Ministers apologise and return £7,000 in benefits to woman, 93, with dementia
Government ministers have formally apologised and repaid £7,000 to a 93-year-old woman whom they held responsible for running up benefits overpayment debts even though they were told she had dementia and was unable to manage her affairs.
The case, which the minister for disability, Mims Davies, admitted was “disturbing”, was brought to light by the Guardian as part of its investigation into carer's allowance overpayments.
The agreement to write off the debt of the 93-year-old, whom the Guardian has chosen not to name, comes as ministers have promised to try new ways of sharing information with carers to try to prevent them building up months and years of overpayments.
Read the full article on theguardian.com
​
​
​
DWP confirmed that it is developing an ‘enhanced notification strategy’ to alert carer’s allowance claimants to possible overpayments
Notifications designed to encourage claimants to report changes in income and so reduce the risk of being overpaid.
As part of its policy paper, Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further, that was published earlier this week, the Department says (at paragraph 78) -

'In carer’s allowance we are progressing an enhanced notification strategy as part of our existing commitment to improve customer engagement, building on our existing communications with customers. As part of this notification strategy we are considering all forms of targeted contact to find the most effective and efficient solution, such as exploring the use of targeted text messages or emails to alert claimants and encourage them to contact the Department when the DWP is made aware of a potential overpayment.'

The Department added -

'The new strategy will help claimants understand when they may have received an earnings-related overpayment or are at risk of doing so, and will encourage claimants to contact the DWP to meet their obligation to inform the Department of changes in their income and other relevant circumstances. This will reduce the risk of those customers being overpaid.'

Note: having expressed concern that the DWP had 'done nothing' to stop carers building up huge overpayments of benefit despite knowing what people are earning, Work and Pensions Committee Chair Stephen Timms called on the National Audit Office to investigate problems with the carer's allowance system and, in particular, its failure to prevent or rectify overpayments.
Stephen Timms has also written to Secretary for State for Work and Pensions Mel Stride highlighting concerns about the DWP's lack of progress with overpayments since the previous committee's report in 2019. Mr Timms' letter repeats the committee's recommendation that the DWP increase the rate of carer's allowance and goes on to call for the DWP to review both the amount and the cliff-edge nature of the earnings limit and for the removal of the 21-hour study rule.
For more information, see Policy paper: Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further from gov.uk
​
​
​
Carers UK has welcomed the DWP's plans, noting this is the 'minimum' they've been calling for to tackle carers' overpayments. However, Director of Policy and Public Affairs Emily Holzhausen also highlights that implementing the strategy is 'urgent', asks that the whole issue be moved out of being branded benefits fraud, and that carer's allowance be reviewed as it should be 'modernised to reflect the realities of caring'.
​
​
​
DWP-commissioned research highlights how the carer’s allowance earnings threshold influences decisions about how many hours carers work
Report also makes clear that the Department was made aware three years ago that there was room to improve claimant understanding and possibly reduce mistakes leading to overpayments by improving its communications.
The research, Experiences of claiming and receiving carer’s allowance, explores how and why people claim carer's allowance; their caring roles; experiences of combining paid work and care; and how well claimants understand the rules associated with the benefit. While carried out in 2020/2021, the research has been published today against a backdrop of calls for the wholescale reform of carer's allowance as a result of evidence that claimants who have earned above the carer's allowance earnings limit have been left with large overpayments and, in some cases, prosecuted for fraud.
While the research found that many claimants in employment felt there was a practical limit to the hours they could work, with many saying it was only feasible to be working part-time due to their caring responsibilities, it also found that -

• the earnings threshold appeared to influence decisions about how many hours some people worked. Even though claimants often denied that the threshold influenced their choices, they acknowledged being mindful to stay below the threshold. One claimant felt he had to refuse shifts at work that would take him over the threshold;
• in another example, the earnings limit led a claimant to reduce her hours as her wages increased, and eventually she was working so few hours that her employer felt it was not worth employing her due to her limited availability; and
• some claimants in paid work felt they might work more hours if not for the earnings threshold, and even suggested tapering the carer’s allowance earnings rule to encourage claimants to work more.

Published on the same day that the Work and Pensions Select Committee said that there has been insufficient progress in addressing the problems with carer's allowance that it highlighted five years ago, the research makes clear that the Department has been aware of the issues for some time. For example, it highlights confusion relating to the complexity of the earnings calculation, including how deductions such as childcare expenses and pension contributions are taken account of, and whether wages can be averaged if you earn more in a particular week.
In addition, with the Chair of the Select Committee Stephen Timms having said recently that the DWP has done nothing to stop carers building up huge overpayments despite knowing what people are earning, and the Committee having called on the National Audit Office to investigate the problems with the system, the research found that -

• poor communication on the part of the DWP meant that not all of those that had been overpaid benefit were clear on the reason for the overpayment;
• some said that while they were initially notified or questioned about an overpayment there was then no follow-up from the Department; and
• when the overpayment was initially raised, several claimants felt that they were spoken to or treated by DWP as though they had intentionally committed fraud when the overpayment had been a misunderstanding.

As a result, the research says -

'... there is room to improve claimant understanding and possibly reduce mistakes leading to overpayments by improving communications around eligibility criteria. Since claimants did not engage with the detail of their benefit regularly, possibly only considering it once a year when they received their annual letter, more frequent communications may improve clarity of knowledge around carer’s allowance.'

Other key findings include that -

• most claimants cared for close relatives, with two in five caring for a child (39 per cent), a quarter caring for a spouse or partner (25 per cent), and one in five (22 per cent) caring for a parent;
• caring was a long-term and high-intensity commitment, with half of claimants (52 per cent) spending 65 or more hours caring per week and more than half (54 per cent) caring for between 5 and 20 years;
• only 16 per cent of carer's allowance claimants were currently in paid work, tending to work part- time in lower paid jobs that they were able to fit around their caring responsibilities, with most (81 per cent) working 20 hours or less a week;
• of those not currently in paid work, seven in ten (69 per cent) said this was due to their responsibilities as a carer, with other barriers including a lack of flexible working options, claimants’ own health and confidence issues; and
• there was a lag between starting caring and claiming carer's allowance, with seven in ten claimants (70 per cent) caring for 5+ years, but only 3 in 10 (34 per cent) having claimed carer's allowance for that length of time.

For more information, see Experiences of claiming and receiving carer’s allowance from gov.uk
​
​
​
Almost 135,000 people currently have an outstanding carer's allowance debt, with more than £250 million owed in total, according to figures supplied by DWP Minister Paul Maynard
DWP Minister also confirms that women represent 68 per cent of those with an outstanding debt.
Responding to a written question in Parliament from Work and Pensions Committee Chair Stephen Timms, Mr Maynard said -

'As of 14 May 2024, the volume of people who have an outstanding carers allowance debt is 134,800 with a total value of £251 million. This figure represents the total stock and as such the total monetary amount may have been accrued over multiple years. Those who have an outstanding carers allowance debt may no longer be in receipt of the benefit.'

Mr Maynard added that -

'Women make up the majority of carer’s allowance claims, and this is reflected in the proportion of those with an outstanding carer’s allowance debt. As of 14 May 2024, there were 42,800 (32 per cent) males, 91,900 (68 per cent) females and 100 (less than 1 per cent) not identified, with an outstanding carer's allowance debt.'

The Minister also confirmed that, as of November 2023, there were more than 991,000 people in receipt of carer's allowance, consisting of around 271,000 (27 per cent) males and 720,000 (73 per cent) females.
Mr Maynard's written answer is available from parliament.uk
​
​
​
​
Total value of benefit overpayments in 2023/2024 increased to almost £10 billion, representing 3.7 per cent of benefit expenditure for the year
New DWP figures also show that official error underpayments remained at around £1 billion, and that people could have claimed more than £3 billion more 'if they had provided accurate information about their circumstances'.
In Fraud and error in the benefit system: financial year 2023 to 2024 estimates, the DWP calculates how much money it overpaid or underpaid as a percentage of total benefit expenditure for the year (£266.2bn) - for benefits including universal credit, housing benefit, personal independence payment, employment and support allowance and pension credit - and how many claims were paid an incorrect amount.
Note: the statistics no longer include estimates of claimant error underpayments as these are now published separately, as confirmed in recent DWP guidance.
In relation to incorrect payment rates across all benefits for the financial year ending (FYE) 2024, the figures show that the total rate of benefit expenditure overpaid was 3.7 per cent (£9.7bn), compared with 3.6 per cent (£8.3bn) in 2022/2023. In addition, the total rate of benefit expenditure underpaid was 0.4 per cent (£1.1bn), compared with 0.5 per cent (£1.2bn) in FYE 2023.
Looking in more detail at the figures for individual benefits, the statistics include data showing that -

• for universal credit, expenditure increased to £51.9bn in 2024 with an overpayment rate of 12.4 per cent (£6.5bn) and underpayment rate of 0.3 per cent (£180m), compared to expenditure of £43.4 bn, overpayments at 12.7 per cent (£5.5bn) and underpayments at 0.6 per cent (£240m) in FYE 2023;
• for personal independence payment (PIP), the overpayment rate was at the lowest recorded level of 0.4 per cent (£90m), compared with 1.1 per cent (£200m) in FYE 2023. However, the underpayment rate went up to 0.4 per cent (£80m), from 0.3 per cent (£60m) the previous year;
• for pension credit, the overpayment rate was 9.7 per cent (£520m) in FYE 2024, compared with 6.8 per cent (£330m) in the previous year, with underpayments remaining unchanged at 0.3 per cent (£50m) for both years; and
• for housing benefit, almost £1bn (£980m) was overpaid in FYE 2024 (6.3 per cent of expenditure), compared with £860m (5.7 per cent) in 2023. Underpayments remained stable at 0.4 per cent of spending (£50m in FYE 2024 and £60m in FYE 2023).

In addition to the fraud and error statistics, the DWP has also issued Unfulfilled eligibility in the benefit system: Financial Year Ending (FYE) 2024, in line with its decision to remove claimant underpayments from its main fraud and error estimates. The new statistics set out the percentage of benefit expenditure that could have been paid to people with unfulfilled eligibility 'if they had provided the correct information', and show key findings that include -

• the unfulfilled eligibility rate for 2024 is 1.2 per cent of expenditure (£3.1bn), compared with 1.0 per cent (£2.3bn) in the previous year; and
• universal credit, PIP and disability living allowance (DLA) account for around three-quarters of the total value of unfulfilled eligibility (at £730m, £870m and £750m respectively in FYE 2024).

The DWP highlighted that -

'PIP has the second highest unfulfilled eligibility rate [4 per cent] of all benefits and fairly high expenditure [£21.6bn], so due to this combination, PIP accounts for around one-quarter of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024. DLA has the highest unfulfilled eligibility rate [11.1 per cent] but relatively low expenditure [£6.8m], so even though its rate is higher than PIP, it accounts for a similar amount of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024. Universal credit has a lower unfulfilled eligibility rate than DLA and PIP [1.4 per cent] but its high expenditure means that it also accounts for a similar amount of total unfulfilled eligibility in FYE 2024.'

For more information, see Fraud and error in the benefit system: financial year 2023 to 2024 estimates and Unfulfilled eligibility in the benefit system: financial year 2023 to 2024 estimates from gov.uk
​
​
​
Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride has set out the DWP's plans to scale up its 'fight against fraudsters'
New measures include using machine learning to detect and prevent fraudulent claims, as well as introducing a new Bill to enable benefit fraud to be treated like tax fraud.
Issuing a written statement in the House of Commons on 13th May, Mr Stride said -

'In the continued fight against fraud, today the Government will publish a new paper setting out the progress we have made in tackling fraud and error in the welfare system - Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System: Going Further. The paper sets out the progress we have made in delivering the commitments in the Government's 2022 command paper Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System and it demonstrates where we are going further to protect taxpayers’ money from fraudsters.'

Highlighting that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, currently before Parliament, will enable the Department to work with third parties such as banks to identify claims that signal potential fraud and error, Mr Stride says that the new measures being introduced include -

• bringing forward a new Fraud Bill in the next parliament to treat benefit fraud like tax fraud, by providing for the ability to make arrests and conduct searches and seizures by warrant;
• exploring a new civil penalty to punish fraudsters, potentially broadening the scope of cases that can receive a penalty when the courts are not prosecuting, and increasing the value of the civil penalty;
• tripling the size of the Targeted Case Review programme to reach almost 6,000 staff with the aim of saving £6.6 billion by 2027/2028; and
• making changes to universal credit including new partly automated checks on self-employed income, new online prompts for claimants to re-declare their circumstances (such as if they have moved in with a partner), and increasing checks on capital when people claim the benefit to ensure they are eligible.

Note: the Department confirms that final decisions on accepting or stopping a claim will, however, continue to be made by a member of DWP staff.
For more information, see DWP updates Fraud Plan from gov.uk
In response to the above article the Disability News Service reported that the government's fraud policy paper ignores coroner’s concerns over review of disabled woman’s universal credit claim. Read the DNS article on disabilitynewsservice.com
​
​
​
Less than half of legacy benefit claimants who were sent a migration notice between July 2022 and March 2024 have made a claim for universal credit, according to new figures from the DWP
However, new DWP statistics also show that 60 per cent of households that claimed universal credit have been awarded transitional protection.
In Completing the move to Universal Credit: statistics related to the move of households claiming Tax Credits and DWP benefits to Universal Credit: data to end of March 2024, the DWP sets out figures for the period since July 2022, noting that -

'In the period covered by this bulletin, the vast majority of migration notices have been sent to tax credit households whose likelihood of claiming universal credit and receiving transitional protection may be different from DWP legacy benefit claimants, the majority of whom had not yet been sent a migration notice in the period covered in this bulletin.'

The statistics include that -

• a total of 824,050 individuals (in 540,070 households) were sent migration notices up to March 2024 - up by around 300,000 and 200,000 respectively compared to the totals for December 2023;
• a total of 400,940 individuals (49 per cent of those sent migration notices), living in 275,980 households, have made a claim for universal credit;
• of households that have claimed universal credit, 166,860 (60 per cent) have been awarded transitional protection;
• a total of 238,990 individuals who were sent migration notices are still going through the managed migration process; and
• a total of 184,120 individuals who were sent migration notices have had their legacy benefit claims closed.

Move to Universal Credit statistics, July 2022 to March 2024 is available from gov.uk
Note: the DWP has also published Universal Credit statistics, 29 April 2013 to 11 April 2024­ which show that there were 6.7 million people on universal credit in April 2024 (300,000 more than the 6.4 million in January 2024) and that half of households on universal credit that received a payment in February 2024 included children.
​
​
Department for Communities also confirms that claimants in receipt of other legacy benefits will be issued with migration notices 'in the coming months'
The Department for Communities (DfC) has confirmed that the 'Move to UC' rollout in Northern Ireland has expanded this week to include people receiving tax credits along with housing benefit.
Announcing the expansion of the process, Deputy Secretary of Work and Health at the DfC Paddy Rooney said -

'We continue to take a measured and carefully managed approach to migrating legacy benefit recipients to universal credit. We have already successfully completed issuing migration notices to tax credit only recipients and we will continue to take every step possible to ensure that everyone receives the help and support they need during this next phase of Move to UC.'

The Department also confirmed that once it has issued migration notices to all those receiving tax credits with housing benefit, the following groups will be contacted in this order -

• people claiming income support;
• people claiming housing benefit only, and those claiming child tax credit with income-related employment and support allowance (ESA); and
• people claiming income-based jobseeker's allowance.

In relation to the bringing forward of managed migration for ESA and ESA/housing benefit claimants in Great Britain, announced by the Prime Minister on 19 April 2024, the DfC says that it is working to assess the impact of this on the region. It also confirms that it will align with the DWP's aim to complete the migration of legacy benefit claimants to universal credit by March 2025.
For more information, see Tax credit with housing benefit recipients next to 'Move to UC' and Rollout of Universal Credit for Tax Credit and Legacy Benefit customers - screening from ni.gov.uk
​
​
​
57,000 adverse universal credit sanction decisions were made in January 2024, according to new DWP statistics
DWP statistics also highlight that around 95 per cent of decisions are as a result of failure to attend or participate in a mandatory interview.
In Benefit sanctions statistics to February 2024, the DWP reports on both the rate and duration of sanctions for universal credit claimants who are in conditionality regimes where they be applied.
Key findings include that -

• in February 2024, 30.1 per cent of claimants were in conditionality regimes that were subject to sanctions and, of these, 6.52 per cent were sanctioned - down 0.64 percentage points from the previous quarter;
• over the last year, 94.9 per cent of adverse sanction decisions were for failure to attend or participate in a mandatory interview; and
• in February 2024, there were 20,000 completed sanctions in the 4 weeks to 13 weeks sanction duration band, 4,800 in the over 13 weeks to 26 weeks duration band, and 4,000 of over 26 weeks duration.

In addition, while the total number of claimants in conditionality regimes where sanctions can be applied has remained largely stable since May 2022 (currently at 1.95 million), the total number of adverse sanction decisions stood at 57,000 in January 2024, the highest since March 2022.
The DWP notes that -

'Comparisons with universal credit prior to February 2024 ... should not be made. This is because the data sources, methodology and rules of the benefits differ from those used for universal credit currently.'

However, it adds that, following the reinstated duration measures and rate methodology improvements, the data is now determined stable and fit for purpose and, as of May 2024, it is published under the 'Official Statistics' label as opposed to 'in development'.
For more information, see Benefit sanctions statistics to February 2024 from gov.uk
​
​
​
DWP has admitted missing multiple opportunities to record the 'vulnerability' of a disabled woman whose death was later linked by a coroner to failings at the heart of its UC system
The Disability News Service reported on the case of Nazerine (known as Naz) Anderson, from Melton Mowbray, who died of an overdose in June last year, after receiving a UC review notice.
According to a prevention of future deaths (PFD) report sent to the department by coroner Fiona Butler, the DWP missed six opportunities to record Anderson’s “vulnerability” on its IT system while it was reviewing her universal credit claim, and had failed to act on the mental distress she showed in phone calls about her claim. It also repeatedly failed to act on requests to direct its telephone calls and letters to her daughter.
The DWP admits multiple universal credit failures before disabled woman’s death article is available on disabilitynewsservice.com
​
​
​
Number of emergency food parcels distributed across the UK by the Trussell Trust has increased by 90 per cent over the past five years
Food charity reports that it distributed more than three million parcels last year, with more than a million of them going to children.
In Emergency food parcel distribution in the UK: April 2023 - March 2024, the Trust says that it distributed 3,121,404 food parcels, the most parcels that it has ever distributed in a financial year, representing a four per cent increase on last year's record-breaking numbers for 2022/2023 and a 94 per cent increase since 2018/2019.
The charity also highlights that the number of parcels provided to children has continued to rise, exceeding 1.1 million in 2023/2024, and that food bank support is provided disproportionately to children, compared to the proportion of children in the UK population. In addition, it notes that pension age households are increasingly likely to need to use a food bank, with food bank support for these households having more than quadrupled between 2018/2019 and 2023/2024 (an increase of 345 per cent), compared to an 81 per cent rise amongst households without someone of pension age.
Also sharing statistics on the reason for referral for an emergency food parcel - which include health, benefit issues, work hour changes, insecure housing, changes in personal circumstances, immigration status and domestic abuse, as well as income and debt levels - the Trussell Trust says -

'Across all households the most common reason for referral was due to issues with income and debt levels. The vital role of the social security system in driving these trends is clear from the fact that the majority (78 per cent) of people referred to food banks were reported to solely have income from the social security system, with a further 8 per cent having earned income as well as income from social security.'

Trussell Trust Chief Executive Emma Revie said -

'It’s 2024 and we’re facing historically high levels of food bank need. As a society, we cannot allow this to continue. We must not let food banks become the new norm ... A supportive social security system is the bedrock on which we end hunger for good. Building on this, we need much more effective employment and financial support for parents, carers and disabled people, and action to ensure everyone can have the security we all need to access opportunities and have hope for the future, through more secure and flexible jobs and investment in social housing. Food banks are not the answer. They will be there to support people as long as they are needed, but our political leaders must take bold action to build a future where everyone has enough money to afford the life’s essentials. The time to act is now.'

For more information, see End of Year Stats from trusselltrust.org
​
​
​
Employment Minister Jo Churchill has provided a House of Lords Select Committee with an undertaking that the administrative earnings threshold (AET) in universal credit will not be increased again without a 'sound evidence base'
However, Minister's evidence to Lords Committee fails to address its dissatisfaction with DWP's explanation for not publishing robust evidence to support previous increases in the threshold.
Further to the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee's report on new regulations that implemented a further increase in the AET from 13 May 2024 - that criticised the ‘inexplicable’ lack of data evaluating previous increases in the threshold in September 2022 and January 2023 - the Committee held a one-off evidence session yesterday to question the Minister and DWP officials.
Introducing the session, Committee Chair Lord Hunt acknowledged that the DWP had agreed to share its informal findings supporting its AET policy. However Lord Hunt added that -

'... similar, no doubt to the material that the Social Security Advisory Committee saw but correctly declined, if information is not available to the House and the public, then we feel unable to consider it either.'

The Committee then questioned the Minister about the Department's failure to publish evidence providing an assessment of the impact of increasing the AET either before or after implementing the change.
In response, Ms Churchill highlighted that the Department did publish a randomised controlled trial evaluation in 2018 providing the highest level of evidence on the impacts of increased in-work conditionality that Ministers have had sight of. When challenged that this evidence is somewhat outdated and 'a bit threadbare' - as it has been relied on for three increases in the AET - Ms Churchill indicated that Ministers also had early sight of unpublished research (a Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) study) that compares the experiences of claimants who are just below and just above the AET.
When pressed on the expected publication dates for this and further evidence, Mr Churchill said -

'I have asked for [the RDD study] to be available as soon as it can be, and the date I was given was spring 2024 ... I would like it out the door as soon as possible, so you have more data ... RDD is the next piece, the next building block and then, the longitudinal study will come through in 2025.'

Concluding the session with a final question, Lord Hunt, speaking on behalf of the whole Committee, said -

'... we're looking for an undertaking from you, not to further expand the cohort until the Department can publish robust evidence of its effects. Are you able to give us that undertaking?

Ms Churchill responded -

'So are you alluding to us holding 15 hours or with this latest laying at 18? Because I could certainly say to you, I think with all confidence that at 18, we want to understand the iterations and make sure that we've got a sound evidence base from there.'

NB - the increase in the AET in January 2023 was based, for individuals, on the equivalent of them working 15 hours per week at the National Living Wage, and this week's increase to the equivalent of them working 18 hours per week.
Despite welcoming the Minister's reply, Lord Hunt went on to say -

'... we accept your undertaking, except we are still as dissatisfied as we were because you haven't provided, in the view of the Committee, sufficient explanation yet. We are awaiting this robust evidence, which I think that we now expect in June 2024.'

The evidence session Regulations to increase the Administrative Earnings Threshold (Legislative scrutiny) is available from parliament.tv
​
​
Work and Pensions Select Committee has called on the government to bring forward proposals to compensate women born in the 1950s who suffered as a result of the DWP's communication failures when their pension age was increased, and asks that it does so in the current parliamentary session
Committee chair highlights lengthy delay and urgency for affected women and calls on government to act on Parliamentary Ombudsman recommendations before summer recess.
Writing to Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Mel Stride, Committee Chair Stephen Timms requests government support for 'urgent action' following the Parliamentary Ombudsman's final report in March 2024 which recommended a remedy based on level 4 of its severity of injustice scale, putting awards at between £1,000 and £2,950.
Mr Timms says that the Committee does not seek to question the Ombudsman's proposal for compensation at level 4, but instead has focused on what a remedy may look like -

'The evidence we received indicated support for a rules-based system. This would be a system where payments would be adjusted within a range (based on the PHSO’s severity of injustice scale) to reflect the extent of change in the individual’s State Pension age and the notice of the change which the individual received. This would mean that the less notice you had of the change and the bigger the change in your SPA, the higher the payment you would receive. While not perfect, the advantages of such a system are that it would be: quick to administer; applying known data to a formula to determine the amount due; and relatively inexpensive (compared to a more bespoke system).'

The Committee's recommendation also includes some flexibility for individuals to make the case for further compensation in the event that they have experienced direct financial loss, for example where a woman whose divorce settlement was less than it would have been because it was based on the expectation that she would receive her state pension at 60.
Mr Timms also asks the government to consider -

'... the need for urgent action, given that the Ombudsman started to look at this issue in 2018 and that every 13 minutes a woman born in the 1950s dies ... Implementing a remedy will need parliamentary time, financial resources, and the data and technical systems only available to your department. It cannot happen without government support. We would ask you to bring forward proposals for a remedy by the summer recess.'

Mr Timms' letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is available from parliament.uk
​
​

Recently I've been trying to tackle back taxes from 2014 and 2017, the only years I owe on.
I constantly get mail (Form CP49) stating I owe a balance of ~6000 dollars.
However I'm positive this is *just* my 2014 taxes owed and its not taking into account my balance from 2016.
When I log into the IRS website it shows I owe ~20,000 for 2016, and 2014 just says "INFO" (Which can't be opened) and a big question mark icon.
So I decided to call the IRS to get a full picture of my balance. The first agent I talked to told me I owe $5,000 and some change. I was very surprised but she just said she only see's the 5k, I asked which year and she said "Let me put you on hold and find out", then 5 minutes later came back with a PIN number and told me to tell the PIN number to the collections department, then transferred me without giving me any more info.
Once I got to the collections department the agent reverified me, I gave them the PIN and then they asked why I was calling again. I explained I was trying to figure out my balance and this agent told me I had NO BALANCE DUE and she then asked why I thought I did. "I don't see any balance on your account at all" She said, then asked "Did you get a letter or something?" and I told her about my CP49 I was sent. She said 'oh okay' and put me on hold.
Next agent, gets on and tells me I owe $22,000, and by this time I don't know what to believe. I asked this agent if she could give me something official or a statement that shows exactly what I owe and she said there was nothing she could send from her end. The website tells me one number, the letters mailed to me tell me another number, and the three agents I talked to gave me 3 more different numbers. ALL of which are different than the numbers on my tax transcripts as well. My Tax transcripts as of june of this year are telling me around 27k total.
Anybody have any experiences like this? How am I supposed to know what I actually owe? How is this mess even possible from their end?
Would this be grounds for "Bad information from the IRS" penalty abatement?

Hello everyone-
I am just writing this to the group to see if anyone else has experienced this. I did my taxes on H&R Block online this year. I had a refund coming from my state return and that all went smoothly. However, I owed a hefty sum to the Feds (4K+) I completed my taxes, they were submitted and approved. I had set up an installment plan to pay taxes back. On April 15th the IRS took the WHOLE amount of my tax bill PLUS my first installment of my payment plan. Of course, this transaction was retuned by my bank for NSF. Then the IRS (person or computer who knows these days) refunded my step payment because it looked like I overpaid. They issued me a check and I cashed it. I made a double payment this month. Then, because it looked like I have paid nothing, they assessed late fees, penalty fees and interest charges close to $200. In trying to reach some live person at the IRS for a month now I finally talked to someone this week and they were able to refund the interest charge ($21) The gentlemen from the IRS said he has seen this happen to other taxpayers that have had installment plans in place and filed their taxes online with H&R Block. He described it as a "glitch" in their online software. I will have to submit a tax abatement refund form to request the waiving of the penalty and late fees. What a nightmare!! If I ever owe taxes again and cannot pay them but have to set up a payment plan, I will simply fill out my taxes and send them in like I did for 30 years before I ever started e-filing my taxes 5 years ago. It's simply not worth the headache.

I have an autosweep feature in my Chase checking account that moves money from checking to savings if the balance exceeds a certain amount. Recently, the IRS attempted to withdraw funds from my checking account, but the transaction was dishonored due to insufficient balance. I promptly paid the balance using Direct Pay the same day I discovered the issue. However, I received a penalty notice a month later. This is my first penalty, and I would like to know if I can request a First-Time Penalty Abatement over the phone. Additionally, if I decide to pay the penalty, what type of penalty should I choose on IRS Direct Pay? Should I select "Penalty" or "Balance Due"?

Alright. Hear me out. We paid our accounting firm a good amount of money last year to switch over the business from a partnership to an S corp. We were told it had been handled. The tax return should have been filed within 3 months of the partnership closing. Come to find accountants didn't do it.
A letter just came in the mail from the IRS stating that we owe $3,520 in penalties for failure to file. Accountants emailed me and let me know they realized they dropped the ball and didn't file like they were supposed to and "would do everything they can to try and get it resolved". They asked for a POA and said they would reach out to the IRS to try and get the penalty abated.
My vague understanding here is that she is going to try and use our 'First time abate' to get rid of this penalty. This doesn't seem particularly correct to me, if they completely dropped the ball on this after we paid them to handle the transition and they failed to do so, and literally emailed me telling me they didn't do their jobs, why do they get to use my IRS 'freebie'?? Am I an idiot lol.

Hi All.
I have a friend in California who's fiance said they would do her taxes in 2022 and 2023. She is a 1099 employee and we found out that he did not file either year yet. She is currently dealing with financial hardship and also looking into filing bankruptcy. Per her initial conversations with a bankruptcy lawyers she was told she needs to be up-to-date on her tax filings. In 2022 she made around $75,000 (est. $16,500 owed) and in 2023 she made around but not over $100,000 (est. $24,000 owed). I'm just using a simple calc for the estimates as I am not a tax professional.
Her fiance has said he had been looking into having her tax debts wiped out because she didn't have money to pay them and that she has been accepted (or will be) in a "Fresh Start Program". He said that this will be done when they file her taxes and that the person doing it will charge $3,500 to do her taxes and then get the debts forgiven.
I'm doing some extra research and it seems like the IRS has a program called "Offer in Compromise" but no guarantee of all the debt going away. I'm also sure she has racked up penalties and interest and it looks like she may qualify for the first time penalty abatement.
Here are some of my questions:
Is there a "Fresh Start" program?
Can she qualify for OiC and the first time penalty abatement?
Can she do this while filing for bankruptcy (her bankruptcy lawyer says he can allow the IRS to talk to her and it's fine - I just like to double-check information)?
Can she do this negotiation herself with the IRS or should she listen to her fiance and use the person who charges $3,500 and says the taxes will be wiped entirely?
I'm just having a hard time believing its super easy to pay someone $3,500 and all is forgiven. I appreciate any insight or thoughts. Thanks!

1. Can I request the ftp abatement for 2022 tax before I pay all of the tax and interest due? Or should I pay everything off first and then make the request?
   
2. It's my first time with the penalty. I understand that I need to submit form 843 to request it. However, on the statement that I just received, it states under Removal or reduction of penalties section... "We can generally process your request for penalty removal or reduction quicker if you contact us at the number listed above..."
   

If I call them, what should I expect in that convo?
TIA!

A community resource helped me file my taxes. The woman informed me I could contact a tax group who could communicate with the IRS on my behalf including discussing about any penalty abatements.
I am searching for a group like this, but cannot remember what they are called and the resources is now closed.
I’m low-income, if that’s necessary information.

I received CP14 notice for 2023 taxes. It has two penalties

1. Failure to Pay (core 6651)
2. Dishonored Check or other form of payment (6657)

I filed my taxes on time using turbo tax and put my account details for direct debit. I can see my account had enough funds at the time of the payment (Have my bank statement to prove this as well). I am not sure why the payment didn't go through and later I just went to id.me and paid everything using the same account.
They abated the failure to pay penalty over the phone but said can't abate the Dishonored Check over phone and need to send written letter.
I am not sure about the process for the letter and what address to use for it?
Can someone please help with the process if done in the past or know more about it? Also, should I pay the penalty and send the notice or wait for the outcome first? Any suggestions will be helpful.

I received CP14 notice for 2023 taxes. It has two penalties

1. Failure to Pay (core 6651)
2. Dishonored Check or other form of payment (6657)

I filed my taxes on time using turbo tax and put my account details for direct debit. I can see my account had enough funds at the time of the payment (Have my bank statement to prove this as well). I am not sure why the payment didn't go through and later I just went to id.me and paid everything using the same account.
They abated the failure to pay penalty over the phone but said can't abate the Dishonored Check over phone and need to send written letter.
I am not sure about the process for the letter and what address to use for it?
Can someone please help with the process if done in the past or know more about it? Also, should I pay the penalty and send the notice or wait for the outcome first? Any suggestions will be helpful.

TL;DR
Sent my tax forms, W2 and RE investment to my tax guy in early Feb. Confirmed he received it and said I was in the queue. April deadline passes and I email him to check and he didn't do it. Now he hasn't replied since (Apr 25) when I asked what the eta is and if he sent it.
As I mentioned I'm waiting to hear back. He did say he this, "We’ll put in for penalty abatement with the IRS if there are any penalties due to the late filing (we’ve had good luck with this in the past) and if not, we’ll pay for any late penalties that we’re responsible for. "
I emailed and called this week and been told he's busy. I can understand but when you drop the ball I feel that some transparency and communication is necessary. To avoid blowing him up and easing my mind I have a couple of questions.

1. How long does penalty abatement take?
2. Does it impact his ability to finish my taxes?
3. What are some steps I can take to ensure my taxes are filed?
4. What should I expect to receive or get notified before/after its filed?

It's my first time using him and have normally done my own via Turbotax. Thank you!

BIO: 2023 Federal taxes/Louisiana/Single/54/Male/No dependents/i do my own taxes and never had a problem/employed/not a biz owner and no side gigs other than stock market/I itemized deductions/filed all required schedule forms and all tax calculation forms/I filed on irs.gov website free fillable forms which is all automated calculations.
2023 TAX INFO: I paid $82,990 in federal taxes on a combo of payroll income and stock profits. I NEVER pay taxes quarterly, ever. Taxes owed for 2023: 97,821…taxes withheld 14,831…for stock taxes i used the proper tax calculation sheets and table…In the end I had a tax payment of 82,990. I grossed $500,003 for 2023…$103,000 was from my payroll income from my job and the rest was selling of short term and long term stock gains and also a few weekly option sales here and there. I have never made that much before in my life in the market and will never again. 2023 was an anomaly for me in the stock market.
STORY: So the other day I get a CP30 tax notice saying i am being penalized for $678 with the explanation in the letter “When you dont pay enough taxes due for the year with your quarterly estimated tax payments and you dont have enough withholding, we charge a penalty for not properly estimating your taxes.”
This notice document has 5 entries with “to” and “from” dates. Here is one example, which is the first line entry:
From date 4-15-23 to date 6-15-23……61 days…..7% rate….0.00019178 factor…..$6,801.66 principal…….$79.57 Penalty
So thats the first line..the next 3 lines below it are all from 2023 also with the last “to” date being 9-20-23. The very last entry line is for 2024, 2-15-24 to 4-12-24 with a principal of $27,206.64 and a penalty of $338.97.
All 5 lines penalty’s equal $678.12
My questions are as follows(and yes, i did call irs three times in last 48hrs and no one has been able to explain why i got this letter or answer any of my questions..i keep getting transfered to another department and im in the que for anotjer call back in an hour)
1 - I have never set up or applied to pay my taxes quarterly so how in the world am I, according to this notice, set up for quarterly payments?
2 - How can I be penalized for all of 2023 when I never set up to pay quarterly?
3 - How can I be penalized and never be notified throughout the year of 2023 OR 2024 until now in mid may 2024?
4 - Where is the IRS getting the “Principal” numbers I list above?
5 - If i dont pay my taxes till tax due date, how is the IRS calculating taxes I owe quarterly for the previous year?
6 - Why have I never gotten one of these CP30 letters in my entire life?
7 - Isnt the very last line (37) of 1040 take into consideration all the taxes I owe from payroll and stocks? Meaning if i didnt pay enough of payroll taxes, that will be revealed in line 37, correct? And in this case i had a tax payment, between payroll and stocks, $82,990 which i paid in full 4-12-24.
8 - If i didnt have enough tax withheld in my payroll tax, wouldnt that all be eventually calculated on the 1040 form line 37? (I did calculate my tax on line 16 properly)
9 - If i never set up quarterly payments, then how can the IRS calculate a penalty 4 times in 2023 and one time in 2024???
Thank you for your time to read all of this…im very confused over all of it.

MINNESOTA NUMEROLOGY DECODE

Today I will be decoding the state of Minnesota. I recently did one for Massachusetts if you would like to check that out. I will begin decoding the letters in the state letter by letter and then point of conclusive insights afterwards.
M - This is the 13th letter of the alphabet which will point to the energies of 4 which represents caution, privacy, withholding, responsibility, order, restriction, and family. A place with this letter as the first letter will likely have things in order or order will be of significance.
I - This is the 9th letter of the alphabet which brings the energy of adventure, learning, wisdom, experience, and expansion.
N - Being the 14th letter, N vibrates at the energy of 5 which is the use of responsibility being used for creative purposes. This can take place in many forms, especially when it comes to a state and not a person.
N - Being the 14th letter, N vibrates at the energy of 5 which is the use of responsibility being used for creative purposes. 5 is the number of war and combat as well.
E - 5th letter of the alphabet which points to love, joy, romance, child-like energy, and creativity. 5 is the number of war and combat as well.
S - 19th letter which vibrates at the energy of 1, but in this case, Minnesota isn't a state looking to be in control or to get too much attention since the 1 energy isn't overbearing. In this case, the 1 represents being self-motivated and capable.
O - 15th letter of the alphabet which vibrates at the energy of 6. 6 is about discipline, hospitality, compassion,etc.
T - 20th letter of the alphabet which vibrates at the energy of 2. 2 is a money number and the number of cooperation, stability, and comfort. 2 is also about compassion as well.
A - 1st letter of the alphabet which is about action, observation, and opportunity.
Based on what we have decoded regarding the letters in Minnesota, we can see that the main repetitive number and energy is 5. 5 shows up 3 times in this state's name which equals 15 and then 6 when added and reduced. This is definitely a state that focuses on discipline, balance, and fairness. Justice or the justice system could be very significant for this state. This is also good for financial purposes because maybe they avoid causing financial problems for their residents. Family and love can also be significant for this state. They may welcome outsiders more easily than Massachusetts(I did a decode for them first). When violence arrises, they most likely take care of it as soon as possible to keep the state at a balanced medium.
We have the energy of 1 only repeating twice which means that this state may be more welcoming and cooperative in general. Could be nice acts of kindness pretty often. They likely create a fair workforce and living arrangements of their residents as much as possible.
minnesota
minnesota flag
minnesota vs denver
minnesota northern lights
minnesota new flag
minnesota abbreviation
minnesota aurora borealis
minnesota aurora
minnesota ave dc
minnesota accent
amber alert minnesota
arboretum minnesota
airport in minnesota
a map of minnesota
a minnesotan view of the usa
america mall minnesota
about minnesota state
a city in minnesota
a taste of minnesota
accent minnesota
minnesota business entity search
minnesota bridge collapse
minnesota birthday
minnesota basketball score
minnesota basketball schedule
boundary waters minnesota
bring me the news minnesota
bowling green vs minnesota
minnesota congressional delegation
minnesota congressional districts
minnesota case search
minnesota court records
minnesota colleges
minnesota coach
craigslist minnesota
cities in minnesota
colleges in minnesota
casinos in minnesota
children's minnesota
counties in minnesota
covid cases minnesota
capitol of minnesota
minnesota denver
minnesota department of revenue
minnesota denver game 3
minnesota dance team
minnesota dmv
minnesota denver game
minnesota dnr
minnesota denver score
minnesota dfl
minnesota dance team dream on
delta dental of minnesota
dalvin cook minnesota vikings
dmv minnesota
delta dental of minnesota provider login
denver vs minnesota
dnr minnesota
d minnesota local rules
minnesota entity search
minnesota early voting
minnesota eye consultants
minnesota election calendar
minnesota estate tax
minnesota elevation
minnesota economics
minnesota extension payment voucher
education minnesota
explore minnesota
el nino minnesota
minnesota flag old
minnesota fishing license
minnesota flag change
minnesota flag somalia
minnesota fishing opener 2024
minnesota flag new
famous people from minnesota
flights to minnesota
fargo minnesota
feeling minnesota
flag of minnesota
fishing license minnesota
fishing regulations minnesota
from the lakes of minnesota
minnesota game
minnesota governor
minnesota game tonight
minnesota gun laws
minnesota game score
great wolf lodge minnesota
google maps minnesota
governor of minnesota
green bay vs minnesota
golf courses open in minnesota
grandview lodge minnesota
gas prices in minnesota
minnesota high school hockey
minnesota hot dish
minnesota high school hockey tournament
minnesota homes for sale
minnesota house commerce committee
minnesota hockey hair
minnesota hockey roster
how much is a minnesota fishing license
how much is a driver's license in minnesota
how is the weather in minnesota
how much are minnesota state fair tickets
high school hockey tournament minnesota
how much is unemployment in minnesota
how much is the minnesota zoo
history center minnesota
health department minnesota
minnesota income tax
minnesota inmate search
minnesota iceman
minnesota income tax calculator
minnesota id
minnesota ice fishing
minnesota insurance license lookup
minnesota indian tribes
minnesota institute of art
is weed legal in minnesota
is minnesota a state
is fargo in minnesota
injury report minnesota timberwolves
is minneapolis in minnesota
is minnesota a city
is mayo clinic in minnesota
injury report minnesota
is minnesota nice
is minnesota time zone
minnesota judiciary case search
minnesota jobs
minnesota jazz 2024
minnesota journal of law and inequality
minnesota jail roster
minnesota jail inmate search
minnesota jokes
minnesota jersey
minnesota jobs hiring
jaquan reid minnesota vikings
jobs in minnesota
jimmy butler minnesota
justin jefferson minnesota vikings
jack wilson minnesota
jefferson minnesota vikings
jail roster minnesota
jobs university of minnesota
minnesota known for
minnesota kp index
minnesota key industries
minnesota kicker
minnesota knife laws
minnesota koa
katie miller minnesota
krispy kreme minnesota
karen organization of minnesota
k bid minnesota
kipp minnesota
kevin love minnesota
kirk cousins minnesota vikings
kathleen wilson minnesota
kansas city vs minnesota
minnesota lynx roster
minnesota license plate
minnesota lakes
league of minnesota cities
lakes in minnesota
lakers vs minnesota
lakers minnesota
largest candy store in minnesota
life in minnesota
legal weed minnesota
minnesota map
minnesota multiphasic personality inventory
minnesota minimum wage
minnesota miracle
minnesota medical license lookup
map of minnesota
mayo clinic minnesota
mall of america minnesota
map of minnesota by county
minnesota twins schedule minnesota twins
minnesota news
minnesota northern lights tonight
minnesota nice
minnesota nickname
minnesota nuggets
minnesota national parks
minnesota avenue northeast, washington, dc
minnesota avenue, minnesota avenue northeast, washington, dc
new minnesota flag
near v minnesota
northern lights minnesota
new minnesota state flag
nebraska vs minnesota
nebraska vs minnesota prediction
national parks in minnesota
minnesota old flag
minnesota on map
minnesota obituaries by last name
minnesota on us map
minnesota old and new flag
minnesota oncology
minnesota outline
minnesota original flag
old minnesota flag
ohio state vs minnesota
owls in minnesota
offender locator minnesota
outline of minnesota
open golf courses minnesota
obituaries minnesota
obituaries at minnesota valley funeral home
minnesota pdab
minnesota prescription drug affordability board
minnesota pronunciation
minnesota power outage
minnesota primary
minnesota pfas law
pwhl minnesota
property tax refund minnesota
pwhl minnesota schedule
pbr minnesota
pwhl minnesota roster
population of minnesota
powerball minnesota
paycheck calculator minnesota
public records minnesota
minnesota qb
minnesota quarterback
minnesota quarter error
minnesota quarter
minnesota qb depth chart
minnesota quality of life
minnesota quad 1 wins
minnesota quilt show
minnesota quarter value
minnesota quotes
quinnipiac vs minnesota
quarterback minnesota vikings
quilt minnesota 2023
quietest room in the world minnesota
qb minnesota
qamaria coffee minnesota
quarterback for minnesota
quarterback for minnesota vikings 2023
qb minnesota gophers
quarterback for university of minnesota
minnesota reddit
minnesota real estate
minnesota rokkr
minnesota retractor
minnesota rule 220
minnesota revenue
minnesota roster
retina consultants of minnesota
real id minnesota
rochester minnesota weather
rochester minnesota mayo clinic
renaissance festival minnesota
minnesota state flag
minnesota state fair
minnesota senators
minnesota score
minnesota state bird
minnesota state flag old
minnesota state seal
state of minnesota jobs
secretary of state minnesota
state fair minnesota
state parks in minnesota
secretary of state minnesota business search
minnesota timberwolves roster
minnesota timberwolves vs denver nuggets
minnesota time zone
minnesota time
minnesota timberwolves score
minnesota twins schedule
minnesota twins games
minnesota timberwolves coaching staff
time in minnesota
twins minnesota
the university of minnesota
the minnesota vikings
the science museum of minnesota
the minnesota zoo
twins minnesota games
the minnesota wild
the new minnesota flag
minnesota unemployment
minnesota united standings
minnesota urolith center
minnesota unclaimed property
minnesota united fc players
minnesota united schedule
university of minnesota duluth
unclaimed property minnesota
university of minnesota dance team
unemployment benefits minnesota log in
university of minnesota acceptance rate
university of minnesota jobs
minnesota vikings news
minnesota vs denver game 3
minnesota vs nuggets
minnesota vikings quarterback
minnesota vikings games
minnesota vikings roster
minnesota vikings depth chart
valley fair minnesota
vrbo minnesota
vehicle registration minnesota
vikings minnesota 2022
vikings minnesota schedule
vikings minnesota stadium
vikings minnesota quarterback
minnesota weather
minnesota wild games
minnesota wild roster
minnesota weather today
minnesota wild logo
minnesota wild jersey
weather in minnesota
where is minnesota on the map
when is the minnesota state fair
where is the university of minnesota
where is duluth minnesota
where is minnesota state university
www.craigslist.org minnesota
wild minnesota roster
www.minnesota vikings.com
minnesota xfl team
minnesota xcel energy
minnesota xtreme
minnesota xray license
minnesota xc
minnesota xc world cup
xcel energy minnesota
xcel energy rates minnesota
xcel energy rebates minnesota
xcel energy customer service minnesota
xfinity woodbury minnesota
xfinity minnesota
xanadu island minnesota
xperience fitness minnesota
xcel center minnesota
xkcd minnesota
minnesota yacht club
minnesota yacht club festival lineup
minnesota youth hockey
minnesota yacht club festival tickets
minnesota yacht club lineup
minnesota youth hockey rankings
minnesota youth symphonies
minnesota yacht club festival reddit
minnesota yearly weather
minnesota youth hockey tournaments
yellow birds in minnesota
yuengling beer minnesota
yum's carryout minnesota ave
ymca alexandria minnesota
ymca minnesota
youtubers that live in minnesota
yacht club festival minnesota
youtube minnesota vikings
yoga retreat minnesota
minnesota zip code
minnesota zoo tickets
minnesota zoo map
minnesota zillow
minnesota zoo hours
minnesota zoo website
minnesota zip
minnesota zoo membership
minnesota zip code map
zillow minnesota
zoos in minnesota
zach evans minnesota
zara minnesota
zach bryan minnesota
zip code minnesota
zip code for minneapolis minnesota
zorbas minnesota
minnesota 04 timberwolves
mn-03
mn 01
mn 02
mn 02 rto
mn 01 rto code
mn 01 rto
mn 07
0 apr car deals minnesota
03-04 minnesota timberwolves
073 gang minnesota
05 minnesota quarter error
0 minnesota vikings
007 street minnesota
02-03 minnesota wild
07 minnesota timberwolves
0 minnesota basketball
03 minnesota roster
minnesota 10000 lakes
minnesota 10 day forecast
minnesota 1979 murders
minnesota 1987 murders fargo
minnesota 1858 quarter 2005 value
minnesota 1987 murders wikipedia
minnesota 1099 filing requirements
minnesota 1987 murders
1998 minnesota vikings
1st minnesota
1987 minnesota twins
1991 minnesota twins
15 fun facts about minnesota
1969 minnesota vikings
1991 minnesota twins roster
1987 minnesota twins roster
1998 minnesota vikings roster
1999 minnesota vikings
minnesota 220 rule
minnesota 2006 murders
minnesota 2016 election results politico
minnesota 2020 election results politico
minnesota 247
minnesota 2024 elections
minnesota 2019 fargo
minnesota 2019 murders
minnesota 2024 polls
2022 minnesota vikings
2024 minnesota primary elections dates
2019 minnesota twins
2023 minnesota vikings schedule
2024 minnesota twins schedule
2023 minnesota state fair
2022 minnesota vikings schedule
2023 minnesota vikings draft picks
2019 minnesota fargo
2023 minnesota vikings roster
minnesota 3 canoe
minnesota 30 day forecast
minnesota 32
minnesota 3 interesting facts
minnesota 3.2 beer law
minnesota 3.2 beer
minnesota 3 largest cities
minnesota 3 day fishing license
3 interesting facts about minnesota
35w bridge collapse minnesota
3924 minnesota ave ne
3601 minnesota drive
332 minnesota street
3rd degree dwi minnesota penalty
30 day notice to vacate minnesota
3rd degree dwi minnesota
3.2 beer minnesota
minnesota 45
minnesota 40 man roster
minnesota 4h
minnesota 4th degree dwi
minnesota 4d program
minnesota 4th grade ski pass
minnesota 400
45 tv minnesota
445 minnesota street
4 day school week minnesota
4058 minnesota avenue ne
4 year colleges in minnesota
4020 minnesota ave ne
4th degree dwi minnesota
411 minnesota
4100 minnesota drive
49ers vs minnesota
minnesota 511
minnesota 529 tax deduction
minnesota 5th district map
minnesota 509
minnesota 529 login
minnesota 5 day forecast
minnesota 550 trap
minnesota 5th district primary 2024
511 minnesota
511 minnesota road conditions
5 officers shot in minnesota
5 cops shot in minnesota
5 police officers shot in minnesota
50 largest lakes in minnesota
5 interesting facts about minnesota
5k minnesota
529 plan minnesota
5 states that border minnesota
minnesota 61
minnesota 610
minnesota 609.52
minnesota 6th district map
minnesota 61st district
minnesota 6 flags
minnesota 61a candidates
minnesota 6th grade basketball rankings
69th and minnesota
66 minnesota vikings
6 flags minnesota
6a football minnesota
654 minnesota street
6701 s minnesota ave
6601 s minnesota ave
680 minnesota ave san jose
6709 s minnesota ave
6010 s minnesota ave
minnesota 7 day forecast
minnesota 7 digit tax id
minnesota 7/11
minnesota 7 county metro area
minnesota 72a.201
minnesota 7 layer salad
minnesota 78s
minnesota 7th grade math standards
72-hour psychiatric hold minnesota
7 eleven minnesota
7600 s minnesota ave
76ers vs minnesota
7 wonders of minnesota
700 minnesota ave
75 minnesota ave warwick ri
7 on 7 football minnesota
72-hour mental health hold minnesota
7141 galpin blvd chanhassen minnesota
minnesota 80008 district sales tax
minnesota 8 seconds
minnesota 8th circuit court of appeals
minnesota 80s bands
minnesota 8th circuit
minnesota 8th grade science standards
minnesota 8 districts
minnesota 88s
800 nicollet mall in minneapolis minnesota
81 minnesota slang terms
811 minnesota
84 minnesota vikings
85th and minnesota
87 minnesota vikings
8134 oakmere road in bloomington minnesota
8221 minnesota ave
822 n minnesota ave
8 seconds minnesota
minnesota 911
minnesota 988
minnesota 988 fee
minnesota 97.5
minnesota 93
minnesota 9th judicial district
minnesota 911 calls
minnesota 990 filings
minnesota 9 news
minnesota 9th grade state wrestling
90 day weather forecast for minnesota
988 minnesota
90 day fiance minnesota
90 degree days in minnesota 2023
98.1 minnesota's new country
97 minnesota vikings
99 minnesota vikings
9900 shelard parkway plymouth minnesota
9590 minnesota st
901 minnesota street

Hello! I'm in an odd situation and need some advice. Hope this is acceptable on this sub, if it's the wrong place for something like this please feel free to delete.
After submitting my taxes for 2022 last year, I got a very large penalty bill for late payment. I was confused, and went back to my accountant, who told me that he had filed in late April but had requested an extension. He said that the fee was because I hadn't been paying quarterly taxes for my business, but that it was likely it could be removed and that he would file an abatement.
About six months passed, and I kept getting escalating notices from the IRS and state saying they would seize my property my I don't pay. I was getting nervous, but my accountant assured me it was just taking a while for them to process the abatement request. I asked for a copy of the abatement request, and he sent me one dated around the time he said he filed it.
I keep getting these escalating notices, and today I finally called the IRS about it. (I should have done it sooner.) They said the fee is just for late filing, that that no extension had ever been filed, and that my taxes were not filed until June 6th. (My accountant had said they were filed before the end of April.) They also said they had never received any abatement request at all.
There are some other weird red flags with my accountant. He's been preparing my taxes for 10 years, but two years ago he stopped with with H&R Block and went solo, and things have been weird. Just this past April, he ghosted on my entirely while I was waiting for him to file -- he finally showed back up on April 15th, after I sent him increasingly frantic and angry emails, and filed (supposedly?) on time. He's just seemed messy in general lately.
He insists that he did file the extension and the abatement, and that this is just the IRS being behind and being a mess. He says there's no way can prove he filed the request for abatement, but he sent me the letter, which is dated from November. (Of course, that's just a date on a piece of paper, he could have written it today.) He says he can prove he filed the extension, but he hasn't shown me anything yet.
I'm nervous about this and not sure how to proceed. Is it at all realistic that the IRS would have missed the request for extension and the request for abatement? My late filing fees are over $10,000 between state and federal. Does anyone have any advice on what might be happening here, and what I should do?
Thanks so much, I appreciate this subreddit. Sorry again if this is not the right place for a cry for help!

Hello! I'm in an odd situation and need some advice.
After submitting my taxes for 2022, I got a very large penalty bill for late payment. I was confused, and went back to my accountant, who told me that he had filed in late April but had requested an extension. He said that the fee was because I hadn't been paying quarterly taxes for my business, but that it was likely it could be removed and that he would file an abatement.
About six months passed, and I kept getting escalating notices from the IRS and state saying they would seize my property my I don't pay. I was getting nervous, but my accountant assured me it was just taking a while for them to process the abatement request. I asked for a copy of the abatement request, and he sent me one dated around the time he said he filed it.
I keep getting these escalating notices, and today I finally called the IRS about it. (I should have done it sooner.) They said the fee is just for late filing, that that no extension had ever been filed, and that my taxes were not filed until June 6th. (My accountant had said they were filed before the end of April.) They also said they had never received any abatement request at all.
There are some other weird red flags with my accountant. He's been preparing my taxes for 10 years, but two years ago he stopped with with H&R Block and went solo, and things have been weird. Just this past April, he ghosted on my entirely while I was waiting for him to file -- he finally showed back up on April 15th, after I sent him increasingly frantic and angry emails, and filed (supposedly?) on time. He's just seemed messy.
I'm nervous about this and not sure how to proceed. My late filing fees are over $10,000 between state and federal. Does anyone have any advice on what might be happening here, and what I should do?
Thanks so much, I appreciate this subreddit.

In February, we filed an electronic 1040 and scheduled our tax payment on 04/15....and then of course 2 days later got a single late 1099 form....so filed an amended return (1040X) with a slightly higher updated payment amount scheduled for 04/15. Based on the instructions from H&R Block software, we were led to believe the 1040X would overwrite / supersede our 1040 (so the first payment wouldn't be taken). We all know where this is going....
Imagine our surprise when 2 payments of basically the same amount were attempted to be taken from the IRS on 04/15. The first (for the amended return) was taken but the second (for the original return) bounced. I figured all was good and they got their full payment on time.
Today received a CP14 notice asking me to pay a 2% penalty for "dishonored check". I called and talked to 2 agents and got 2 different answers - (1) I should have known the amended return would take a long time (currently 20 weeks apparently) to process and shouldn't have sent any payment with the amended return and (2) A person who tried to waive the penalty but said she could not because my account was open waiting for the amended return approval and either way, she doesn't have access to waive returned check fees.
I read I can request Penalty Relief for Reasonable Cause by sending in a letter with my "608C notice", but I never received that (only the CP14). I also saw I can file an 843 (Request for Abatement) but not sure where to send it - just put in the envelope I got with my CP14 letter? The CP14 letter has a deadline of May 27 so only 2-weeks turn around before more penalties/ interest could accrue so wonder if I should send in payment in the meantime in case they reject all attempts.
Seems like since we paid in full on time this should be a no-brainer, especially since I can't control they are so far behind on accepting amended returns (electronically filed at that!). Anyone else have ideas or suggestions?

This website I built is for a client that does the below services:
IRS Fresh Start Program
IRS Payment Plans
Tax Settlement and Negotiation
Offer in Compromise
Tax Lien and Levy Release
IRS Tax Debt Relief
Penalty Abatement
State Tax Relief
Help with Unfiled Taxes
Filing or Amending Tax Returns
Audit Assistance
Innocent Spouse Relief
Business Tax Consulting
Small Business Tax Solutions
I need user experience feedback!

I had to file an amended return for my son because of a couple of 1099’s that were mailed out very late. Per the amended return he owed $757. His original return refund was for $3423. Within 2 weeks of filing the amended return he received his original refund amount. They sent the $757 in with the voucher they printed with said amended well before the April 15th deadline. April 12th he gets a voucher in the mail saying he owes $1115.55 from his requested amended return. He called the irs and thankfully got right through and the agent tells him the difference, $358.55, is a penalty for not sending in his estimated quarterly tax payments that he had checked in his return (nothing was checked). We end up taking it to a tax professional and she couldn’t figure out why he would be assessed a penalty and she then calls the irs and gets the exact answer saying estimated taxes weren’t sent in like they should have. The tax professional tries telling the agent he wouldn’t owe estimated taxes but gets no where. My son went on and paid it even though he disagrees and we are wondering is there not anything that can be done to get a definitive answer as to the penalty? He has always gotten 1099’s in the past and this has never been an issue because his and his wife’s w-2 jobs more than cover what tax he would owe from these small side jobs. His total additional income from the amended was approximately $3223. Why would a penalty be assessed on the amended but wasn’t assessed on the original. The original had 1099’s also with the total for all being $7113 extra income. I would also like to note the tax professional told the agent she’s always been under the impression that no penalty would be assessed for a liability under $1000 and said agent said she had never heard of that. Also first agent tried to do an abatement was he was denied. It just stinks that he’s had to pay a penalty for something no would can exactly tell him what it’s from. Anyone have any insight?

(To get specs out of the way: Ryzen 5900X, 64GB ECC 3200MHz RAM, Samsung 990 Pro NVMe SSDs)
Hi there,
I've been noticing that my NVMe SSD-backed ZFS pool has been underperforming on my TrueNAS Scale setup, significantly so given the type of storage backing it. Investigating I found nothing wrong, until I decided to disable compression, and saw read speeds go up literally 30x.
I have been using zstd (which means zstd-3 I believe), as I had assumed my processor would be more than enough to compress and decompress without bottlenecking my hardware too much, but perhaps I'm wrong. However, I would've expected lz4 to definitely NOT bottleneck it, but it still does, so I'm thinking something else may be going on as well.
Quick methodology on my tests: I took a 4GB portion of a VM disk, and wrote that sample into each dataset (each with different compression settings). For read speeds, for each dataset, I flushed ARC and read the file using dd in 1MB chunks. For write speeds, for each dataset, I flush the ARC, read from the uncompressed dataset a bunch of times, then dd from the uncompressed dataset to the one being tested, with 1M blocks, and with conv=fdatasync. I flushed ARC on each test just to give it a real world scenario, but I started noticing that flushing or no flushing the results were nonetheless very similar (which is weird to me as I had assumed that ARC contained uncompressed data).
So, for the results:
Reads: zstd: 181 MB/s zstd1: 190 MB/s zstd2: 175 MB/s zstd3: 181 MB/s zstd4: 168 MB/s zstd5: 168 MB/s zstd10: 183 MB/s zstdfast: 282 MB/s zstdfast1: 283 MB/s zstdfast2: 296 MB/s zstdfast3: 312 MB/s zstdfast4: 321 MB/s zstdfast5: 333 MB/s zstdfast10: 403 MB/s lz4: 1.5 GB/s no compression: 6.2 GB/s
Writes: zstd: 684 MB/s zstd1: 946 MB/s zstd2: 930 MB/s zstd3: 682 MB/s zstd4: 656 MB/s zstd5: 593 MB/s zstd10: 375 MB/s zstdfast: 1.0 GB/s zstdfast1: 1.0 GB/s zstdfast2: 1.2 GB/s zstdfast3: 1.2 GB/s zstdfast4: 1.3 GB/s zstdfast5: 1.4 GB/s zstdfast10: 1.6 GB/s lz4: 2.1 GB/s no compression: 2.4 GB/s
The writes seem... okay? Like, my methodology isn't perfect, but they seem quite good? The reads, however, seem atrocious. Why is even lz4 failing to keep up? Why is zstd being -SO- bad? So I thought, well, maybe writes are being much faster because they get to compress in parallel since I'm writing 1MB chunks on a 128KB recordsize dataset and only sync at the end but even using dd with 128KB block sizes and forcing all writes to be synchronous, writes take a 10 to 20% speed penalty but are still much faster than reads.
So... what the heck is going on? Does anyone have any suggestions on what I could try? Is this a case of decompression being single-threaded and compression being multi-threaded, or something similar?
Thanks!