.jpg)
1099-C issued with refusal to avoid lien
You could ask for attorney fees, but I doubt a judge would grant them.
On Feb 26, 2012 10:11 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt" wrote:
> **
>
>
> True. I was hoping to make Ocwen pay since they are the bad party here.*
> ***
>
> ****
>
> If the numbers work file the Lam motion. They aren't that expensive and
> you get paid by the trustee funds. ****
>
> On Feb 26, 2012 5:29 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt" wrote:*
> ***
>
> ****
>
> Dear List Mates,****
>
> ****
>
> I have an unusual twist on the 1099-C cancellation of debt issue.****
>
> ****
>
> On January 27 I filed Chapter 13 papers for a client who has not lost his
> primary residence. He filed Chapter 13 to catch up on his mortgage
> arrearages on both his first with B of A, and his second with Ocwen.****
>
> ****
>
> The Ocwen debt used to be a Litton debt, but Ocwen bought Litton in June
> 2011. A few days ago my client received a 1099-C on the Litton/Ocwen debt
> - with the cancelled debt being the same as the current debt to Ocwen,
> literally to the penny. According to the form, the date of debt
> cancellation was March 23, 2011, two and a half months before Ocwen bought
> Litton.****
>
> ****
>
> I called Ocwens bankruptcy department and described the situation. I
> pointed out that since Ocwen is benefiting from the tax write-off for the
> entire second mortgage debt, they must remove the lien. The representative
> read from Ocwens internal records and said that while Ocwen wouldn't try
> to actively collect the debt, they wouldn't remove the lien. Moreover, he
> said that Ocwen was open to negotiating a partial payment on the debt.****
>
> ****
>
> I responded by saying that my client offered to pay zero since the debt
> had been discharged, and told him that Ocwens refusal to avoid the lien
> constituted tax fraud. After all, if the lien remains my client can't sell
> or refinance without paying off the debt - clear double-dipping on Ocwen> part. I wrote them a letter memorializing the conversation and giving them
> 20 days to remove the lien and refund the one postpetition mortgage payment
> my client made before receiving the 1099-C.****
>
> ****
>
> My questions: What hook can I use to get the Bankruptcy Court involved?
> Can the refusal to remove the lien be characterized as a stay violation?
> It seems a bit of a stretch. I could file a Lam motion, but then my client
> has to incur costs associated with it. What I'm looking for is a way to
> get Ocwen to have to pay for my services. Any thoughts?****
>
> ****
>
> Thanks in advance,****
>
> ****
>
> Nick****
>
> ****
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>
> ****
>
> [image: Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]****
>
> ****
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt****
>
> 15150 Hornell Street****
>
> Whittier, CA 90604****
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159****
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365****
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com****
>
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com****
>
> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/****
>
> ****
>
> *We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief
> under the Bankruptcy Code.*****
>
> ****
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the
> original message and all copies.****
>
> ****
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you,
> and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.****
>
> ****
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: *In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> penalties under the Internal Revenue code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.*
> ***
>
> ****
>
>
You could ask for attorney fees, but I doubt a judge would grant them.
On Feb 26, 2012 10:11 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt" <ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
True.party here.
If the numbers work file the Lam motion. They aren't that expensive and you
get paid by the trustee funds.
On Feb 26, 2012 5:29 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt" <ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
Dear List Mates,
I have an unusual twist on the 1099-C
cancellation of debt issue.
On January 27 I filed Chapter 13 papers
for a client who has not lost his primary residence. He filed Chapter 13
to catch up on his mortgage arrearages on both his first with B of A, and his
second with Ocwen.
The Ocwen debt used to be a Litton debt,
but Ocwen bought Litton in June 2011. A few days ago my client received a
1099-C on the Litton/Ocwen debt - with the cancelled debt being the same as the
current debt to Ocwen, literally to the penny. According to the form, the
date of debt cancellation was March 23, 2011, two and a half months before
Ocwen bought Litton.
I called Ocwens bankruptcy department
and described the situation. I pointed out that since Ocwen is benefiting
from the tax write-off for the entire second mortgage debt, they must remove
the lien. The representative read from Ocwens internal records and said
that while Ocwen wouldn't try to actively collect the debt, they wouldn't
remove the lien. Moreover, he said that Ocwen was open to negotiating a
partial payment on the debt.
I responded by saying that my client
offered to pay zero since the debt had been discharged, and told him that
Ocwens refusal to avoid the lien constituted tax fraud. After all, if
the lien remains my client can't sell or refinance without paying off the debt
- clear double-dipping on Ocwens part. I wrote them a letter
memorializing the conversation and giving them 20 days to remove the lien and
refund the one postpetition mortgage payment my client made before receiving
the 1099-C.
My questions: What hook can I use
to get the Bankruptcy Court involved? Can the refusal to remove the lien
be characterized as a stay violation? It seems a bit of a stretch.
I could file a Lam motion, but then my client has to incur costs associated
with it. What I'm looking for is a way to get Ocwen to have to pay for my
services. Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
ge001.jpg@01CCF4D3.7EFBF4E0" alt"Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0">
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX:span>
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web:http://www.goodbye2debt.com/" target"_blank">
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
True. I was hoping to make Ocwen pay since they are the bad party here.
If the numbers work file the Lam motion. They aren't that expensive and you get paid by the trustee funds.
On Feb 26, 2012 5:29 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt" wrote:
Dear List Mates,
I have an unusual twist on the 1099-C cancellation of debt issue.
On January 27 I filed Chapter 13 papers for a client who has not lost his primary residence. He filed Chapter 13 to catch up on his mortgage arrearages on both his first with B of A, and his second with Ocwen.
The Ocwen debt used to be a Litton debt, but Ocwen bought Litton in June 2011. A few days ago my client received a 1099-C on the Litton/Ocwen debt - with the cancelled debt being the same as the current debt to Ocwen, literally to the penny. According to the form, the date of debt cancellation was March 23, 2011, two and a half months before Ocwen bought Litton.
I called Ocwen's bankruptcy department and described the situation. I pointed out that since Ocwen is benefiting from the tax write-off for the entire second mortgage debt, they must remove the lien. The representative read from Ocwen's internal records and said that while Ocwen wouldn't try to actively collect the debt, they wouldn't remove the lien. Moreover, he said that Ocwen was open to negotiating a partial payment on the debt.
I responded by saying that my client offered to pay zero since the debt had been discharged, and told him that Ocwen's refusal to avoid the lien constituted tax fraud. After all, if the lien remains my client can't sell or refinance without paying off the debt - clear double-dipping on Ocwen's part. I wrote them a letter memorializing the conversation and giving them 20 days to remove the lien and refund the one postpetition mortgage payment my client made before receiving the 1099-C.
My questions: What hook can I use to get the Bankruptcy Court involved? Can the refusal to remove the lien be characterized as a stay violation? It seems a bit of a stretch. I could file a Lam motion, but then my client has to incur costs associated with it. What I'm looking for is a way to get Ocwen to have to pay for my services. Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCF4D3.7EFBF4E0]
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
If the numbers work file the Lam motion. They aren't that expensive and you
get paid by the trustee funds.
On Feb 26, 2012 5:29 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt" wrote:
> **
>
>
> Dear List Mates,****
>
> ** **
>
> I have an unusual twist on the 1099-C cancellation of debt issue.****
>
> ** **
>
> On January 27 I filed Chapter 13 papers for a client who has not lost his
> primary residence. He filed Chapter 13 to catch up on his mortgage
> arrearages on both his first with B of A, and his second with Ocwen.****
>
> ** **
>
> The Ocwen debt used to be a Litton debt, but Ocwen bought Litton in June
> 2011. A few days ago my client received a 1099-C on the Litton/Ocwen debt
> - with the cancelled debt being the same as the current debt to Ocwen,
> literally to the penny. According to the form, the date of debt
> cancellation was March 23, 2011, two and a half months before Ocwen bought
> Litton.****
>
> ** **
>
> I called Ocwens bankruptcy department and described the situation. I
> pointed out that since Ocwen is benefiting from the tax write-off for the
> entire second mortgage debt, they must remove the lien. The representative
> read from Ocwens internal records and said that while Ocwen wouldn't try
> to actively collect the debt, they wouldn't remove the lien. Moreover, he
> said that Ocwen was open to negotiating a partial payment on the debt.****
>
> ** **
>
> I responded by saying that my client offered to pay zero since the debt
> had been discharged, and told him that Ocwens refusal to avoid the lien
> constituted tax fraud. After all, if the lien remains my client can't sell
> or refinance without paying off the debt - clear double-dipping on Ocwen> part. I wrote them a letter memorializing the conversation and giving them
> 20 days to remove the lien and refund the one postpetition mortgage payment
> my client made before receiving the 1099-C.****
>
> ** **
>
> My questions: What hook can I use to get the Bankruptcy Court involved?
> Can the refusal to remove the lien be characterized as a stay violation?
> It seems a bit of a stretch. I could file a Lam motion, but then my client
> has to incur costs associated with it. What I'm looking for is a way to
> get Ocwen to have to pay for my services. Any thoughts?****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks in advance,****
>
> ** **
>
> Nick****
>
> ** **
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>
> ** **
>
> [image: Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CC076B.B14D73C0]****
>
> ** **
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt****
>
> 15150 Hornell Street****
>
> Whittier, CA 90604****
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159****
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365****
>
> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com****
>
> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com****
>
> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/****
>
> ** **
>
> *We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief
> under the Bankruptcy Code.*
>
> ** **
>
> *Confidentiality Note*: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the
> original message and all copies.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Representation Note*: If you have not signed a contract of
> representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you,
> and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.****
>
> ** **
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: *In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> penalties under the Internal Revenue code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.*
> ***
>
>
If the numbers work file the Lam motion. They aren't that expensive and you get paid by the trustee funds.
On Feb 26, 2012 5:29 PM, "Nicholas Gebelt" <ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetF-8;
format="flowed"
Not one loan transferred from Litton to Ocwen in my client's cases has
been correctly handled by Ocwen. Their bankruptcy department does not
seem to have any clue about the bankruptcy code, presuming I can even
convince them to talk with me. Half the time Ocwen maintains their
employees cannot talk with me because my client has not authorized them
to speak with me. The politist way I can describe Ocwen is that it is
my least favorite creditor to communicate with. Most of the time I am
utterly exasperated by the end of the conversation.
That said, I do not believe Ocwen would need to release the lien just
because it issued a 1099-C. I am not aware of any requirement that a
security interest be released before a 1099-C can be issued for a debt
being uncollectable. I do not think it is tax fraud at all to issue
the 1099-C without releasing the lien. It is is speculation that the
property value might later increase or that the senior trust deed
balance due decrease sufficiently to result in equity to pay towards
the lien. If there are monies received in the future, that is taxable
income to Ocwen then.
The issue is whether sufficient basis existed for issuing a 1099-C in
2011. How long was it that your client did not pay prior to March
2011? As of March 2011 the security interest may have had no value and
borrower may not have appeared to ever be likely to voluntarily or
involuntarily pay anything towards the obligation. Presuming the
borrower was significantly behind in payment issuing a 1099-C may have
been appropriate.
Otherwise, I see a basis to dispute the issuance of the 1099-C if
your client is going to pay Ocwen through the Chapter 13. If Ocwen is
actively pursuing collection through the Chapter 13 case, all the more
reason to dispute the 1099-C.
If Ocwen refused to rescind the 1099-C and it files a proof of claim
for arrears to be paid through the plan that does not seem compatible
with having just issued a 1099-C and a basis to object to the claim.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:29:48 -0600, Nicholas Gebelt wrote:
Dear List Mates,
I have an unusual twist on the 1099-C cancellation of debt issue.
On January 27 I filed Chapter 13 papers for a client who has not lost
his primary residence. He filed Chapter 13 to catch up on his mortgage
arrearages on both his first with B of A, and his second with Ocwen.
The Ocwen debt used to be a Litton debt, but Ocwen bought Litton in
June 2011. A few days ago my client received a 1099-C on the
Litton/Ocwen debt - with the cancelled debt being the same as the
current debt to Ocwen, literally to the penny. According to the form,
the date of debt cancellation was March 23, 2011, two and a half months
before Ocwen bought Litton.
I called Ocwens bankruptcy department and described the situation.
I pointed out that since Ocwen is benefiting from the tax write-off
for the entire second mortgage debt, they must remove the lien. The
representative read from Ocwens internal records and said that while
Ocwen wouldn't try to actively collect the debt, they wouldn't remove
the lien. Moreover, he said that Ocwen was open to negotiating a
partial payment on the debt.
I responded by saying that my client offered to pay zero since the
debt had been discharged, and told him that Ocwens refusal to avoid
the lien constituted tax fraud. After all, if the lien remains my
client can't sell or refinance without paying off the debt - clear
double-dipping on Ocwens part. I wrote them a letter memorializing
the conversation and giving them 20 days to remove the lien and refund
the one postpetition mortgage payment my client made before receiving
the 1099-C.
My questions: What hook can I use to get the Bankruptcy Court
involved? Can the refusal to remove the lien be characterized as a
stay violation? It seems a bit of a stretch. I could file a Lam
motion, but then my client has to incur costs associated with it. What
I'm looking for is a way to get Ocwen to have to pay for my services.
Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy
relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the
information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an
employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail
info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of
representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent
you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the
requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you
that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the
purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue code, or
(ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed herein.
start="6rrc6qo82mko@webmail.mysuperpageshosting.com"
charsetF-8
p{margin: 0;padding: 0;}Not one loan transferred from Litton
to Ocwen in my client's cases has been correctly handled by Ocwen. Their
bankruptcy department does not seem to have any clue about the bankruptcy code,
presuming I can even convince them to talk with me. Half the
time Ocwen maintains their employees cannot talk with me because my client
has not authorized them to speak with me. The politist way I can
describe Ocwen is that it is my least favorite creditor to communicate
with. Most of the time I am utterly exasperated by the end of the
conversation.
That said, I do not believe Ocwen would need to release the lien just
because it issued a 1099-C. I am not aware of any requirement that a
security interest be released before a 1099-C can be issued for a debt being
uncollectable. I do not think it is tax fraud at all to issue the
1099-C without releasing the lien. It is is speculation that the
property value might later increase or that the senior trust deed
balance due decrease sufficiently to result in equity to pay
towards the lien. If there are monies received in the future,
that is taxable income to Ocwen then.
The issue is whether sufficient basis existed for issuing a 1099-C in
2011. How long was it that your client did not pay prior to March
2011? As of March 2011 the security interest may have had no value and
borrower may not have appeared to ever be likely to voluntarily or
involuntarily pay anything towards the obligation. Presuming the borrower
was significantly behind in payment issuing a 1099-C may have been
appropriate.
Otherwise, I see a basis to dispute the issuance of the 1099-C if your client
is going to pay Ocwen through the Chapter 13. If Ocwen is actively
pursuing collection through the Chapter 13 case, all the more reason to dispute
the 1099-C.
If Ocwen refused to rescind the 1099-C and it files a proof of claim for
arrears to be paid through the plan that does not seem compatible with having
just issued a 1099-C and a basis to object to the claim.
Mark T. JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief
Agency"50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805)
497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:29:48 -0600, Nicholas Gebelt
<ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Dear List Mates,
I have an unusual twist on the 1099-C cancellation of debt issue.
On January 27 I filed Chapter 13 papers for a client who has not lost his primary residence. He filed Chapter 13 to catch up on his mortgage arrearages on both his first with B of A, and his second with Ocwen.
The Ocwen debt used to be a Litton debt, but Ocwen bought Litton in June 2011. A few days ago my client received a 1099-C on the Litton/Ocwen debt - with the cancelled debt being the same as the current debt to Ocwen, literally to the penny. According to the form, the date of debt cancellation was March 23, 2011, two and a half months before Ocwen bought Litton.
I called Ocwen's bankruptcy department and described the situation. I pointed out that since Ocwen is benefiting from the tax write-off for the entire second mortgage debt, they must remove the lien. The representative read from Ocwen's internal records and said that while Ocwen wouldn't try to actively collect the debt, they wouldn't remove the lien. Moreover, he said that Ocwen was open to negotiating a partial payment on the debt.
I responded by saying that my client offered to pay zero since the debt had been discharged, and told him that Ocwen's refusal to avoid the lien constituted tax fraud. After all, if the lien remains my client can't sell or refinance without paying off the debt - clear double-dipping on Ocwen's part. I wrote them a letter memorializing the conversation and giving them 20 days to remove the lien and refund the one postpetition mortgage payment my client made before receiving the 1099-C.
My questions: What hook can I use to get the Bankruptcy Court involved? Can the refusal to remove the lien be characterized as a stay violation? It seems a bit of a stretch. I could file a Lam motion, but then my client has to incur costs associated with it. What I'm looking for is a way to get Ocwen to have to pay for my services. Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance,
Nick
Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist
[cid:image001.jpg@01CCF4AA.22AAFA70]
Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
15150 Hornell Street
Whittier, CA 90604
Phone: 562.777.9159
FAX: 562.946.1365
Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.