.jpg)
506 complaint when no POC filed by lender
The Rule 7026 Notice is to be served with the summons and complaint. You state on the proof of service to the executed summons that the summons, complaint and Rule 7026 notice was served
Catherine Christiansen
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 3:31 PM
Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] 506 complaint when no POC filed by lender
Debtor doesnt pay.
Steve
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirk Brennan
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 3:19 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] 506 complaint when no POC filed by lender
Thanks. Does the $150 complaint fee have to be paid on these 506 complaints? It seems like the complaint is being filed by the DIP for the benefit of the estate, but maybe I'm missing something.
Also, Do you file and serve the Notice of Requirement to Comply with LBR 7026-1 and FRBP 7026 even though default judgment is almost certain every time?
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Steven B. Lever wrote:
Two questions: Yes; No.
Steven B. Lever
From:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirk Brennan
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 2:30 PM
To: Cdcbaa Yahoo Listserv
Subject: [cdcbaa] 506 complaint when no POC filed by lender
When second mortgage/DOT holder hasn't filed a Proof of Claim, can I still do a LAM complaint?
Or do I need to file a POC for the second DOT holder first?
Thanks,
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4770 - Release Date: 01/27/12
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4770 - Release Date: 01/27/12
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Just got the deed of trust docs from the county recorder's office and there
is a corporation assignment of the (2nd) Deed of Trust from Wells Fargo to
Bank of America about 3 months prior to the bankruptcy.
The language on the Assignment states:
"Wells Fargo ... assigns and transfers to Bank of America ... all
benefiical interest under that certain Deed of Trust...the money due and to
become due with interest, and all rights accrued or to accrue under said
Deed of Trust"
So, is Bank of America the right person to sue in the 506 complaint?
I'm not a real estate attorney, but it seems like B of A is now the holder
of the second lien.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> How do you make the determination of what types of complaints debtor pays
> and what types debtor doesn't pay?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Steven B. Lever wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Debtor doesnt pay. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Steve ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Kirk Brennan
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2012 3:19 PM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] 506 complaint when no POC filed by lender****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Thanks. Does the $150 complaint fee have to be paid on these 506
>> complaints? It seems like the complaint is being filed by the DIP for the
>> benefit of the estate, but maybe I'm missing something.
>>
>> Also, Do you file and serve the Notice of Requirement to Comply with LBR
>> 7026-1 and FRBP 7026 even though default judgment is almost certain every
>> time?
>>
>>
>> ****
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Steven B. Lever
>> wrote:****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Two questions: Yes; No.****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Steven B. Lever ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On
>> Behalf Of *Kirk Brennan
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2012 2:30 PM
>> *To:* Cdcbaa Yahoo Listserv
>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] 506 complaint when no POC filed by lender****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> ****
>>
>> When second mortgage/DOT holder hasn't filed a Proof of Claim, can I
>> still do a LAM complaint?
>> Or do I need to file a POC for the second DOT holder first?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>> California Law Office, P.C.
>> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
>> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
>> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
>> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
>> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
>> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
>> message.
>> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
>> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
>> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
>> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
>> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
>> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4770 - Release Date: 01/27/12**
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan, esq.
>> California Law Office, P.C.
>> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
>> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
>> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
>> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
>> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
>> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
>> message.
>> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
>> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
>> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
>> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
>> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
>> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
>>
>> ****
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4770 - Release Date: 01/27/12**
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Just got the deed of trust docs from the county recorder's office and there is a corporation assignment of the (2nd) Deed of Trust from Wells Fargo to Bank of America about 3 months prior to the bankruptcy.The language on the Assignment states:
"Wells Fargo ... assigns and transfers to Bank of America ... all benefiical interest under that certain Deed of Trust...the money due and to become due with interest, and all rights accrued or to accrue under said Deed of Trust"
So, is Bank of America the right person to sue in the 506 complaint?I'm not a real estate attorney, but it seems like B of A is now the holder of the second lien.
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Kirk Brennan <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
How do you make the determination of what types of complaints debtor pays
and what types debtor doesn't pay?
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Steven B. Lever wrote:
> **
>
>
> Debtor doesnt pay. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Steve ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Kirk Brennan
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2012 3:19 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] 506 complaint when no POC filed by lender****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> Thanks. Does the $150 complaint fee have to be paid on these 506
> complaints? It seems like the complaint is being filed by the DIP for the
> benefit of the estate, but maybe I'm missing something.
>
> Also, Do you file and serve the Notice of Requirement to Comply with LBR
> 7026-1 and FRBP 7026 even though default judgment is almost certain every
> time?
>
>
> ****
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Steven B. Lever
> wrote:****
>
> ****
>
> Two questions: Yes; No.****
>
> ****
>
> Steven B. Lever ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Kirk Brennan
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2012 2:30 PM
> *To:* Cdcbaa Yahoo Listserv
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] 506 complaint when no POC filed by lender****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> When second mortgage/DOT holder hasn't filed a Proof of Claim, can I still
> do a LAM complaint?
> Or do I need to file a POC for the second DOT holder first?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4770 - Release Date: 01/27/12***
> *
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4770 - Release Date: 01/27/12***
> *
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
How do you make the determination of what types of complaints debtor pays and what types debtor doesn't pay?On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Steven B. Lever <
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks. Does the $150 complaint fee have to be paid on these 506
complaints? It seems like the complaint is being filed by the DIP for the
benefit of the estate, but maybe I'm missing something.
Also, Do you file and serve the Notice of Requirement to Comply with LBR
7026-1 and FRBP 7026 even though default judgment is almost certain every
time?
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Steven B. Lever wrote:
> **
>
>
> Two questions: Yes; No.****
>
> ** **
>
> Steven B. Lever ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *Kirk Brennan
> *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2012 2:30 PM
> *To:* Cdcbaa Yahoo Listserv
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] 506 complaint when no POC filed by lender****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> When second mortgage/DOT holder hasn't filed a Proof of Claim, can I still
> do a LAM complaint?
> Or do I need to file a POC for the second DOT holder first?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
>
> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4770 - Release Date: 01/27/12***
> *
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Thanks. Does the $150 complaint fee have to be paid on these 506 complaints? It seems like the complaint is being filed by the DIP for the benefit of the estate, but maybe I'm missing something.Also, Do you file and serve the Notice of Requirement to Comply with
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetF-8;
format="flowed"
Happens all the time that jr. lien holder does not file a proof of
claim to enable timely filing of LAM motion. You do not need a POC to
file LAM motion. It just makes it a little more difficult to prove the
identity of the second trust deed holder.
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)
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE
PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW,
USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL
AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE
FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:29:39 -0800, Kirk Brennan wrote:
When second mortgage/DOT holder hasn't filed a Proof of
Claim, can I still do a LAM complaint?
Or do I need to file a POC for the second DOT holder first?
Thanks,
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are
not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take
action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message
in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly
delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We
do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the
transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does
not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and
may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of
counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section
6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions
only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
start="36hyj62zgnok@webmail.mysuperpageshosting.com"
charsetF-8
p{margin: 0;padding: 0;}Happens all the time that jr. lien
holder does not file a proof of claim to enable timely filing of
LAM motion. You do not need a POC to file LAM motion. It
just makes it a little more difficult to prove the identity of the second trust
deed holder.
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)NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS
MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS
COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL
IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS
E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY
RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN
ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:29:39 -0800, Kirk Brennan
<kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
When second mortgage/DOT holder hasn't filed a Proof of Claim, can I still
do a LAM complaint?
Or do I need to file a POC for the second DOT holder first?
Thanks,
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
www.calibankruptcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
When second mortgage/DOT holder hasn't filed a Proof of Claim, can I still do a LAM complaint?Or do I need to file a POC for the second DOT holder first?Thanks,-- Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.www.calibankruptcysite.comCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.