Collections: The IRS Can be Helpful in Commercial Collections

     Can you imagine using the IRS to help in collections? I can! I have an interesting technique that I have recommended for over twenty-two years – I first ran an article on this in the May, 1992 (the 4th Edition) of Creditor’s News.  Since recently others have also begun recommending this technique, I thought that I would review it again.

     After a sufficient amount of time has passed to consider a commercial credit account "uncollectible," the creditor should consider writing off the debt as a potentially tax-deductible bad debt. The creditor's loss may then become the debtor's gain and, as such, may be reported to the IRS on Form 1099 as income to that debtor.
     Before actually writing off the debt, attempts should be made to contact the debtor and advise him of the intended action. If you do not have the debtor's social security number, try including a W-9 form with your letter. This could evoke some favorable response.
     I have a form letter that I recently revised to accomplish all of this. The letter (written from the perspective of the creditor itself) advises the debtor that his account is seriously past due despite repeated attempts to make arrangements for payment. The debtor is further advised that unless the debt is paid in full within fifteen (15) days from the date of the letter, the creditor will, at its option, report the loss to the IRS on their form 1099c. This reporting will result in taxable income to the debtor (reference IRS Regulation S1.61-12). This reporting will result in an IRS audit risk to the debtor, as the IRS routinely runs computer matches of the 1099’s filed against tax returns actually filed to insure that all income is reported; there are severe penalties if not. The letter further states that the creditor is demanding the debtor’s tax identification information; the debtor is asked to do so within fifteen (15) days. The debtor must provide this information to the creditor under penalty of federal law. I recommend that you send with the letter a copy of the IRS form W-9 evidencing the unpaid debt, and advise the debtor that if you do not receive the W-9, the creditor will, at its option, file an IRS form 1099c incomplete. This will further increase the debtor’s chances of an audit.
     Many debtors will wish to resolve the debt as a result of these actions. After all, who wants the IRS checking them out?
     If you have any questions of wish to discuss this, please call us at 545-6250. Eddie & Jennifer.

Foreclosure: Deposits

     Virginia Code §55-59.4(A)(2) permits the trustee to require of any bidder at any sale a deposit of as much as ten percent of the sales price, unless the deed of trust specifies a higher or lower amount. However, because the statute is not mandatory, the trustee is given the right to waive the deposit if he deems it appropriate, unless the deed of trust requires a specific deposit. The trustee should also consider using a fixed amount as the deposit rather than a percentage of the sales price. Using a percentage of the sales price as the method of determining the required deposit often results in confusion, and the successful bidder has either too much or too little money to deposit. A fixed deposit avoids the confusion and allows all potential buyers to know exactly how much money to bring to the sale to deposit. The fixed deposit should not be excessive, but should be of a sufficient amount to ensure that the successful bidder completes the closing of the sale.

Real Estate: Homeowners' Association Wins Damages on Owner Violations

     There has been much litigation over HOA violations in the last few years. Circuit Courts have been scrutinizing HOA violation claims very carefully. Enforcement and damages for violations can be won. The December 2011 Loudon County Circuit Court case of Lee’s Crossing Homeowners’ Association v. Zinone is a good example of such enforcement. In Lee’s Crossing, the court found that in building her home, the homeowner committed multiple violations of the plan approved by the Architectural Review Board. Ultimately, the court assessed damages in favor of the homeowners’ association on the basis of “one overriding violation,” the failure to comply with the ARB-approved application.

Bankruptcy: Contract Default, Interest Rates and Attorney's Fees

     The United States District Court at Abingdon, in the case of Florida Asset Financing Corp. v. Dixon, ruled that a contractual default interest rate of 36 percent was available to an oversecured creditor as part of its claim against a debtor. The Bankruptcy Court decision denying such interest was reversed. 

     The District Court ruled that the Bankruptcy Code provides that, in general, a claim must be oversecured in order to recover postpetition interest in addition to reasonable fees, costs and charges as part of its secured claim. As to the appropriate rate of interest applicable to an oversecured creditor’s principal claim, however, Bankruptcy Code §506 and the accompanying legislative history are silent. The District Court reported that a great majority of courts to have considered the issue of postpetition interest have concluded that the contract rate of interest applies. Default rates of interest generally do not enjoy, however, the same straight-forward treatment that postpetition interest claims for basic interest do. The Supreme Court noted in the case of Rake v. Wade that postpetition interest may be claimed up to the extent of the value of the collateral.
     The District Court ruled that entitlement to default interest is generally determined by a reliance on equitable principles or the cure rationale evoked by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of In re Entz-White Lumber & Supply, Inc. The District Court, unlike the Bankruptcy Court, found that the debtor in this case had not “essentially…cured” his default. The District Court noted that the majority of jurisdictions allow, or at least give “a presumption to the allowability of default rates of interest, provided that the rate is not unenforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law”. The facts and equities specific to each case prove determinative in the analysis of default rates. Within this analysis, the contract default rate is neither irrelevant nor predictive.
     The District Court decided that the question presented by this case was just how far the Bankruptcy Court’s equitable powers extended under a modern reading of Bankruptcy Code §506(b). The rule governing the District Court’s consideration of this case was as follows: where the circumstances necessitating an equitable deviation are plainly absent and the contract interest rate does not violate state usury laws, function as a penalty or exceed the value of the collateral, the presumption in favor of the contract rate has not been rebutted. The District Court noted that to do otherwise is to impinge on a creditor’s statutory rights under Bankruptcy Code §506b). The District Court decided that in Dixon the presumption was in favor of the contract default rate. In order to discover what equitable considerations may support the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to deviate from this contract rate, the District Court turned to an analysis of the case law. The District Court found that those cases presenting equitable circumstances necessitating a deviation from the contract default rate were distinguishable on their facts. In this case, the contract default rate of interest in question violated neither state nor federal law, and there was a notable lack of circumstances which would encourage an equitable deviation from the stated contractual default rate.
     The District Court stated that it seemed clear as well that the Bankruptcy Court erred when it deemed the default rate to be a penalty. No evidence existed on the record to support the Bankruptcy Court’s characterization. The default rate was within the bounds of state usury law, and merely calling the rate exorbitant, or noting its large departure from the non-default rate, did not suffice to render it unconscionable.
     In summary, the District Court ruled that the contractual default interest rate in Dixon had not been rebutted by equitable considerations. The District Court ruled that the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to reject the default interest rate and apply the nondefault interest rate was therefore erroneous. The Bankruptcy Code and applicable case law, facts of the case and equitable principles of distribution compelled that the debtor should have been held to the contract default rate of interest provided in the note. The District Court stated that to find otherwise would render a windfall to the debtor. While a 36-percent interest rate is high, the courts do not have plenary power to alter commercial contracts or to substitute their judgment for that of the parties. The District Court found it necessary to remand the attorney’s fees portion of the case to the Bankruptcy Court for reconsideration, as the increased recovery available to the creditor altered the context for analyzing the reasonableness of the fee request.