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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT