Tonight Host Charles Marshall Talks Tax and Bankruptcy on the Neil Garfield Show

Tax and Bankruptcy Issues

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

East-West: Charles Marshall California Attorney hosts the discussion

Foreclosure law: Implications re tax law, bankruptcy law, other law

Foreclosure matters both unresolved and especially even when resolved have major implications for legal options and results and at the far end impositions, related to taxes owed, credit consequences and options, bankruptcy options or impositions, unlawful detainer options or limitations, and even estate planning alternatives. Will address all these topics today on the West Coast Foreclosure Show.

My question: How can that 1099 form sent by a non-creditor create a tax liability? If the sender claimed the loss they were lying. If they didn’t have a loss (nearly always) then the 1099 should not have been sent. My opinion is that the homeowner should notify the IRS that the 1099 is disputed. Check with a tax lawyer or qualified tax accountant.

And here is another perverse question that banks and investors cringe at: if the named trust never came into existence or never was used as a conduit for payments or proceeds from mortgage loans, how can the investors claim exemptions for income or payments received that were not processed through the alleged REMIC Trust? My opinion is that all payments received by holders of certificates are ordinary income and should be taxed as such with no benefit from the REMIC statute in the Internal revenue Code.

The corollary and easier question is how can the broker dealers escape regulation and taxation for certificates that are NOT mortgage backed. If the indebtedness of homeowners was never purchased by the named trust then the certificates were not mortgage backed. If they were not mortgage backed then they should have been registered as securities and regulated as such. If the certificates were not mortgage backed, how does the nonexistent trust enable investors or anyone else to claim tax or benefits under the REMIC Statute?


9 Responses

  1. I got a challenge for Neil Garfield to put his money where his mouth is at. I’ll give you my 1099 that Ocwen sent me as lender when Deutsch Bank as trustee for certificate holders 207oa1 foreclosed. How about it Neil. Then you can let us all know how you made out.

  2. Hey RR, I go for mediation next Monday. More lies, more forged documents, no discovery, one giant lie all the way through. Second attempted FC for me, too. We shall see what happens. I have other things up my sleeve. Believe “they” are watching LL posts.

  3. It’s more than that Roger. Everyone who has not experienced the fraud just doesn’t care. Recall how the media originally presented the financial crisis fraud – “The people bought too much house,” and “Deadbeats.” It was ridiculous. I knew the crisis was going to hit before it hit, and expected the government to do its job. They went the other way. It was shocking. The more time that goes by the worse it gets. We were the scapegoats. That bothers me most of all.

  4. You hit it on the head, Michael. And Anon, they won’t accept the argument. They won’t let you get to an evidentiary stage.
    The judges are indeed protecting their own interests as ruling class pricks.

  5. You’re dreaming if you think any government agency will act in defense of a claim against a homeowner. The fraud is the result of the DEEP STATE, which runs amok, allowing the banks to complete their scheme. IRS, SIGTARP, the Courts, they’re ALL IN on the scam.

    Hey Louise! Finally lost to the second foreclosure. Got it in the record that the trust is a sham, the foreclosure is brought by a sham plaintiff, and the evidence controverts the claim. Doesn’t matter though.

    I sent some info to Judicial Watch. The scam is statewide here in Wisconsin.

  6. Anon — Void and voidable misunderstood by courts.

  7. Great advice. Let the homeowner spend as much money as he can to help the lawyer make a living. The lawyer don’t care whether the homeowner loose at every stage as long as they are still getting paid. The lawyers know these judges are ruling with both bias and not on the law of the land and don’t say anything. Why ? Because they are not losing money or their homes. They are all part of the Bar. The judges and lawyers have their retirement accounts invested in the banks. The judge in my case was invested in all the major foreclosing banks as well as property management companies in Florida and California. Hmm.

  8. In our case the Assignment of Mortgage showed a 2007 Trust and an illegal assignment of mortgage in 2011 which is 4 years AFTER the Trust had CLOSED. Not only was it too late but also the Trust could not accept the assigment pursuant to the REMIC Trust Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

    Many times said and never seriously heard by authorities. No wonder the economy is not really picking up as investor confidence may be very low in America.

    We need a new law to give back the homes to previously owned homeowners who were victims of illegal foreclosure. How is that?

  9. There never were any trusts in the first place. The so-called REMIC trust status is just another rip-off joke.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: