I believe there is quite a membership out there with a wealth of knowledge, so here goes a short question in easy to read format. If you have the answer please respond.
(A) Can some person (anyone) point or directly explain to me how to read the beginning date and the 7 year fall-off date for a bad piece of credit. In other words how do I determine the beginning date, to start the clock ticking, sailing towards 7 years and the resultant (benefit to me as my score rises, from the "falling off of my credit report of bad credit so to speak"?
The beginning date or in other terms, DOLA or Date of last Activity is best defined by looking at
15 U.S.C. § 1681c § 605 (c) Running of reporting period and at 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 § 623 (5)
You will also find benefit in studying the Harvey opinion letter and
the Johnson opinion letter
These should give you a very clear understanding of the answer to your question.
(A)(1) The reason for the above question is that every time I look at my credit reports, it appeaars the dates seem to move forward?. Does talking to creditors if they call me allow them to move the dates? I usually mean one sentence, sorry can't pay the collection attemp. (I happen to have become 100% disabled)
I believe that the following part of the Johnson letter will provide you with the answer to that question as well. It is further down in the letter where it says S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40 (emphasis added).
(A)(2) This could be still in house if the creditor has not yet sold the account to a collection agency. Does the above change the time line, selling the account or even talking to creditors?
No, it does not. As Johnson explains to you quite implicitly, Congress intended the DOLA should be a date set in stone that cannot be changed for any reason.
Bill Bauer
Here comes the IRS collection agencies
The language of HR 1169 remains primarily intact in section 3031 of HR 2896. The provision allows the IRS to contract with outside collection agencies to pursue taxes that are more than five years in arrears. The provision specifically outlines the procedure for the IRS’s interaction with the debt collection agencies. The debtor will not pay the agency directly; they will be referred to the IRS for payment. The provision creates a “revolving fund from the amounts collected by the private debt collection companies” from which the agencies will be paid. The provision also specifically states that no collection agency will be paid more than 25% of what it collects. It is inferred that the IRS will allow competitive bidding for the collection contracts.
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates the provision will create net income for the U.S. in excess of $440 million between 2004 and 2008, with positive cash flow beginning in 2005. If kept intact, the JCT estimates the provision will net the government nearly $1 billion by 2013.
The provision has come a long way since it was introduced as a proposal on February 3 of this year in the President’s 2004 budget. That proposal was born in response to an IRS request in October of 2002 for help from private collection agencies in devising a plan to collect back taxes. Many collection agencies, large and small, contacted the IRS with plans to help them collect back taxes. When President Bush proposed his 2004 budget, the collection industry was quick to note the language calling for the IRS’s use of private collection agencies.
Representative Amory Houghton (R-NY) sponsored HR 1169, which provided specific language for allowing the IRS to use collection agencies. The bill was then sent to the House Committee on Ways and Means for examination and debate. On May 13, 2003, the committee held a public hearing to listen to arguments for and against the bill. Newly named IRS Commissioner Mark Everson testified for the bill, saying that the IRS could use the additional revenue and should utilize the core competencies of private industry. Representatives from the ACA as well as private collection agencies also testified in favor of the bill. Representatives from consumer groups testified against the bill, arguing that consumers would be harassed by agencies looking to collect old taxes. HR 1169 stayed in the Ways and Means committee until last month when it was added to HR 2896 as a provision.
The outlook for the passage of the bill seems favorable. The bill is expected to hit the House of Representatives’ floor next week, with a vote coming soon after.
