Which takes precedence tax debt or arrearage?

[cloud9]

Hello

My ex husband owes several thousand in arrears.  It was recently judged that he would pay an additional monthly amount toward this debt but also that there would be an intercept of any federal tax refunds he would be due.

I have recently found out that he also owes Uncle Sam a very large tax debt and that for at least the past 2 years this has come out of any refunds he has been due.  He also makes monthly payments to the IRS.  He owes them a lot more then he owes me.

My question is, in this case, which debt is collected or paid first?  The IRS or the Child support arrears?

Thank you,
Ellen

[socrateaser]

>Hello
>
>My ex husband owes several thousand in arrears.  It was
>recently judged that he would pay an additional monthly amount
>toward this debt but also that there would be an intercept of
>any federal tax refunds he would be due.
>
>I have recently found out that he also owes Uncle Sam a very
>large tax debt and that for at least the past 2 years this has
>come out of any refunds he has been due.  He also makes
>monthly payments to the IRS.  He owes them a lot more then he
>owes me.
>
>My question is, in this case, which debt is collected or paid
>first?  The IRS or the Child support arrears?

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.

However, at the end of the day, the IRS will win every time, if it wants to win, except in Bankruptcy Court, where a tax debt more than three years old will be discharged, while a support obligation will never be discharged.

[cloud9]

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.

[socrateaser]

No confusion. You are correct. The gov. will get its money first, which means your intercepts will be useless until his tax liability is satisfied.

Generally, competing garnishments are apportioned, unless there is a support wage assignment/garnishment, and those get priority over ordinary civil garnishments (for ordinary lawsuits, like breach of contract).

But, an IRS garnishment gets priority over other garnishments, so if there was a garnishment, then your support garnishment would take a back seat. But, as the taxpayer is paying voluntarily, your support checks should be unaffected, because there is no garnishment.

If the taxpayer doesn't pay, the IRS will garnish, and then you may have some difficulty getting your money.

Cross that bridge when you come to it.

[rainbow1]

You could adjust the amount deducted from paychecks so there is very little to refund or you owe a small amount. This makes refund seizure moot.