Jul 01, 2020
This man’s estranged wife received his stimulus check — and spent it. She won’t pay it back. What can he do?
This news has been received from: marketwatch.com
All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.
I am asking this question for my friend. He and his wife separated in October 2019. They are trying to represent themselves to avoid costly attorney expenses. They do not have children nor any assets. She kept him in the dark about account numbers and log-in information. They filed jointly in 2018.
The COVID-19 stimulus payment was deposited into their joint account, one that neither of them use anymore. As he was unable to check online banking, he did not know when this happened. He checked the balance at the ATM only to discover that she has withdrawn all of the $2,400 payment, leaving him with nothing.
He has since confronted her and she has admitted it and told him she had already spent it. She refuses to give it back, and declines to even work out a payment plan. When trying to report it to the IRS, everything seems to come down to identity theft as being the reason it was stolen. What does he need to do to obtain the $1,200 stimulus payment she stole from him?
What do you think?
Dispatches from a pandemic: Letter from New York: ‘New Yorkers wear colorful homemade masks, while nurses wear garbage bags’
If this is the bank account the IRS has on file, this is where the IRS will deposit your friend’s tax refund. So if he hasn’t done so already, he needs to change this account. Otherwise, the same thing will happen again. Prevention is better than cure. I hate cliches, but this one is painfully true.
Having your correct bank details on file will help speed the plow for a payment next year. If the IRS does not have your bank-account information on file, it will likely take longer. You can submit your bank-account and address information through the IRS tracking tool, “Get My Payment.”
Your friend’s dilemma is not the first one of this kind I have received. One husband actually refused to give the payment to his wife. That was a textbook case of financial abuse. Another husband filed a joint tax return and forged his estranged wife’s signature, and received her $1,200. That’s fraud.
Don’t miss:‘We will not have a vaccine by next winter.’ Like the 1918 Spanish flu, CDC says second wave of coronavirus could be worse. So what happens now?
This, however, falls short of that. The account is in both their names and, as per the terms of most joint accounts, they both have access to the account and they are both entitled to withdraw money from the account. The money was his. Once it hits their joint account, it’s theirs.
This is a cautionary tale for anyone opening a joint bank account. Account passwords on emails can be changed, and so can the passwords for online banking. Your friend appears to portray himself as a hapless or, at the very least, passive player in this financial fudgery.
He is not blameless. Not staying on top of your financial accounts, especially those connected with a former partner and the IRS and any other institution, is a choice. The lesson here is to be more assertive with the way he manages his life, so he doesn’t end up in a situation like this again.
He should inform his divorce lawyer, if he has one (if not, he should), and change any other direct deposits into this account. He can also take out a court order to freeze this or any other joint account to prevent his wife from withdrawing any other money that happens to be deposited into it.
The Moneyist: My son is staying with me, yet my financially irresponsible ex-husband received his $500 stimulus check. Is my ex right to keep it?
You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions related to coronavirus at email@example.com. Want to read more?Follow Quentin Fottrell on Twitterand read more of his columns here
Would you like to sign up to an email alert when a new Moneyist column has been published? If so, click on this link.
Hello there, MarketWatchers. Check out the Moneyist private Facebook FB, +2.91% group where we look for answers to life’s thorniest money issues. Readers write in to me with all sorts of dilemmas. Post your questions, tell me what you want to know more about, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns.
News Source: marketwatch.com
Mitch McConnell wants to restrict future stimulus checks to incomes of $40K or less
Matthew Rozsa July 7, 2020 9:26PM (UTC)
A recent remark by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggests that, if another round of individual stimulus checks are approved by Congress, they may only be issued to Americans who earn less than $40,000 per year.
Speaking at a series of events in Louisville, McConnell struck an initial positive note for struggling Americans hard-hit by the economic shutdown.:
"I can't comfortably predict we're going to come together and pass [a second bill] unanimously like we did a few months ago — the atmosphere is becoming a bit more political than it was in March," McConnell said at one point. "But I think we will do something again. I think the country needs one last boost."
Yet McConnell also argued that "I think the people who've been hit the hardest are people who make about $40,000 a year or less," including those who work in the hospitality industry. The previous, sole stimulus check that went out to Americans as part of the CARES Act sent up to $1,200 per adult, with an income cap of $99,000 for single taxpayers and $198,000 for couples. That bill also included major tax breaks for the super-rich.
Economists that Salon spoke with were divided on the socioeconomic effect of putting a lower income cap on the next round of relief checks.:
"Means testing this relief will slow down the rollout of the program, though it will target the help to the neediest and reduce the costs of the program," Gabriel Mathy, a macroeconomist at American University, told Salon by email regarding the possibility of focusing on people who make $40,000 a year or less. "Politically, this kind of targeting has the potential to provoke resentment among those not receiving the payouts, which was not the case for the first round of checks that went out to most Americans."
Another economist who spoke to Salon had a slightly different take.
"The data show that the hardest hit groups are, indeed, low income people," Austan Goolsbee, who served on President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, told Salon by email. "They had by far the worst hit on their employment and they had the lowest margin for error before this began. The thing to remember, though, is that this is not a normal stimulus in the sense of giving money that you want to get out the door and jumpstart the economy. This is really just relief to keep people from being evicted and having their gas shut off.":
In addition, McConnell made it clear that the new legislation could include provisions that, if implemented, would make it easier for institutions to urge or even compel people to come back to work, regardless of whether that was advisable from a public health standpoint. McConnell discussed "narrowly crafted liability protection" for businesses, universities, schools and health care providers, saying that he can "guarantee" those measures would be included. These measures would presumably protect those institutions from COVID-19–related lawsuits. Democratic leaders oppose those measures.
There are also reports that the new stimulus legislation could include back-to-work bonuses, or proposals ranging from a $450 weekly bonus to a one-time $1,200 payment that would incentivize workers to return to their jobs. This bonus could help further reduce the unemployment rate, which already saw unexpectedly steep declines in May and June.:
When the new congressional session convenes later this month, legislators will discuss a possible new pandemic relief bill, but it is unclear what form the final legislation will actually take. In May, House Democrats passed the HEROES (Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions) Act, though McConnell has stated publicly that the bill would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate. The HEROES Act, which would spend $3 trillion, includes key provisions such as providing households with checks worth an average of $2,170 (as opposed to a $1,729 average under the previous bill). That includes $1,200 checks to individual taxpayers with a maximum adjusted gross income of up to $75,000 and married couples whose maximum adjusted gross income does not exceed $150,000. The payment amounts would then be gradually reduced as income brackets increased until eventually they disappeared entirely for individual taxpayers making as much as or in excess of $98,000 or married taxpayers making as much as or in excess of $199,000.
Unlike the first stimulus bill, the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES) Act, the HEROES Act would provide $1,200 payments for each child in a family up to three children and would include 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds. The CARES Act, by contrast, only provided $500 payments for children and established a cutoff age of 17. The HEROES Act also includes provisions to help college students whose parents claim them as dependents and Americans who are married to immigrants who don't have a Social Security number.
It is considered unlikely that congressional Republicans would support the HEROES Act in its current form, given its price tag and general conservative opposition to generous welfare programs. Because Republicans control the Senate and the White House (under President Donald Trump), House Democrats will almost certainly need to modify core provisions in their legislative package in order for a second round of stimulus to be passed.
Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University. His work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.MORE FROM Matthew Rozsa