Are Judges Approving Tax Evasion on Debt Collector Portfolio Recovery Associates’ Cases?

Excerpt of class action settlement from Pollak et al v. PRA:

“PRA will provide, without imposing any condition or charge whatsoever, a credit to each account belonging to a Non-Zero Balance Class Member (“Account”), in an amount not to exceed the outstanding balance of each Account, up to $500.00 per Non-Zero Balance Class Member and collectively up to $1,092,000.00. No cash payment will result from any credit provided to a Non-Zero Balance Class Member’s account(s), and PRA agrees not to issue any Non-Zero Balance Class Member a form I099-C due to the credit.“

The PRA Group, Inc. subsidiary emphasized, toward the beginning of the settlement agreement, “PRA has denied, and continues to deny, each claim and allegation of wrongdoing Plaintiff alleges in the Litigation. PRA also has denied, and continues to deny, inter alia, any allegations that Plaintiff or the Settlement Class suffered any damage whatsoever, were harmed in any way, or are entitled to any relief as a result of any conduct on the part of PRA as alleged by Plaintiff in this Litigation.”

In the case I filed against PRA, they denied, denied, denied. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky agreed with PRA. He said I owed money to PRA and no reasonable juror would disagree with him. But PRA lawyers from Rose Law Firm, Troutman Pepper and PRA big-wig Meryl Dreano all told the judge that Portfolio Recovery set my balance to zero as a “waiver” and had no intention of filing a 1099-C due to the waiver.

Judge Rudofsky winked at PRA and said, you’re right, setting the balance to zero was a “waiver”, but don’t bother complying with the tax code. That is just for the little people.

The Pollak plaintiffs were not suing for the misrepresentation of the amount or character of a debt. They alleged that the notorious debt collector sent letters threatening litigation with no intent of litigating.

The amount per plaintiff in Pollak is under the mandatory reporting requirement of $600. The money is still taxable, and the aggregate is over a million dollars. There are other tax rules I’ve noticed where the IRS discourages breaking up payments into many small chunks as to evade detection from the IRS of what is one giant transfer of wealth, in the hopes the transfer can be made tax free. The instructions for 1099-C say: “Do not combine multiple cancellations of a debt to determine whether you meet the $600 reporting requirement unless the separate cancellations are under a plan to evade the Form 1099-C requirements.” (emphasis added) It is probably worthwhile for the IRS to investigate the number of recipients of these $500 settlements who reported the gain. This is tippy toe right up to the line. Maybe our law makers can add a few more words to the tax code. Perhaps, “all class action settlements must be reported on the new form 1099-CA.”

At least in my case, PRA could have been crediting my account to zero because I did not owe the debt, as I claimed, in which case they were not conspiring and encouraging what they believed was tax evasion. But no, PRA insisted that it was a waiver and therefore they must admit they had the intent of orchestrating tax evasion. (I’ve already informed the IRS about what transpired.)

One attorney who served PRA on both cases was James Trefil. How many other cases did Mr. Trefil participate and counsel the defendant debt buyer and convince the Courts to ignore the Internal Revenue Code?

(If you know judges who approved settlements of $600 or more per debtor with no 1099-C issued, inform us in the comments or send the case info to me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com. If you send a file stamped copy of the agreement, it will be posted as a Doc of the Day.)