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

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?