09 Jan
Posted by Marcus Lovegrove as Credit Score Services
It’s a buyer’s market in the world of real estate right now, and many of my late-20s peers are itching to snatch up a house with prices and interest rates so low. But most of us either don’t have enough savings or enough credit history to qualify. According to data from the National Association of Realtors, that means that first-time homebuyers are becoming rarer in the market, and those who do buy are turning to their parents for help.
“First-time home buyers fell to a 37 percent market share in the past year from a record high 50 percent in the 2010 study,” said NAR President Ron Phipps in a release accompanying the November 2011 study. “Although last year’s findings were boosted by the home buyer tax credit, long-term survey averages show that four out of 10 buyers are typically first-time buyers. T
Social security payments are exempt from garnishment under federal social security statutes. The IRS has collection remedies significantly more powerful than a creditor’s collection tools under state law. A CPA asked me the intersection of social security exemptions and IRS collections: can the IRS garnish a taxpayer’s social security check.
Section 6334 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 6334 (c)) allows Social Security benefits to be taken to collect unpaid Federal taxes. If your monthly benefit is more than $750, the IRS may garnish fifteen percent of your social security monthly benefit for taxes that are at least six months in arrears. The IRS is required to notify you before it begins to garnish , and you can appeal the garnishment for”hardship.”
This rule is common sense. People w
The 9th Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recently upheld sanctions imposed by the Bankruptcy Court against California lawyer, Gregory Orton. The BAP found that Mr. Orton “clearly” violated Rule 9011 and that he provided information on bankruptcy schedules that was false and misleading and that he later failed to amend the schedules. The BAP went so far as to say that Mr. Orton’s and the debtor’s conduct was “probably criminal” although it was only presented with the question of civil sanctions. Mr. Orton blamed his client for not providing truthful information, but admitted that he should not have filed the case without seeking clearer information from the debtor.
Read full post…