Checking for liens and garnishments

restlessjackal14 NewcomerOP

2 messages
joined Aug 2014

#1 · Aug 22, 2014

Is there actually any way to find out if a company's bank accounts have been seized or hit with a levy in the last six months, a year, maybe three years?

I was just thinking—maybe I could just nudge the client directly and ask if they’re actually staying on top of their bills or if they’re just one of those people who drags their feet and plays games with everyone...

dustygardener43 Member

21 messages
joined Nov 2014

#2 · Aug 22, 2014

restlessjackal14 said:Is there actually any way to find out if a company's bank accounts have been seized or hit with a levy in the last six months, a year, maybe three years?

I was just thinking—maybe I could just nudge the client directly and ask if they’re actually staying on top of their bills or if they’re just one of those people who drags their feet and plays games with everyone...

It is possible, though you'll have to pay for the privilege. You might want to reach out to Dun & Bradstreet or Bill Gates, and I suspect the IRS likely offers some sort of service for this as well.

Sam Ramos85 Active Member

55 messages
joined Oct 2012

#3 · Aug 22, 2014

Look, when you're operating as a business entity, you definitely have that extra layer of credit available to you, but let's be real—it doesn't come for free...

urbanwalker72 Active Member

147 messages
joined Aug 2021

#4 · Aug 23, 2014

A single data point regarding an account freeze doesn't offer nearly as much insight as a comprehensive FICO score would for a corporation.

The IRS possesses all the necessary metrics to categorize every business entity into specific tiers, ranging from top-tier performers to absolute bottom-feeders.

If they have the authority to publish lists of debtors and wage violators online, they certainly have the capacity to release such credit ratings as well.

Naturally, the evaluation criteria would encompass financial statements and bottom-line results, liquidity ratios, and a history of punctuality when dealing with partners, the government, and employees.

dustygardener43 Member

21 messages
joined Nov 2014

#5 · Aug 23, 2014

When you look at credit ratings based on Dun & B criteria, they rely heavily on Dun && Bradstreet—which feeds into portals like Bill Gates and LinkedIn. The fundamental flaw, however, is their inability to distinguish between obligations owed to related entities versus external creditors. Consequently, subsidiaries often receive unfairly low scores... because a debt owed to a parent company isn't the same thing as a debt owed to an outside vendor, especially once a potential restructuring occurs and the company's profile improves significantly.
The second issue is the lack of data freshness; we don't get quarterly updates, for instance. Everything is tethered to whatever Goldman Sachs reports. If today is August 31st, we are essentially looking at "last year's snow." Making a decision on whether to engage with a partner based on data from December 31st of the previous year is a precarious gamble... one where we either walk straight into a risk or let a perfectly good opportunity slip through our fingers.

urbanwalker72 Active Member

147 messages
joined Aug 2021

#6 · Aug 23, 2014

dustygardener43 said:When you look at credit ratings based on Dun & B criteria, they rely heavily on Dun && Bradstreet—which feeds into portals like Bill Gates and LinkedIn. The fundamental flaw, however, is their inability to distinguish between obligations owed to related entities versus external creditors. Consequently, subsidiaries often receive unfairly low scores... because a debt owed to a parent company isn't the same thing as a debt owed to an outside vendor, especially once a potential restructuring occurs and the company's profile improves significantly.
The second issue is the lack of data freshness; we don't get quarterly updates, for instance. Everything is tethered to whatever Goldman Sachs reports. If today is August 31st, we are essentially looking at "last year's snow." Making a decision on whether to engage with a partner based on data from December 31st of the previous year is a precarious gamble... one where we either walk straight into a risk or let a perfectly good opportunity slip through our fingers.

Indeed, though it is essential that the government stands firmly behind these ratings, and as you noted, all data ought to be refreshed on a quarterly basis.

dustygardener43 Member

21 messages
joined Nov 2014

#7 · Aug 23, 2014

This isn't a matter for the government to handle. At its core, entrepreneurship is about managing business risks and everything else that comes with it. Anyone incapable of doing that shouldn't be in this game to begin with. Any level of state intervention—which is already far too heavy-handed here in the US—will only end up producing negative results...

urbanwalker72 Active Member

147 messages
joined Aug 2021

#8 · Aug 23, 2014

dustygardener43 said:This isn't a matter for the government to handle. At its core, entrepreneurship is about managing business risks and everything else that comes with it. Anyone incapable of doing that shouldn't be in this game to begin with. Any level of state intervention—which is already far too heavy-handed here in the US—will only end up producing negative results...

I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.

Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.

It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.

Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.

The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?

You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.

Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?

It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.

dustygardener43 Member

21 messages
joined Nov 2014

#9 · Aug 23, 2014

urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.

Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.

It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.

Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.

The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?

You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.

Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?

It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.

There is a massive difference between true laissez-faire—which certainly never existed here to begin with—and a system where the government dictates which entrepreneurs can do business and which cannot. It simultaneously protects rotting corporations under the guise of "job preservation" while keeping them tethered to the system through backroom deals and similar arrangements...

urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.

Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.

It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.

Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.

The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?

You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.

Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?

It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.

And what on earth does that have to do with determining credit ratings, which are ubiquitous throughout the private sector? More importantly, who decides the ratings for the state and its agencies, especially when they act as market players themselves?

urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.

Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.

It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.

Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.

The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?

You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.

Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?

It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.

Monetary policy isn't my area of expertise, so I won't delve into it now. I fail to see how it even relates to this discussion...

urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.

Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.

It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.

Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.

The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?

You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.

Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?

It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.

The topic at hand is business credit ratings, not fiscal policy...

urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.

Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.

It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.

Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.

The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?

You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.

Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?

It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.

All the data from Goldman Sachs gets handed directly over to the Department of the Treasury, which then turns around and sells those credit ratings—the very same ones they offer for purchase, if you recall—to third-party agencies like Bisnode. And yet, the Treasury remains under full government control... it's all quite a cycle...

urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.

Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.

It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.

Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.

The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?

You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.

Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?

It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.

What is highlighted here is fundamentally the role of the state, rather than some arbitrary process of determining credit ratings... It raises a much deeper question regarding why oversight was nonexistent all this time. One has to wonder why the government permitted Entrepreneur A to evade their taxes without consequence, while simultaneously cracking down on Entrepreneurs B and C...

urbanwalker72 said:I have to disagree. If you look at the root of almost every modern crisis, it is because the private sector has taken over functions that belong to the state, rather than the other way around. We are far past the era where laissez-faire was an economic driver; today, it acts as a detriment.

Fiscal and monetary policies serve as true indicators of a nation's sovereignty.

It has become standard practice for monetary policy to fall entirely under the control of commercial banks, which essentially means it ceases to exist as a dynamic tool for economic management. The authority to regulate the money supply must reside with the state, specifically within the central bank.

Furthermore, fiscal policy ought to be guided by the overarching health of the economy, rather than being used as a political football that shifts every few months based on daily headlines.

The same logic applies to credit ratings. How can an entrepreneur accurately assess business risks when they are working with such hollowed-out data?

You see how things used to operate here... you pay your suppliers, you pay your employees if the cash allows, and you leave the government hanging. People fail to stay current on obligations, they massage their financial statements, and oversight was virtually non-existent. If you were running a small shop, you likely never reported a single dollar more than $1333 if you were operating primarily in cash.

Are all of these details not vital components for a reliable business rating?

It matters little whether a private agency or the government issues the rating; what truly matters is that the state discreetly shares its findings regarding a specific business entity.

What exactly constitutes a "discreet" approach in your view? It seems rather naive to assume the government holds some absolute, omniscient grip on all business intelligence data... There are always variables they cannot account for. Consider what happens when global giants suffer catastrophic collapses—take the Enron scandal, for instance. Before such implosions occur, every entrepreneur is practically tripping over themselves to secure a contract with them. In that context, smaller nations would be lucky if a titan like that even expressed a passing interest in doing business within their borders...☕

urbanwalker72 Active Member

147 messages
joined Aug 2021

#10 · Aug 23, 2014

dustygardener43 said:There is a massive difference between true laissez-faire—which certainly never existed here to begin with—and a system where the government dictates which entrepreneurs can do business and which cannot. It simultaneously protects rotting corporations under the guise of "job preservation" while keeping them tethered to the system through backroom deals and similar arrangements...

And what on earth does that have to do with determining credit ratings, which are ubiquitous throughout the private sector? More importantly, who decides the ratings for the state and its agencies, especially when they act as market players themselves?

Monetary policy isn't my area of expertise, so I won't delve into it now. I fail to see how it even relates to this discussion...

The topic at hand is business credit ratings, not fiscal policy...

All the data from Goldman Sachs gets handed directly over to the Department of the Treasury, which then turns around and sells those credit ratings—the very same ones they offer for purchase, if you recall—to third-party agencies like Bisnode. And yet, the Treasury remains under full government control... it's all quite a cycle...

What is highlighted here is fundamentally the role of the state, rather than some arbitrary process of determining credit ratings... It raises a much deeper question regarding why oversight was nonexistent all this time. One has to wonder why the government permitted Entrepreneur A to evade their taxes without consequence, while simultaneously cracking down on Entrepreneurs B and C...

What exactly constitutes a "discreet" approach in your view? It seems rather naive to assume the government holds some absolute, omniscient grip on all business intelligence data... There are always variables they cannot account for. Consider what happens when global giants suffer catastrophic collapses—take the Enron scandal, for instance. Before such implosions occur, every entrepreneur is practically tripping over themselves to secure a contract with them. In that context, smaller nations would be lucky if a titan like that even expressed a passing interest in doing business within their borders...☕

The objective here isn't about dictating who an individual or company chooses to partner with; rather, it is fundamentally about ensuring transparency. How can the government offer any real protection if they don't openly disclose a company's track record with the state? Once someone falls into a pre-insolvency status, their Experian rating is essentially worthless.

It is also worth noting that during the pre-recession period, they were essentially writing off their own debts.

And how does that even relate to determining credit ratings, which are standard practice across the entire private sector? Besides, who is actually responsible for setting the ratings for sovereign nations and government agencies, especially when they step into the arena acting as commercial entrepreneurs?

Private agencies hold the power to dictate the credit ratings of entire nations, which is precisely the point I have been making.

It is the exact same group of agencies that handed out those AAA ratings to the subprime NINJA loans back in the States.

And when that real estate bubble finally bursts, just imagine the shockwaves we'll all be feeling.

Monetary policy isn't really my area of expertise, so I won't weigh in on that right now; I'm honestly not sure how it relates to what we're discussing here.

No, that isn't what I meant; my point was simply that the government tends to overstep its bounds.

In truth, the administration fails to intervene even in the fundamental matters that constitute the very essence of sovereign governance.

All Goldman Sachs-backed entities submit their filings to the Department of the Treasury, which then passes along credit rating data—information they actually offer for sale themselves, as previously noted—to third-party agencies like Bisnode. It is important to remember that the Department of the Treasury still maintains full ownership of this central financial authority.

A Goldman Sachs report tells you absolutely nothing about how a company actually treats its relationship with the government. It doesn't reflect whether they are a responsible taxpayer, and those polished, sanitized financial statements rarely provide a true glimpse into a firm's actual economic strength.

The highlighted portion describes a fundamental responsibility of the state rather than an act of credit rating determination. It raises the question of why oversight was non-existent previously, and why tax evasion was permitted for Entrepreneur A, yet strictly enforced against Entrepreneurs B and C.

Is that how elections are typically conducted in this country?

What exactly constitutes a discrete approach in your eyes? Furthermore, do you truly believe the government possesses absolute omnipotence when it comes to accessing business intelligence?

Not at all right now, though there is potential for it to become quite effective.

What happens if we see international collapses involving massive corporations, similar to what happened with Enron? Before such failures occur, entrepreneurs usually scramble to secure partnerships with them, and smaller nations like the US would be fortunate if such giants even showed an interest in doing business within their borders.

We don't live in a world of perfect predictability, and there aren't any psychics among us. The Enron scandal was a far more sophisticated fraud and bubble than the trivial matters occurring here, which even a fool could recognize.

dustygardener43 Member

21 messages
joined Nov 2014

#11 · Aug 23, 2014

When it comes to government contracts—whether we’re talking about federal agencies, state governments, or those local municipal bodies and public corporations—there is a certain breed of private entrepreneur that will stop at nothing to ensure they walk away with the win... It’s become quite a predictable spectacle, really. They employ every conceivable tactic to tilt the scales in their favor, navigating the bureaucracy with a desperation that borders on the theatrical... one wonders if the integrity of the process is even a consideration anymore.

It frequently occurs that once a delivery is completed, the full payment—or even a partial one—fails to materialize within the agreed timeframe. This inevitably triggers a domino effect where those entrepreneurs find themselves unable to cover payroll, settle their taxes, or meet other obligations... despite the fact they should have seen this exact scenario coming from a mile away. One would think they’d be more prepared for such predictable failures.

Following your line of reasoning, I find myself wondering about the government's actual role in such a scenario... If we follow that logic to its conclusion, who exactly is responsible for assessing those ratings, and who is tasked with dictating which parties are permitted to conduct business with one another? It seems like a slippery slope toward overreach...

Just because certain rating agencies completely dropped the ball during the mortgage crisis in the US doesn't mean their role becomes obsolete... Even when referees blow calls or lose control of the game on the field, the necessity of the institution remains. It’s a flawed system, certainly, but the concept itself persists...😁

When it comes to massaging the numbers in a report, there is always a way to make things look a certain way... whether you are dealing with Goldman Sachs data or those tax filings submitted simultaneously to the Department of the Treasury. Since those tax documents are almost entirely compatible with the Goldman Sachs reports sent over to Finance, the opportunity for "creative" adjustments remains ever-present...
An audit isn't even mandatory for SCA reports, and even when one does take place, it doesn't exactly guarantee that the submitted figures are 100% accurate... there are plenty of instances where auditors have simply looked the other way, with Enron being the most glaringly obvious example...

urbanwalker72 Active Member

147 messages
joined Aug 2021

#12 · Aug 23, 2014

dustygardener43 said:When it comes to government contracts—whether we’re talking about federal agencies, state governments, or those local municipal bodies and public corporations—there is a certain breed of private entrepreneur that will stop at nothing to ensure they walk away with the win... It’s become quite a predictable spectacle, really. They employ every conceivable tactic to tilt the scales in their favor, navigating the bureaucracy with a desperation that borders on the theatrical... one wonders if the integrity of the process is even a consideration anymore.

It frequently occurs that once a delivery is completed, the full payment—or even a partial one—fails to materialize within the agreed timeframe. This inevitably triggers a domino effect where those entrepreneurs find themselves unable to cover payroll, settle their taxes, or meet other obligations... despite the fact they should have seen this exact scenario coming from a mile away. One would think they’d be more prepared for such predictable failures.

Following your line of reasoning, I find myself wondering about the government's actual role in such a scenario... If we follow that logic to its conclusion, who exactly is responsible for assessing those ratings, and who is tasked with dictating which parties are permitted to conduct business with one another? It seems like a slippery slope toward overreach...

Just because certain rating agencies completely dropped the ball during the mortgage crisis in the US doesn't mean their role becomes obsolete... Even when referees blow calls or lose control of the game on the field, the necessity of the institution remains. It’s a flawed system, certainly, but the concept itself persists...😁

When it comes to massaging the numbers in a report, there is always a way to make things look a certain way... whether you are dealing with Goldman Sachs data or those tax filings submitted simultaneously to the Department of the Treasury. Since those tax documents are almost entirely compatible with the Goldman Sachs reports sent over to Finance, the opportunity for "creative" adjustments remains ever-present...
An audit isn't even mandatory for SCA reports, and even when one does take place, it doesn't exactly guarantee that the submitted figures are 100% accurate... there are plenty of instances where auditors have simply looked the other way, with Enron being the most glaringly obvious example...

The system of offsetting obligations between the government and private entities within our digital infrastructure remains incredibly primitive. For instance, if you owe payroll taxes while Medicare simultaneously owes you a reimbursement, those amounts are automatically balanced out. That principle currently applies to healthcare and agriculture, but everything else is still on hold.

The intention was to implement this for all types of obligations, but the issue is that we simply haven't fully modernized our information systems.🤣

Essentially, once a complete compensation system is established, the collection issues with the government would vanish. They wouldn't owe you, you wouldn't owe them, and everyone would walk away clean.

Just because certain rating agencies failed during the subprime mortgage crisis in the USA doesn't mean the need for their ratings disappears. Much like how referees fail in a football game, the institution itself remains necessary.😁

It isn't just the institution that persists; the underlying problems remain as well, largely due to a fundamental aversion to technology.🤣

Regarding the manipulation of reports, it is always possible, whether dealing with Goldman Sachs data or tax filings submitted to the Department of the Treasury (which are almost always 100% compatible with the Goldman Sachs data sent to Finance).
An audit isn't mandatory for certain reports, and even then, it doesn't always guarantee the absolute truthfulness of the filings; there are many instances where auditors have looked the other way, with Enron being the most notorious example.

Every company should undergo both an IRS review and some form of independent audit at least once every three years.

As for small sole proprietorships, based on these reports, it seems they are all just staring at the sun to survive since they can't afford food.

dustygardener43 Member

21 messages
joined Nov 2014

#13 · Aug 23, 2014

It is truly remarkable how much state-level information technology has advanced lately. Despite being saddled with a debt of $0.01 (if you actually bothered to read the figures), certain quasi-fiscal entities refuse to even issue a statement regarding their liabilities—information that is absolutely critical if a company is to finalize a business transaction. Or, even more egregious, they are actively disputing VAT refunds amounting to tens of thousands of dollars.🙂

When questioned about why they aren't processing these claims, their response is always the same: they claim they aren't my personal concierge service, they don't want to waste money on paper transfers, and they suggest I simply settle the outstanding debt of $0.01 and send over the receipt. 🙂

I am not exaggerating here; this level of dysfunction is a standard, everyday occurrence within our bureaucracy. And yet, one might still be expected to view this government as some sort of impartial arbiter, supposedly protecting entrepreneurs from risk... though I fail to see who such a "protector" would actually be saving. Himselff...? 😂

urbanwalker72 Active Member

147 messages
joined Aug 2021

#14 · Aug 23, 2014

dustygardener43 As stated by:
It seems that government information technology has advanced to such an extent that even the weight of national debt could be managed through these digital systems. $0.01 It seems you have read that correctly; they are acting like some sort of fringe cult, refusing to provide any official statement regarding the debt.

That simply isn't the case. I have personally requested that debt status certification on numerous occasions, and while you can certainly obtain it, the document will reflect a balance of three cents. It would be illogical for the statement to show zero if there is an outstanding amount of three cents, wouldn't it?

Those three measly cents of quasi-fiscal levies were likely just overlooked by the company during the filing process, which suggests they are almost certainly interest charges.

While I am personally inclined to believe that para-fiscal levies should be abolished entirely, we are dealing with a much more fundamental issue here: pure corporate negligence. This company isn't just struggling; they are failing to meet their tax obligations on time and showing a blatant, utter disregard for federal authority.

It was a case of one pot mocking another.

The ultimate success of any corporate transaction hinges entirely upon whether the firm can actually bring its business dealings to fruition.

Who exactly is going to lose a transaction over a few cents? Honestly, who could possibly be more obstructive than the government when it comes to these matters?

Even more egregious is their decision to contest VAT refunds totaling tens of thousands of dollars.🙂

It is quite simply a matter of logic; if an objection is filed and found to be justified, a company is often better served by remaining silent. However, should that objection be proven baseless, the firm stands to gain not only the principal amount but also the statutory interest mandated by law.

One cannot reasonably expect the government to issue tax refunds automatically without implementing rigorous oversight and verification processes.

When people ask why they aren't taking more aggressive action to collect, the response is always the same: they claim they don't work for me, they have no interest in wasting their precious paper assets, and they simply expect me to settle the outstanding debt on my own. $0.01 One should also provide them with a formal confirmation of the payment. 🙂

Are you relatively new to this process and applying for a refund for the first time? You should know that VAT isn't automatically offset just because there is a discrepancy of a few cents. Instead, tax credits can be recovered or offset on a specific date dictated by the budget schedule, provided there is no active audit from the IRS within thirty days of filing the claim. Within the European Union, very few people actually bother requesting a refund unless they are fully prepared to undergo an intensive investigation by the IRS.

You know how the process works best: before you head out to request official verification, you simply log into your IRS portal on your computer to check for any outstanding balance. If you see something trivial—even just a few cents—you go ahead and pay a full dollar just to clear the slate and look professional. Once that's done, you can walk in with your receipt and receive immediate confirmation that you have no debts whatsoever.

If you intend to challenge them while maintaining the moral high ground, you must first commit yourself to a thorough study of the laws and official procedures.

I have never encountered any difficulties. I possess a thorough understanding of the system and its legal frameworks.

I spent time working in the private sector, which included serving as an outside consultant for the Department of the Treasury's information systems development. I eventually decided to move on after seeing far too many of my projects and proposals gather dust in desk drawers; it became painfully clear that there was simply no appetite for modernization. It isn't about ego or claiming ownership of ideas, but rather a matter of practical necessity—one should look toward the standards set in Germany or the USA to see how robust information systems are actually built and how bureaucracy is effectively dismantled.

I am intimately familiar with both sides of this coin. I have managed programs from behind the service counter, and now, I find myself standing right where you are, seeking official verification.

I am not exaggerating; this is a standard occurrence within our administrative landscape. It is quite an interesting thought to suggest that the government should act as some sort of arbiter, shielding entrepreneurs from risk—as if such intervention could somehow save anyone. Save whom, exactly? Perhaps the individual themselves?

What you are describing isn't actually bureaucracy; it is a lack of transparency. You weren't aware that sales tax isn't automatically offset instantly and free of charge, nor were you aware of a three-cent deficit despite having access to a digital portal that provides twenty-four-hour visibility into your balance with the IRS.

Should they have provided guidance through seminars or more intuitive websites to prevent this? In my opinion, yes.

Bureaucracy is an entirely different matter altogether.

dustygardener43 Member

21 messages
joined Nov 2014

#15 · Aug 23, 2014

I’m new here, so I’m still wrapping my head around how everything actually works on a day-to-day basis. I guess I'll look to you to walk me through it... 😁

Actually, if you’ve ever had a peek behind the curtain of the tax system, you’d know they aren't exactly "real-time." For instance, when Goldman Sachs—or rather, the Department of the Treasury and its associated financial institutions—submits data in March, it might not even hit the books until August. Even then, the IRS portal often fails to reflect an accurate debt balance because some clerk hasn't finished processing the paperwork yet. That’s where you get those ridiculous $0.03 balances, regardless of whether it’s interest or principal... It’s all very disorganized. And occasionally, those balances—even larger ones where the government actually owes the client—just mysteriously vanish during year-end write-offs on December 31st.

Thanks for the lecture on your extensive expertise regarding domestic and international fiscal systems. One can never have too much information, I suppose... 🤣 Precisely. It’s clearly the entrepreneurs' fault for every single issue we face; if it weren't for them, the bureaucracy would be living in pure bliss. 😁

By the way, I have yet to encounter anyone who actually received interest on a late tax refund, despite what the IRS says about their obligation to pay it out.

urbanwalker72 Active Member

147 messages
joined Aug 2021

#16 · Aug 23, 2014

dustygardener43 said:I’m new here, so I’m still wrapping my head around how everything actually works on a day-to-day basis. I guess I'll look to you to walk me through it... 😁

Actually, if you’ve ever had a peek behind the curtain of the tax system, you’d know they aren't exactly "real-time." For instance, when Goldman Sachs—or rather, the Department of the Treasury and its associated financial institutions—submits data in March, it might not even hit the books until August. Even then, the IRS portal often fails to reflect an accurate debt balance because some clerk hasn't finished processing the paperwork yet. That’s where you get those ridiculous $0.03 balances, regardless of whether it’s interest or principal... It’s all very disorganized. And occasionally, those balances—even larger ones where the government actually owes the client—just mysteriously vanish during year-end write-offs on December 31st.

Thanks for the lecture on your extensive expertise regarding domestic and international fiscal systems. One can never have too much information, I suppose... 🤣 Precisely. It’s clearly the entrepreneurs' fault for every single issue we face; if it weren't for them, the bureaucracy would be living in pure bliss. 😁

By the way, I have yet to encounter anyone who actually received interest on a late tax refund, despite what the IRS says about their obligation to pay it out.

If that is the case, why was there any surprise regarding a three-cent debt?

One simply failed to make the payment on time, neglected to check their home or office records to verify their status, and remained unaware of the mechanics behind VAT compensation.

Such confusion becomes quite evident when one dwells on such trivial anecdotes.

And

If one had truly studied the inner workings of the tax system, they would realize how "up to date" everything actually is; for instance, filings submitted to Goldman Sachs in March are processed by August, yet the IRS portal often fails to reflect current balances because the clerk hasn't finished posting everything—which leads to those famous $0.03 balances, regardless of whether they represent interest or principal. Furthermore, such small balances, or even larger credits, are frequently written off on December 31st.

Clerks do not manually book parafiscal revenue. These transactions follow a predetermined value date. Moreover, almost no forms are processed by hand anymore; they are handled electronically. When these forms are posted, they are recorded using the legal value date—it is unlikely that interest is being charged simply due to a delay in bookkeeping.

If credits are being written off on December 31st up until $3.25 (though parafiscal funds, much like those tied to service years, are never written off), then one should simply request a confirmation statement as of December 31st.

By the way, I have yet to encounter anyone who actually received interest on a delayed tax refund, even though the IRS regulations state the government is obligated to pay it.

Could you provide a specific instance where a refund was delayed, and do you know of anyone who has actually filed a claim for it?

dustygardener43 Member

21 messages
joined Nov 2014

#17 · Aug 23, 2014

urbanwalker72;51262727 said:

Well, why on earth were you surprised to find yourself owing three cents?

You didn't pay on time, nobody bothered to check your home or office records to see if you actually owed anything, and clearly, you haven't a clue how Sales Tax credits are reconciled...

Your shock—and this tedious back-and-forth over such a trivial anecdote—makes it abundantly clear...

Your deductive reasoning is truly unparalleled😁 ...perhaps I should hire you as a consultant? These things happen daily, particularly during client acquisitions or when the IRS changes its ways right in the middle of a relocation... your expertise has left me quite stunned🙂 regardless, I have no intention of making this personal; we are strangers...

urbanwalker72;51262727 said:

Accountants don't book para-fiscal income. They work with predetermined value dates. Furthermore, almost no forms are processed manually anymore; it's all electronic. And when those forms are recorded, they use the legal value date—you surely don't believe interest is being charged simply because their bookkeeping is lagging behind?

Recently, a clerk at one of my clients called me, informing me in August that she was still processing Sales Tax filings as of December 31, 2013. Additionally, both City Hall and the US Chamber of Commerce showed a zero balance on the account until May 2014; only payments were visible... whether it’s manual or electronic is irrelevant to me, but the idea that the books were updated on time is pure fantasy.
In this specific instance, we were dealing with payroll taxes, and the clerk didn't even know the names of the specific levies; she was just reciting internal tax ID numbers, so it took me five minutes just to figure out which tax we were discussing.

urbanwalker72;51262727 said:

If they are written off by December 31st per $3.25 (and para-fiscal items, much like those tied to seniority, are never written off), then you should simply request a confirmation statement dated December 31st.

I've seen cases in practice where even larger amounts were written off for a client. It doesn't matter if they demand payment from me $0.01 while simultaneously writing off $3.25 what they owe me... is that acceptable in your book?😁

urbanwalker72 said:If that is the case, why was there any surprise regarding a three-cent debt?

One simply failed to make the payment on time, neglected to check their home or office records to verify their status, and remained unaware of the mechanics behind VAT compensation.

Such confusion becomes quite evident when one dwells on such trivial anecdotes.

And
If one had truly studied the inner workings of the tax system, they would realize how "up to date" everything actually is; for instance, filings submitted to Goldman Sachs in March are processed by August, yet the IRS portal often fails to reflect current balances because the clerk hasn't finished posting everything—which leads to those famous $0.03 balances, regardless of whether they represent interest or principal. Furthermore, such small balances, or even larger credits, are frequently written off on December 31st.

Clerks do not manually book parafiscal revenue. These transactions follow a predetermined value date. Moreover, almost no forms are processed by hand anymore; they are handled electronically. When these forms are posted, they are recorded using the legal value date—it is unlikely that interest is being charged simply due to a delay in bookkeeping.

If credits are being written off on December 31st up until $3.25 (though parafiscal funds, much like those tied to service years, are never written off), then one should simply request a confirmation statement as of December 31st.

By the way, I have yet to encounter anyone who actually received interest on a delayed tax refund, even though the IRS regulations state the government is obligated to pay it.

Could you provide a specific instance where a refund was delayed, and do you know of anyone who has actually filed a claim for it?

Don't be ridiculous. Am I expected to sit here and list every entity where this occurs? Do I know someone who requested a refund? I don't post on these threads because of my professional associates and because, frankly, it's tedious...😂

urbanwalker72 Active Member

147 messages
joined Aug 2021

#18 · Aug 23, 2014

dustygardener43 said:Don't be ridiculous. Am I expected to sit here and list every entity where this occurs? Do I know someone who requested a refund? I don't post on these threads because of my professional associates and because, frankly, it's tedious...😂

In essence, if there is an amount due for a refund, it works heavily in that client's favor. It seems no one ever complains when an error results in extra money for them.

Additionally, according to City Hall and the US Chamber of Commerce, they had a zero balance on the account until May 2014, showing only incoming payments. Whether those were processed manually or electronically is irrelevant to me, but there is absolutely no way the bookkeeping was completed on time.

City Hall processes via electronic forms, while the US Chamber of Commerce handles their own entries through the Secretary of State.

But if the payments were recorded, why worry? It ultimately benefits you.

In this specific instance, we were dealing with payroll taxes, and the representative didn't even know the actual names of the contributions. She was just providing internal tax identification numbers, so it took me about five minutes just to figure out which specific tax she was referring to.

That is precisely why I maintain that they need to implement better selection processes so they actually know the names of the taxes they are handling.

I have encountered real-world cases where even larger amounts were written off for a client.

Based on your experience, all these tax errors seem to be in the clients' favor. 🤣 Well, that sounds like a good thing...

It doesn't matter if they are asking me to pay $0.01 while they are $3.25 writing off their own debt to me—is that acceptable to you?😁

That would, quite obviously, be madness.

Don't play games with me; should I start listing the specific entities where this occurs? Do I look like someone who asks for refunds? I don't post on these threads because of friends or simply because I am bored...

Look, are you running an entire accounting firm here? My background is in applied mathematics and computer science, yet even I can see that these laws are straightforward.

According to the Census Bureau and the IRS, every single request for a tax refund is strictly regulated regarding deadlines. For example, if you submit a claim for an overpayment, they are legally required to either return the funds within 15 days or issue an official administrative document explaining why they won't, which you then have the right to appeal. If they fail to do either, interest starts accruing in your favor. There is simply no way for you to lose that argument.

The statute of limitations for income tax filings allows for a one-year window from the date of submission.

I recall a major hotel chain that managed to secure roughly 100 $0.00 in interest credits because the IRS owed them after an audit, even though everything had been handled perfectly.

Similarly, I know of a corporation that lost out on 80 $0.00 in VAT overpayments simply because they failed to claim them within a four or five-year period, causing the credit to expire.

However, if you have a valid claim, you cannot lose it; it is established de Iure, and no higher authority can deny it to you—it is as certain as the sunrise.

dustygardener43 Member

21 messages
joined Nov 2014

#19 · Aug 23, 2014

urbanwalker72 said:

In essence, if there is an amount due for a refund, it works heavily in that client's favor. It seems no one ever complains when an error results in extra money for them.

Additionally, according to City Hall and the US Chamber of Commerce, they had a zero balance on the account until May 2014, showing only incoming payments. Whether those were processed manually or electronically is irrelevant to me, but there is absolutely no way the bookkeeping was completed on time.

City Hall processes via electronic forms, while the US Chamber of Commerce handles their own entries through the Secretary of State.

But if the payments were recorded, why worry? It ultimately benefits you.

In this specific instance, we were dealing with payroll taxes, and the representative didn't even know the actual names of the contributions. She was just providing internal tax identification numbers, so it took me about five minutes just to figure out which specific tax she was referring to.

That is precisely why I maintain that they need to implement better selection processes so they actually know the names of the taxes they are handling.

I have encountered real-world cases where even larger amounts were written off for a client.

Based on your experience, all these tax errors seem to be in the clients' favor. 🤣 Well, that sounds like a good thing...

It doesn't matter if they are asking me to pay $0.01 while they are $3.25 writing off their own debt to me—is that acceptable to you?😁

That would, quite obviously, be madness.

Don't play games with me; should I start listing the specific entities where this occurs? Do I look like someone who asks for refunds? I don't post on these threads because of friends or simply because I am bored...

Look, are you running an entire accounting firm here? My background is in applied mathematics and computer science, yet even I can see that these laws are straightforward.

According to the Census Bureau and the IRS, every single request for a tax refund is strictly regulated regarding deadlines. For example, if you submit a claim for an overpayment, they are legally required to either return the funds within 15 days or issue an official administrative document explaining why they won't, which you then have the right to appeal. If they fail to do either, interest starts accruing in your favor. There is simply no way for you to lose that argument.

The statute of limitations for income tax filings allows for a one-year window from the date of submission.

I recall a major hotel chain that managed to secure roughly 100 $0.00 in interest credits because the IRS owed them after an audit, even though everything had been handled perfectly.

Similarly, I know of a corporation that lost out on 80 $0.00 in VAT overpayments simply because they failed to claim them within a four or five-year period, causing the credit to expire.

However, if you have a valid claim, you cannot lose it; it is established de Iure, and no higher authority can deny it to you—it is as certain as the sunrise.
In essence, if there is an amount due for a refund, it works heavily in that client's favor. It seems no one ever complains when an error results in extra money for them.

Additionally, according to City Hall and the US Chamber of Commerce, they had a zero balance on the account until May 2014, showing only incoming payments. Whether those were processed manually or electronically is irrelevant to me, but there is absolutely no way the bookkeeping was completed on time.

City Hall processes via electronic forms, while the US Chamber of Commerce handles their own entries through the Secretary of State.

But if the payments were recorded, why worry? It ultimately benefits you.

In this specific instance, we were dealing with payroll taxes, and the representative didn't even know the actual names of the contributions. She was just providing internal tax identification numbers, so it took me about five minutes just to figure out which specific tax she was referring to.

That is precisely why I maintain that they need to implement better selection processes so they actually know the names of the taxes they are handling.

I have encountered real-world cases where even larger amounts were written off for a client.

Based on your experience, all these tax errors seem to be in the clients' favor. 🤣 Well, that sounds like a good thing...

It doesn't matter if they are asking me to pay $0.01 while they are $3.25 writing off their own debt to me—is that acceptable to you?😁

That would, quite obviously, be madness.

Don't play games with me; should I start listing the specific entities where this occurs? Do I look like someone who asks for refunds? I don't post on these threads because of friends or simply because I am bored...

Look, are you running an entire accounting firm here? My background is in applied mathematics and computer science, yet even I can see that these laws are straightforward.

According to the Census Bureau and the IRS, every single request for a tax refund is strictly regulated regarding deadlines. For example, if you submit a claim for an overpayment, they are legally required to either return the funds within 15 days or issue an official administrative document explaining why they won't, which you then have the right to appeal. If they fail to do either, interest starts accruing in your favor. There is simply no way for you to lose that argument.

The statute of limitations for income tax filings allows for a one-year window from the date of submission.

I recall a major hotel chain that managed to secure roughly 100 $0.00 in interest credits because the IRS owed them after an audit, even though everything had been handled perfectly.

Similarly, I know of a corporation that lost out on 80 $0.00 in VAT overpayments simply because they failed to claim them within a four or five-year period, causing the credit to expire.

However, if you have a valid claim, you cannot lose it; it is established de Iure, and no higher authority can deny it to you—it is as certain as the sunrise.
While it may be de Iure, especially following the adoption of various European Union directives... de facto, unfortunately, it isn't. Achieving that requires more efficient ministers, directors, agency heads, and civil servants working in a coordinated, top-down fashion. Naturally, they don't have such people, because they aren't willing to pay for actual efficiency. Instead, they prefer to hire hundreds upon thousands of ineffective bureaucrats and essentially buy elections... and this applies to everyone, whether they are left-wing, right-wing, or the so-called centrists...
Look, in my practical experience, I have seen and heard just about everything under the sun, and I don't write merely to criticize. When things actually improve, I will be the first to offer praise. The IRS digital portal project and the electronic filing systems are well-conceived in theory, and the upload function works reasonably well (at least until Java needs an update 🤣)... I recently saw some private contracts for e-citizen services and similar projects, which I actually commend. 👏🙂

urbanwalker72 Active Member

147 messages
joined Aug 2021

#20 · Aug 24, 2014

dustygardener43 said:

In essence, if there is an amount due for a refund, it works heavily in that client's favor. It seems no one ever complains when an error results in extra money for them.

Additionally, according to City Hall and the US Chamber of Commerce, they had a zero balance on the account until May 2014, showing only incoming payments. Whether those were processed manually or electronically is irrelevant to me, but there is absolutely no way the bookkeeping was completed on time.

City Hall processes via electronic forms, while the US Chamber of Commerce handles their own entries through the Secretary of State.

But if the payments were recorded, why worry? It ultimately benefits you.

In this specific instance, we were dealing with payroll taxes, and the representative didn't even know the actual names of the contributions. She was just providing internal tax identification numbers, so it took me about five minutes just to figure out which specific tax she was referring to.

That is precisely why I maintain that they need to implement better selection processes so they actually know the names of the taxes they are handling.

I have encountered real-world cases where even larger amounts were written off for a client.

Based on your experience, all these tax errors seem to be in the clients' favor. 🤣 Well, that sounds like a good thing...

It doesn't matter if they are asking me to pay $0.01 while they are $3.25 writing off their own debt to me—is that acceptable to you?😁

That would, quite obviously, be madness.

Don't play games with me; should I start listing the specific entities where this occurs? Do I look like someone who asks for refunds? I don't post on these threads because of friends or simply because I am bored...

Look, are you running an entire accounting firm here? My background is in applied mathematics and computer science, yet even I can see that these laws are straightforward.

According to the Census Bureau and the IRS, every single request for a tax refund is strictly regulated regarding deadlines. For example, if you submit a claim for an overpayment, they are legally required to either return the funds within 15 days or issue an official administrative document explaining why they won't, which you then have the right to appeal. If they fail to do either, interest starts accruing in your favor. There is simply no way for you to lose that argument.

The statute of limitations for income tax filings allows for a one-year window from the date of submission.

I recall a major hotel chain that managed to secure roughly 100 $0.00 in interest credits because the IRS owed them after an audit, even though everything had been handled perfectly.

Similarly, I know of a corporation that lost out on 80 $0.00 in VAT overpayments simply because they failed to claim them within a four or five-year period, causing the credit to expire.

However, if you have a valid claim, you cannot lose it; it is established de Iure, and no higher authority can deny it to you—it is as certain as the sunrise.
While it may be de Iure, especially following the adoption of various European Union directives... de facto, unfortunately, it isn't. Achieving that requires more efficient ministers, directors, agency heads, and civil servants working in a coordinated, top-down fashion. Naturally, they don't have such people, because they aren't willing to pay for actual efficiency. Instead, they prefer to hire hundreds upon thousands of ineffective bureaucrats and essentially buy elections... and this applies to everyone, whether they are left-wing, right-wing, or the so-called centrists...
Look, in my practical experience, I have seen and heard just about everything under the sun, and I don't write merely to criticize. When things actually improve, I will be the first to offer praise. The IRS digital portal project and the electronic filing systems are well-conceived in theory, and the upload function works reasonably well (at least until Java needs an update 🤣)... I recently saw some private contracts for e-citizen services and similar projects, which I actually commend. 👏🙂
A top-down overhaul is exactly what is needed. If we simply replaced permanent bureaucratic appointments with standard employment contracts and implemented performance metrics, we would see immediate results. One could even install monitoring software on government computers to get an honest look at how much work is actually being accomplished.

Quincy:

The design behind the electronic tax filing and reporting systems is quite sound, and the upload functionality works well (at least until the next Java update🤣). I genuinely appreciate seeing private sector initiatives like the e-citizen portals being developed.

The federal projects managed by the central agency for digital transformation in America are lagging terribly behind schedule, though the concepts themselves are solid. Most of them really should have been fully operational back in 2011.

Checking for liens and garnishments

🔗 Similar threads