ILNews

IndyBar: Pro Bono Opportunity Available for Tax Practitioners

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Have you found yourself wanting to use your tax knowledge to benefit members of the community? Wouldn’t it be great if there was a way? Now there is! The Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic (NCLC) has partnered with the IndyBar Tax Section to create a unique opportunity for tax practitioners to use their tax knowledge in a new way.

NCLC’s Low-income Tax Clinic (LITC) has operated since 2002, providing pro bono representation to low-income taxpayers in disputes with the Internal Revenue Service. It also conducts outreach and tax education to low-income and English-as-a-second-language (ESL) taxpayers.

In 2013, the LITC worked to resolve tax issues and provided legal counsel for 548 low-income taxpayers in Indiana. It negotiated with the IRS to stop levies, withdraw liens, set up workable payment plans, accept offers in compromise, resolve identity theft/tax preparer fraud issues, abate penalties as well as obtain favorable exam results and tax court settlements for the clinic’s clients. In doing so, LITC saved low-income neighbors a total of $263,266 in corrected tax liabilities and dollars refunded in 2013. The clinic also conducted 278 live tax education workshops for low-income and ESL taxpayers in Indiana to help them going forward.

LITC volunteers help on several fronts. Here are some of the current needs:

Tax Return Preparation: Most of our low-income neighbors who face tax controversies with the IRS have stopped filing their tax returns, and the IRS requires that taxpayers be in filing compliance before the IRS will consider most collection alternatives (payment plans, offers in compromise, etc.). Helping to get clients in filing compliance is one need.

Offers-in-Compromise (OIC): In recent years, the IRS has streamlined its offer-in-compromise program. The acceptance rate a few years ago was a meager 20 percent. Today, it is nearly 80 percent. Helping LITC file more OICs for clients is another need.

Litigation: The clinic does not have many cases that require litigation, but when it does, it would like to have some volunteers with tax court litigation experience to call upon.

Tax Experts: It would be helpful to have tax experts who can be called for short teleconferences to discuss new and complex tax issues that are encountered.

If this opportunity piques your interest, consider joining the NCLC/LITC in seeking justice and helping our low-income neighbors navigate the IRS. To sign up , email Dee Dee Gowan, Senior Attorney and Low-income Tax Clinic Director at NCLC, at dgowan@nclegalclinic.org.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT