/2013 at 9:16pm
Ah so there is no limitation on the debt after 14 years of no contact? That sucks, since he is still not working on has no way to pay it back currently =(
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07/September/2013 at 4:55pm

This a lot more than "no contact" to determine a positive or negative limitation issue.  There are lots of things that have to be examined.

The Canadian Financial Wellness Group (CFWG)



www.cfwgroup.ca
Back to Top
rosiel View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 15/September/2017
Location: Nova Scotia
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rosiel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15/September/2017 at 11:24am
so if I have paid back my CSL4 loan and others that were attached to my taxes and I have NCO calling me about the  "risk" loan that I have not paid on in over 14 years... does the statue count then?
Back to Top
tlg View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22/December/2017
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tlg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22/December/2017 at 9:23pm
Hi Jonny,

You stated:

"The truth is this:
 
The statute of limitations, where it applies to an individual and a specific debt, restricts the lender from taking any "actions" and "proceedings"  from recovering the debt.
 
First of all, the definition of action is the act or process of doing something. It is synonomous to "work", activity" or "doing". If the law says "NO ACTIONS" then that means "NO WORK", "NO DOING", and of course "NO ACTIVITY". But not everyone in the financial community follows the law. LOL"

So, my question in reply is, does the Canada and/or Saskatchewan Student Loans Act Statute of Limitations apply to ANY collection activity, including CRA tax setoffs to go toward outstanding Sask student loans, meaning after the limitations period, they can/do no longer collect any tax refund setoffs? Or, does the Canada and/or Saskatchewan Student Loans Act Statute of Limitations only apply simply mean that they are prohibited from suing you after the statute expires (ie. after the statute expires, the debt still exists, and can they can still collect it via CRA tax setoffs)?

As well, on Saskatchewan student loans outstanding, is there any provision or protocol to have setoffs collected to be repaid to an indebted by virtue of their being permanently disabled and as such living on provincial assistance (extreme financial hardship)? At least temporarily??

I would have just received $4000 in tax refunds, however, it was just clawed back due to outstanding/defaulted student loan payments I had been unable to make as I have been disabled and unable to sustain employment, and since graduating have never lived above the poverty line. I am not a person who does not pay their bills, but I am a person who could really have used these refunds at this time of year. Thanks in advance.
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31/December/2017 at 11:09am
Seasons greetings. 

The issue here ks that there are 'two' definitions to the term 'action'. The one we all know is as I pointed out. However, interpretation law, and law community makes up their own definitions, which totally conflict with our common dictionary and thesaurus. 

In law, 'action' is interpreted as 'legal proceedings, and action around those processes'. 

The province of Saskatchewan has a limitation or actions and proceedings law yes. However, CRA and CRA legal services are the ones who do the recovery for the Saskatchewan government. So, the test is, does the Saskatchewan limitation act apply.

There are key areas of the provincial law that answer this question. 

 '(4) This Act does not apply to a claim that is subject to a limitation provision in another Act or a regulation if that Act or regulation states that the limitation provision applies notwithstanding this Act.'

and, of course; 

'Conflict of laws 27 The limitations laws of Saskatchewan shall be applied to any proceeding commenced or sought to be commenced in Saskatchewan notwithstanding that, in accordance with conflict of law rules, the claim is to be adjudicated pursuant to the substantive law of another jurisdiction.'

The student loan is governed under a different act. Traditionally, the standard rule is that all provinces with the exception of Ontario and Nova Scotia, carry the 6-year limitation period. Ontario and Nova Scotia are not bound by any limitations that would prevent them from recovery. 

If you have not acknowledged the student loan in accordance to what the provincial and federal law prescribes as an act by you that will reset the limitation period's clock, then you have a good argument to make. 

Acknowledgments and part payments 

11 (1) If a person acknowledges the existence of a claim for payment of a debt, for the recovery of property, for the enforcement of a charge on property or for relief from enforcement of a charge on property, the act or omission on which the claim is based is deemed to have taken place on the day on which the acknowledgment was made. 

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an acknowledgment: 

(a) subject to subsections (3), (7) and (8), must be in writing and must be signed by the person making it or the person’s agent; and 

(b) must be made, before the expiry of the limitation period applicable to the claim, to the claimant, the claimant’s agent, a receiver, a receiver-manager or an official receiver or trustee acting pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).

(3) In the case of a claim for payment of a debt, part payment of the debt by the person against whom the claim is made or by the person’s agent is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment. 

(4) Subsection (1) applies to an acknowledgment of the existence of a claim for payment of a debt even though the person making the acknowledgment refuses or does not promise to pay the debt or the balance of the debt still owing. 

(5) An acknowledgment of the existence of a claim for interest is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment of a claim for the principal and for interest falling due after the acknowledgment is made. 

(6) An acknowledgment of the existence of a claim to realize on or redeem collateral pursuant to a security agreement or to recover money with respect to the collateral is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by any other person who later comes into possession of the collateral. 

(7) A debtor’s performance of an obligation pursuant to a security agreement is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by the debtor of the existence of a claim by the creditor for realization on the collateral pursuant to the agreement.

 (8) A creditor’s acceptance of a debtor’s payment or performance of an obligation pursuant to a security agreement is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by the creditor of the existence of a claim by the debtor for redemption of the collateral pursuant to the agreement. 

(9) An acknowledgment by a trustee is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by any other person who is or who later becomes a trustee of the same trust. 

(10) An acknowledgment of the existence of a claim to recover or enforce an equitable interest in property by a person in possession of it is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by any other person who later comes into possession of it.

If the loan 'is' statute barred then the onus is always on the person to prove it if there is an argument and difference of opinion on it. The gaffing of your income tax and/or GST rebates will continue as long as the debt is circulating in an active recovery status. 


The Canadian Financial Wellness Group (CFWG)



www.cfwgroup.ca
Back to Top
tlg View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22/December/2017
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tlg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31/December/2017 at 2:44pm
Hi Johnny,

Thank-you for your reply, this is helpful to my original question. In the meantime however, I have had the opportunity to speak with the Assistant Director of SK student loans and inquired as to my eligibility for my outstanding amounts to be recalled from the active CRA RSO program, per the Can-Sask Integrated Student Loan Program Guidelines 2016-2017 on the basis of being in receipt of Saskatchewan Government Assistance and inability to repay. The guidlelines (www.publications.gov.sk.ca/rediret.cfm?p=71363&i=79345) respecting this consideration on page 94 of that document state:

"Canada Revenue Agency Refund Set-Off Program
     Date Approved: July 31, 2006

The Canada Revenue Agency Refund Set-off (RSO) Program allows the Student Aid Fund to collect on defaulted accounts through income tax set-off. The Program automatically sets off income tax for individuals including any Goods and Services Tax Credits (GSTC) to pay the borrower’s defaulted account.

A borrower’s account that has been referred to the RSO program for collection will remain there until the account is paid in full.

A borrower whose account is referred to the RSO program and who is receiving Saskatchewan Social Assistance Plan (SAP) benefits may request to have his or her account recalled from the RSO Program until the borrower is employed or in a financial position to repay his or her loan. Advanced Education must receive written confirmation from Saskatchewan Social Services that the borrower is receiving SAP benefits.

A borrower who has demonstrated his or her inability to meet repayment obligations due to financial hardship may not have his or her account referred to the RSO Program."

The Assistant Director replied that typically this is only for borrowers whose loans are not in default - however I pointed out that the above-noted text seems to include defaulted borrowers, and also by virtue of the fact that their loans are even under RSO to begin with.

She then stated she would consider an "appeal" based on my medical circumstances, and if I "send her a letter" outlining my income history and dates together with a paystub from my Provincial government benefit deposit, she would look at it as soon as she could. I also asked whether if that were approved she would consider repayment to me of the $2500 of my tax refunds which werre just collected and paid to them on December 18th, and she said that that was also a possibility to be considered.

Since I am smart and read your blog, it occurred to me that this could be a trap to get me to acknowledge the debt - if doing so would re-open an expired limitations period.

So, my new question is: assuming any statute of limitation HAS expired (at least with respect to their ability to sue), is writing her this letter and sending in the document going to re-open/re-set the statute of limitation for them to then have the opportunity to sue? Is it worth it for me to write this letter to ask for tax recall to be suspended and to get the $2500 back? Because if in doing so this re-sets the ability to be sued, they could seize my government benefits - and I would be on the street.

Should I call her back and ask her when the statute expired and whether applying for this reprieve would reset any limitation for them to come after me under legal process? And/or ask her to first email me with a statement saying the statute expired on a certain date and that any application for relief would not constitute an acknowledgement that would re-set the limitation period?

Thanks ever so much, Johnny, and Happy New Year.
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01/January/2018 at 6:09pm
You Wrote; 

'So, my new question is: assuming any statute of limitation HAS expired (at least with respect to their ability to sue), is writing her this letter and sending in the document going to re-open/re-set the statute of limitation for them to then have the opportunity to sue?' 

Well, the Sask law reads; 


(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an acknowledgment: 

(a) subject to subsections (3), (7) and (8), must be in writing and must be signed by the person making it or the person’s agent; and 

(b) must be made, before the expiry of the limitation period applicable to the claim, to the claimant, the claimant’s agent, a receiver, a receiver-manager or an official receiver or trustee acting pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).

I wouldn't take any chances though despite the above reading. The federal government is charged with collecting Sask loans these days. It is always better to be safe and not run the gambit. You can certainly 'without prejudice' the document or letter though. Talk to them to remain safe and secure. 

The danger for anyone doing this by themselves is that 1. They can tell you anything and play you, 2. They can refuse to supply you with ammunition that would cause such restriction on them. They are there to collect money and not help you find ways to get from underneath of it on a limitation technicality. I have coached people on doing this and there has been success, but it depends on you and your ability to push through. 

If you can demonstrate that the seizure of the income tax money placed you in further financial hardship, and that it would considered money that you 'needed' for survival or to keep a roof over your head, then you can appeal it. You can also appeal to have the loan removed from active recovery if your hardship is serious enough and passes their tests. Ultimately, the minister can be prompted to review in cases whereas there is suspicion of bias or lack of review on their part. 

now you see how hard my job is. LOL

Happy new year to you and all here 

 


The Canadian Financial Wellness Group (CFWG)



www.cfwgroup.ca
Back to Top
bladerunner View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04/January/2018
Location: canada
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bladerunner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04/January/2018 at 1:38pm
The cra-rso collection of your income tax or get refund will stop after 6 years of no payments or written acknowledgment, this however only applies to student loans that have been sent to the cra-rso program not other government debt like social assistance or EI overpayments which will stay on long after.  The reason being is the student loan act states that absolutely no collection activity is to proceed after the 6 year SOL has commenced.  The act overrides the offset program where the other government programs do not.  Legally they should not be able to collect after the statute of limitations on any government but the Cra-rso program is done through administrative means instead of through the courts, they are trying to collect money through the back door when enough time has passed and they can no longer collect legally through the front door. Wait out the SOL and this will be removed as far as the refund you lost, you probably won't get it back, and if you have future refunds coming hold of on filing till the SOL expires.
Back to Top
tlg View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22/December/2017
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tlg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05/January/2018 at 8:49am
The SOL expired in 2011. The legislation in Saskatchewan is different and they can collect via RSO for the rest of my life if they want to.
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/January/2018 at 12:50pm
Federal is different than the provinces yes, 
The Canadian Financial Wellness Group (CFWG)



www.cfwgroup.ca
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06/January/2018 at 12:52pm
One day someone will file  suit challenging that to set new jurisprudence perhaps. 
The Canadian Financial Wellness Group (CFWG)



www.cfwgroup.ca
Back to Top
bladerunner View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04/January/2018
Location: canada
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bladerunner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07/January/2018 at 10:50am
The Saskatchewan Financial administrative act 1993 section 42 states Notwithstanding another act the government has the right of set off, the other act is the student loan act which says they can no longer collect on that debt after SOL has passed.
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/January/2018 at 1:33pm
If this is happening it is up to the borrower to press them to stop. 
The Canadian Financial Wellness Group (CFWG)



www.cfwgroup.ca
Back to Top
bladerunner View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04/January/2018
Location: canada
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bladerunner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/January/2018 at 2:07pm
The Ombudsman of Saskatchewan wrote a great article on the CRA_RSO program and he states there is a legal question on the fairness on the program going on indefinitely after the SOL has passed. Its titled A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS.  Give it a read as this program affects not just student loans but overpayments by EI, social assistance, Grant programs, Provincial training allowance and others.
Back to Top
tlg View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22/December/2017
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tlg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/January/2018 at 2:33pm
I have spoken with two solicitors who have both advised me that any acknowledgement of a defaulted, stat barred SK student loan would re-start the 6-year limitation period, thereby reopening the potential for them to undertake other legal action (in addition to CRA setoffs) to enforce and collect the debt.

All of this conflicting information is certainly not making the issue easier.
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/January/2018 at 8:20am
Acknowledgment, in a form that fits what i copied right out of the legislation is cause for a limitation period to be reset. 

Here it is again; 

Acknowledgments and part payments 

11 (1) If a person acknowledges the existence of a claim for payment of a debt, for the recovery of property, for the enforcement of a charge on property or for relief from enforcement of a charge on property, the act or omission on which the claim is based is deemed to have taken place on the day on which the acknowledgment was made. 

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an acknowledgment: 

(a) subject to subsections (3), (7) and (8), must be in writing and must be signed by the person making it or the person’s agent; and 

(b) must be made, before the expiry of the limitation period applicable to the claim, to the claimant, the claimant’s agent, a receiver, a receiver-manager or an official receiver or trustee acting pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).

(3) In the case of a claim for payment of a debt, part payment of the debt by the person against whom the claim is made or by the person’s agent is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment. 

(4) Subsection (1) applies to an acknowledgment of the existence of a claim for payment of a debt even though the person making the acknowledgment refuses or does not promise to pay the debt or the balance of the debt still owing. 

(5) An acknowledgment of the existence of a claim for interest is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment of a claim for the principal and for interest falling due after the acknowledgment is made. 

(6) An acknowledgment of the existence of a claim to realize on or redeem collateral pursuant to a security agreement or to recover money with respect to the collateral is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by any other person who later comes into possession of the collateral. 

(7) A debtor’s performance of an obligation pursuant to a security agreement is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by the debtor of the existence of a claim by the creditor for realization on the collateral pursuant to the agreement.

 (8) A creditor’s acceptance of a debtor’s payment or performance of an obligation pursuant to a security agreement is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by the creditor of the existence of a claim by the debtor for redemption of the collateral pursuant to the agreement. 

(9) An acknowledgment by a trustee is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by any other person who is or who later becomes a trustee of the same trust. 

(10) An acknowledgment of the existence of a claim to recover or enforce an equitable interest in property by a person in possession of it is deemed for the purposes of subsection (1) to be an acknowledgment by any other person who later comes into possession of it.

So, if you acknowledge it in accordance to what is described above, you risk undermining any case you have in respect of a limitation issue. This is what a lawyer will tell you. i am surrounded by them day to day so I know. 

As for set-off of income tax and-or GST rebates, the question of fairness is certainly one to be raised in a case whereas a provincial government continues to gaff these rebates after a limitation issue presents itself. The BC government has found a loophole, for one. If it is happening with SK provincial loans and other debt owed to it, then it is up to the person who is losing this money to file an action and see what comes of it. 

When a federal student loan is statute barred liens on tax and GST rebates is immediately lifted. 

In the federal government does not take the same position on the matter as the province or provinces that simply continue to collect rebates long after a limitation issue comes. It is their policy and procedure to remove. a barred debt is considered closed and no longer recoverable by any forcible means. 

Both creditor's rights and internal legal agents that work in-house with government are in the business of finding loopholes and ways of undermining what benefits you as the one who owes this money, and take away any advantage of safeguard and protection in your favor. Manipulating the law and stretching it to show that it is unfair to the system is what they do best.

The system also knows that the average student loan borrower, especially who is in crisis and unable to pay it, does not have the financial resources to combat it legally. The result of this is clear. Those who are unable to fight it legally ate stuck with having to suffer the losses. 

One example I will give you is how a provincial government has allegedly been able to combat set-off removal and continue to collect. 

BC government has been able to secure it's best interest somehow by securing an acknowledgement or admission of liability through CRA set-off, 

Governments care about money and recovering it by whatever means they can. The system of law and justice is freaky in this country. 







The Canadian Financial Wellness Group (CFWG)



www.cfwgroup.ca
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09/January/2018 at 10:40am
Continued ... 

So, TLG, 

In one post you wrote; 

'I would have just received $4000 in tax refunds, however, it was just clawed back due to outstanding/defaulted student loan payments I had been unable to make as I have been disabled and unable to sustain employment, and since graduating have never lived above the poverty line. I am not a person who does not pay their bills, but I am a person who could really have used these refunds at this time of year. Thanks in advance.'

and, shortly after this, you posted; 

'The SOL expired in 2011. The legislation in Saskatchewan is different and they can collect via RSO for the rest of my life if they want to.'

Since you claim it is statute barred, and certain of it, and they continue to take your income tax rebates, what you need to establish is this - 

1. Is their position that the seizure of these rebates is considered to be an admission of liability, thus striking out any limitations, and,  

2. Is their definition of the act of set-off considered to be that of what defines 'garnishment', and; 

3. Does this mean that there are no limitations now that bind the province of SK 

5. Are they basing all of this on any other jurisprudence in Canada, case in point - Burbank vs Garbutt, 2012 Supreme court of BC. 


Paragraph 17 in Burbank v. Garbutt speaks to payments made as the result of garnishment proceedings orchestrated through third parties, who in effect act as the agent of the creditor, have been held to constitute payments for the purposes of s. 5(2)(a)(ii) [of BC's former Limitation
Act], having the effect of confirming the cause of action.

Also, the case in Toronto tax court, Simone vs Canada 


Paragraph 36 in Simone v. Canada found that the set-off of a federal Income Tax Act refund under S164(2) of that Act renewed a limitation period. 


 
The Canadian Financial Wellness Group (CFWG)



www.cfwgroup.ca
Back to Top
bladerunner View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04/January/2018
Location: canada
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bladerunner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14/January/2018 at 12:32am
The student loan is covered under the student loan act, so only what is in the act applys to student loans no other act trumps that act. The act states only a payment or a written letter can restart the SOL on student loans and that after the SOL is done they cannot sue you or try to collect using the CRA_RSO refund or get offset program. Read the act for yourself, I hope this clears things up for you.
Back to Top
bladerunner View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04/January/2018
Location: canada
Points: 6
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bladerunner Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14/January/2018 at 12:33am
And just to add A refund seizure will restart the SOL for money owing for income taxes but not for student loans it has to be a voluntary payment.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.08
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.