When a bank or credit card company forgives part of a debt, the IRS claims that the debt forgiveness portion is considered income, and they tax you on that amount.
Well, if I have an agreement in writing from Chase Bank, and they then CHANGE THE TERMS by RAISING THE MONTHLY MINIMUM PAYMENT by 150%, my pre-allocated monthly and yearly budgets have been reduced beyond my control.
Since Chase Bank's change in terms will now result in my having less spendable income, should I not be able to claim an additional tax deduction for my loss of spendable income?
If debt is forgiven, the government wants to tax you. If a debt is ACCLERATED in the paying of it back, should not the debtor get a tax break as well? Any clever CPA's out there who could figure out how to stick it back to both the government and Chase Bank so they might have a little bit more motivation in stopping the Chase Bank attack against middle america and customers who were NEVER LATE making their payments and WERE NOT given an OPT OUT option when Chase Bank suddenly changes terms?
Go one step farther. Doesn't Chase Bank have a BIGGER TAX OBLIGATION to the goverment by forcibly accelerating their payments back from their customers? Doesn't that perhaps put them in a higher tax bracket?
There are a lot of really awful tax rules that hurt people, and in this instance, it seems to me those same rules should be applied to Chase Bank. Chase Bank's tax obligations should increase while their customers tax obligation decreases. Isn't that how it works when we cash in our stock market gains. (ahem, pretend you had some). Isn't Chase Bank cashing in their credit card offerings for a faster return? Doesn't that trigger some kind of tax liability from the government?
Just wondering.
