3 posts shown.
redbadger14 said:So, I’m trying to wrap my head around some legal jargon here and could really use a hand finding the specific statute—you know, the actual law or section number—that explains this weird logic. Basically, if a founder files a claim with the IRS or some federal collection agency to get their money back, and that debt just sits there gathering dust for, say, eleven years because the creditor isn't doing anything at all to chase it down... why on earth is that being interpreted as some kind of "continuous action" that prevents the debtor from claiming the statute of limitations? It feels like a total loop, right? Like, how does sitting still count as moving forward?
I was looking at Section 233.
(1) Any claims established by a final court judgment, a ruling from another competent government authority, a court-ordered settlement, or a notarized deed, shall expire after ten years, even if the law otherwise provides for a shorter period of limitation.
Does seriously nobody here have an answer to this???
So, I’m trying to wrap my head around some legal jargon here and could really use a hand finding the specific statute—you know, the actual law or section number—that explains this weird logic. Basically, if a founder files a claim with the IRS or some federal collection agency to get their money back, and that debt just sits there gathering dust for, say, eleven years because the creditor isn't doing anything at all to chase it down... why on earth is that being interpreted as some kind of "continuous action" that prevents the debtor from claiming the statute of limitations? It feels like a total loop, right? Like, how does sitting still count as moving forward?
I was looking at Section 233.
(1) Any claims established by a final court judgment, a ruling from another competent government authority, a court-ordered settlement, or a notarized deed, shall expire after ten years, even if the law otherwise provides for a shorter period of limitation.
(1) Basically, any debt or claim that’s been officially locked in by a final court ruling, some other government agency decision, or even a legal settlement or notarized agreement—those things have a ten-year statute of limitations. And yeah, even if there's some other law out there saying the limit should be shorter, this ten-year rule still kicks in.
So, does the statute of limitations actually apply during an enforcement proceeding under this specific article, or am I just totally lost here? Honestly, my brain is kind of fried trying to make sense of this legal jargon.