Sorry, this confused me a little bit:
>We, just because Uncle Sam assesses a deficiency against
>someone doesn't mean that they will garnish their wages. Most
>of the time, the taxpayer enters into a voluntary payment
>plan, and there's no garnishment.
I believe that he does voluntarily pay the IRS monthly. His wages are only garnished for CS.
His IRS refunds have been retained by the IRS as repayment for the debt he owes them (in addition to the monthly payments he makes). The part about them retaining his refunds is NOT voluntary. According to him, he can't get a refund as long as he owes them.
Now that I have this judgement for interception of IRS refunds, I just wonder if that means that the arrears will only be paid from his refunds after his debt to the IRS is paid in full (like a "secondary lien", so to speak).
Hope I haven't confused you. Thank you very much.
>We, just because Uncle Sam assesses a deficiency against
>someone doesn't mean that they will garnish their wages. Most
>of the time, the taxpayer enters into a voluntary payment
>plan, and there's no garnishment.
I believe that he does voluntarily pay the IRS monthly. His wages are only garnished for CS.
His IRS refunds have been retained by the IRS as repayment for the debt he owes them (in addition to the monthly payments he makes). The part about them retaining his refunds is NOT voluntary. According to him, he can't get a refund as long as he owes them.
Now that I have this judgement for interception of IRS refunds, I just wonder if that means that the arrears will only be paid from his refunds after his debt to the IRS is paid in full (like a "secondary lien", so to speak).
Hope I haven't confused you. Thank you very much.