who should file a 1099a for checks dollars credit use and paymanets and utility bills

Who Should File Form 1099-A Based on Facts, Definitions, and IRS Instructions?

Form 1099-A, titled “Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property,” is utilized for the “Abandonment” or “Acquisition” of secured property. The IRS directives from 2022 state:

“Use Form 1099-A, Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property, when you lend money in connection with your trade or business and you either acquire an interest in property that is security for the debt, or you know that the property has been abandoned. This reporting requirement applies even if you are not in the business of lending money.”

The IRS further clarifies that “Property” encompasses: “real property (like a personal residence), any intangible property, and tangible personal property, with certain exceptions.”

1099a instructions from IRS included ANY INTANGIBLE secured property

This leads us to evaluate three key concepts: “Intangible Property,” “Interest,” and “Security.”

Intangible Property” is defined as property that doesn’t have intrinsic and marketable value on its own but represents or evidences value, such as stock certificates, bonds, promissory notes, checks, dollars/federal reserve notes, credit, debt instruments, UCC1 Filings, and franchises.

Interest,” particularly in relation to Property, is a broad term covering rights and claims to lands or chattels.

Security” and “Securities” refer to evidences of debts or property rights and obligations to pay money or participate in earnings and distribution of corporate, trust, and other property assets.

Therefore, when the IRS refers to “obligations” in Form 1099-A, it includes, but is not limited to, promissory notes, deeds, liens, checks, federal reserve notes, deposits, credit payments and use (like car payments, credit card payments, utility bills, etc.).

So, revisiting the IRS instructions with this understanding:

“File Form 1099-A for each borrower if you, in your trade or business, lend money and, as full or partial satisfaction of the debt, acquire an interest in property that serves as security for the debt, or have reason to believe the property has been abandoned. This reporting requirement applies even if you are not primarily in the business of lending money.”

In summary, the filing of a 1099-A is mandatory not just for those in the lending business. It’s required if you have acquired or abandoned any secured property, such as promissory notes, deeds, liens, checks, federal reserve notes, deposits, credit payments and use (like car payments, credit card payments, utility bills, etc.).

Leave your vote

45933 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Screen Shot 2025 02 19 at 1.22.22 PM

KEVIN WALKER Estate Demands Writ of Mandamus as Riverside Federal Court Engages in Corruption, Record Tampering, and Obstruction of Justice

The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!