|
ooak
Don't confuse the alleged 1099C from Chase as the charge off from the original creditor.
The charge off from the original creditor never accrued to your specific account because a "taxpayers" copy of a 1099C was not provided to you at that time. The original creditor committed fraud by making that erroneous reporting to the CRAs. CRAs will report anything unless taken to task by the victim of such reporting, and then they will only note that it is in dispute.
That original charge off was removed from one set of books and written off long ago and subsequently placed in another set of books. This is where Chase comes in. As the purchaser of an account receivable it can issue a legitimate 1099C for such that is uncollectable, since it did not originate the receivable.
It would appear that the "funds" are being written off twice, or more accurately, being removed from Chase's books and being placed into yours. You are now liable for this alleged "income" and its associated tax. What was previously impossible from the original creditors POV is now possible because of Chase's purchase, due to the second set of books.
What you need to concern yourself with is the evidence that the players are using against you, the 1099C. Do you have a copy? Who else has a copy? Who is the issuer? Why was it not issued in 2001? Are there book entries to support its issuance?
Keep in mind that a CP2000 is just a notice of a proposed change by the IRS due to third party reporting. Make the third parties prove their claims i.e. that the original charge off specifically accrued to you, that there is a 1099C evidencing such, substantiated by relevant book entries. What evidence does Chase have to give it standing to issue a 1099C? Is it the same as that of the original creditor?
It's all smoke and mirrors, but your protagonist is Chase as they are doing the reporting.
gldskr
|
