Orwell is saying, "I told you so!"

Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts

A few weeks ago, with no notice, the U.S. government intercepted Mary Grice’s tax refunds from both the IRS and the state of Maryland. Grice had no idea that Uncle Sam had seized her money until some days later, when she got a letter saying that her refund had gone to satisfy an old debt to the government — a very old debt.

When Grice was 4, back in 1960, her father died, leaving her mother with five children to raise. Until the kids turned 18, Sadie Grice got survivor benefits from Social Security to help feed and clothe them.

Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family — it’s not sure who — in 1977. After 37 years of silence, four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. Why the feds chose to take Mary’s money, rather than her surviving siblings’, is a mystery.

Across the nation, hundreds of thousands of taxpayers who are expecting refunds this month are instead getting letters like the one Grice got, informing them that because of a debt they never knew about — often a debt incurred by their parents — the government has confiscated their check.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...bc3_story.html

Seems no lefties want to defend the IRS here.

The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.

No one seems eager to take credit for reopening all these long-closed cases. A Social Security spokeswoman says the agency didn’t seek the change; ask Treasury. Treasury says it wasn’t us; try Congress. Congressional staffers say the request probably came from the bureaucracy.

Love this one

Grice filed suit against the Social Security Administration in federal court in Greenbelt this week, alleging that the government violated her right to due process by holding her responsible for a $2,996 debt supposedly incurred under her father’s Social Security number.

Social Security officials told Grice that six people — Grice, her four siblings and her father’s first wife, whom she never knew — had received benefits under her father’s account. The government doesn’t look into exactly who got the overpayment; the policy is to seek compensation from the oldest sibling and work down through the family until the debt is paid.

This will be a problem...

The woman committed no crime (neither did her family) but she was selected for punishment. Isn't the total over 2 billion dollars now? Since the IRS made the mistake, they should track down the employee responsible and take away their benefits retroactively.

Damn, CC maybe no one is defending it because both sides think it is wrong. Has nothing to do with politics. Just a bad IRS policy that needs to be corrected. One of many.

Now that is too logical for the right to understand cowboy.

That policy cannot be Constitutional. It is gross overreaching by the federal government.

Well if the left doesn't like it then let them speak up about it. It's like moderate Islam. They claim to be against the radicals but rarely speak up. So let the radical lefties speak up or we know that you support the IRS on this. By the way, when you're yelling about the IRS don't forget the Tea party scandal and who runs the IRS.

I know a guy who filed for disability under social security.

he was denied for years

finally he got an attorney and voila...they paid him $136,000 for disability back to the date he had originally filed

all the while he was working for a veterinarian

so he got the $136,000 plus a monthly check going forward

the very next month after receiving the $136,000, he received another $136,000 in the mail

he called social security...they told him to keep it and they would begin deducting the extra payment out of his future check..not sure the amount something like $196 a month

so now he's sitting there with $272,000 and a monthly check less the monthly deduction