Talk:Refund anticipation loan

message: Where are the 'supporter' arguements drawn from? 
For example, supporters supposedly say that: "loans allow people access to funds immediately in cases of an emergency such as overdue medical bills, credit payments, and other debts while they wait for the IRS to process their income tax return" & "high fees are justified by the high risk associated with these loans, since there is a possibility that the IRS will issue a reduced refund or none at all, depending on whether the taxpayer followed the correct procedures in calculating his or her tax".   
Any citations for these statements? Are is this just hearsay?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Econmists (talk • contribs) 06:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: :The Refund Anticipation Loan system was first invented, developed and implemented in Virginia Beach, Virginia by an accountant named Ronald Smith in 1985 and was quickly copied by major tax firms across the United States and the world.
There is ample media coverage on Ronald Smith on CNN, Dateline, USA Today, etc.  --Cool10191 (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronald Smith 

message: I added an NPOV tag to this article because I only see one sentence that talks about the support for this product.  Everthing else in this article seems to be against the marketing or sale of this product.
I work for a tax preparation company, and do not push these on people, though we offer them.  I explain to a customer all of their options, and let them chose the one that best fits their needs.  The Georgetown study that is referenced in the article states in the Executive Summary that there are people who need this type of product, and, for the most part, they are the ones buying it.
I welcome all discussion on this topic.  Thanks.--Keith 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article needs more positive info to balance the criticisms; please go ahead and add information supporting this product, with references. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-23 01:02Z
I notice that the neutrality tag has apparently been on the article for quite a while. I don't see a strong need for the tag at this point. Any comments, anyone? Famspear 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is sufficiently neutral now, though not perfect, so I've gone ahead and removed the NPOV tag. fsiler (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I have added several citations to this page.
One in particular - the one where it says certain banks are stopping pre-seasons loans because of pressure is definitely inaccurate. They are stopping the products because they are very unprofitable and because they are loosing money on them.
I work in the lending industry and I hear things.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool10191 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the effort, Cool10191, but blanketing an article with citation tags isn't nearly as useful as doing some quick googling and comparing the rates, for example, or adding a quick link about withholding. fsiler (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I add citations to parts that I am quite certain are incorrect. For instance who ever figured these APRs used 10 days for the repayment date, when it is actually a minimum of 14 days at all RAL banks. And as i have said again and again, APR is not fair to categorize these products, it is a finance charge. If the person defaults and does not pay the loan back there is no interest, it is a one time fee! So what about the peopel who take the bank for a ride and take 10000, get charged $135 and do not pay it back until next year when they get another RAL? Then they jsut got a RAL for 1.35% interest rate, right? You never calculate an accurate APR when the repayment date is variable. 10 days is the absolute easiest the IRS will deposit, 14 days is the average, and 21 days is the theoretical "Max". I obviously cannot re-write this article because I am not at all neutral. But I am bringing it to your attention so someone else will.Cool10191 (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sure that someone who pays back a year later is going to have substantial finance charges from the bank, but that's a tangential issue.  The main, and undisputed, point is that the effective cost of capital for an RAL is exceptionally high.  fsiler talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No actually, there is no additional charge for defaulting on the loan on any of the five, soon to be four, RAL banks, that is the difference between a finance fee and an actual loan interest rate. And that it costs a high APR, as I said is unfair and APRs are not intended by the FDIC to be used as a means of regulating short term loans. It is argued that high RALs are somehow translated to high profit margins, price gouging, or the like. The profit on a typical RAL is 15-20% of the total fee. That does not seem very outrageous to me. The price of a RAL is high enough for the bank to turn a FAIR profit, as is set forth by the FDIC. If the profit from a RAL was in violation of FDIC rules then they would be shut down.Cool10191 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand your point.  I find it hard to believe that there are no additional charges for late payment.  In any event, in the average, intended case, the interest rate imputed from the costs incurred is still extremely high, which tends to be the case with any kind of short-term time value of money problem (the implied interest rate on a 2/10, net 30 payment arrangement is 44.6%, for example).  If you can produce reliable sources for your information then we should rewrite the article to explain the terms better.  I was unable to locate any contracts for these loans online. fsiler (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: My original comment was the inaccuracy of the statement about offer RALs prior to January. That is incorrect. The other thing i said was the article computed APRs at 10 days repayment, not 14, and although it is still high, it is significantly lower that the currently listed APRs. And I do have a loan contract that I am getting this info off of. And no, there is not additional fees for late payment, RALs are not a typical loan. Cool10191 (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine, produce sources for these and we'll fix the article: as I said earlier, adding a bunch of blank citations isn't terribly useful.  What are the nominal rates from the banks (I would imagine it's prime plus quite a bit)?  If you have a source for those we can compute an effective rate over a one year term, for example, though it needs to be clear that it's not a representative case.  fsiler (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please only add existing examples quoted from objective, third-party sources meeting WP:RS. Computing rates from an external source to provide a unique example as suggested above is original research; Wikipedia articles reflect what's already out there; not content cobbled together to form/support original assertions. And please note that primary sources do not meet the criteria for sourcing content per WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flowanda, I don't believe you understand the policy on primary sources. When getting base numbers, or base information the primary source is the preferred source to use - read the policy. It is in the different interpretations of the primary sources that a third party source is useful. If you are siting the  population of a town do you site the census beauro or a book about the the census beauro report? You would only cite the book if you were talking about the "impact" of the information in the report. It is when you rely on "interpretations" to explain the orignal data is when you run the risk using inaccurate figures and information because you are getting the information second hand. This is no different.Cool10191 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Time value of money solutions are not "research", but the issue here is that I didn't make my point clearly: what I meant to convey is that in order to support claims made by Cool10191, such as the one above regarding effective cost of capital in a situation where one pays back a loan a year later, sources are needed.  I don't think there's satisfactory evidence to even support the implied interest rates stated in this article; the only way to know them for sure is to find a reliable source for the cash flows and associated timings involved and compute the implied interest rate.  I stand by my objection to adding blank citations all over this article, though of course I agree with the necessity of external sources. fsiler (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations added 

message: Hey guys here is a chase bank application: . Interest rates are sited on the app. In the case of chase they use 11 days as the repayment date, that is theoretically the earliest the irs will deposit. (this is not the case in 5% of returns being proccesed by CADE) Also see the IRS refund cycle chart, . The repayment date is variable between 10-21 days, some calculate it at 10 days because that reflects the highest possible number when the average repayment date would be more like 14 days (this does drop the apr number significantly). And, technically repayment at 10 days would be based on ACH Pre-notes, not actual funding, that might be noteworthy too - no online reference for that, but when money is ACHed, as anyone in banking knows, it does clear the fed for about 2 days, however you do receive pre-notes the same day, typically. This is the only bank application i can find online. I wish i could link the bank apps of Republic Bank and Trust and RCB Tax Division, their rates are based on 14 day repayment periods. I am not sure what SBBT bases theirs on. As far a fee on defaulting, I have checked that out; also stated in the chase application there is no static fee but a 16%+prime apr charged to balances outstanding after 90 days so in extreme cases the repayment APR could be based on 90 days, which would lower it to the point of less than 10% anually in some cases. SBBT and HSBC no longer charge any fee like that due to lawsuits. I will look for those court records, they were sued in california. RCB Tax Division and RBT refund solutions never charged defaulting fees. Also when you calculate the APRs be sure to note on the application (the same as the other banks) that they charge a standard fee for each product they process, including non-loan products like RACs or RADs, so using standing lending standards that fee should not be calculated into the APR imho. Expressed as apr, rates are still high, between 40% and 200% apr, but still lower than what is stated in calculations in this article. And fisler, thank you understand that adding and subtracting is not original research. :) I think it ok to calculate the APR at 10 days, but i think 14 days is better, and at the least it should be mentioned that repayment date is variable , the apr could fluctuate by about 35% depending on what day they file their taxes even though the fee paid is the same. My central point here is that the repayment date is variable, therefore the APR fee is not static and should be represented as such in the article. And secondly, in the case of defaulted loans no penalty is applied by chase until 90 days, so in that situation it is a 90 day loan, not 10, and the fee is still the same. While the other banks do not charge any fee at all. For these two reason I think it is entirely unfair to use APRs to describe the fees without in someway explaining the repayment process and repayment date being variable, etc. (the banks don't need to charge late fees or press for collections, the losses are expected and recovery is built into the fee structure.) 
Let me put it this way, maybe will make it clearer: If a person does their taxes on Friday then the apr is say 100%, if they had did it the day before on thursday it would have been 60%, if the IRS has to double check their return (common) then there is another 7 day delay and apr is now 30%, if direct deposit is not honored (not uncommon) then there is another 10 day wait APR is 20%, if their eic is audited (about 20% are) then there is a 3 week delay - apr is now about 12%, if they falsified information and get to refund, (according to chase) they are not responsible for repayment for 90 days, now their apr is about 8%. You see, the APR fluctuates quite a bit, even though the fee they pay is th exact same dollar amount.
fsiler I do see your point about adding blank citations, but I did that so the reader would know that those statements are possible inaccurate since they are not sourced (and I am quite certain they are incorrect) See my posts below.
Cool10191 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Annual Percentage Rate Discussion

message: I removed the content of this section as it seems to only promote info and links that would not survive in main article without WP:RS and provides no real concrete ways for uninvolved editors to make changes. As discussed before, the talk page should be about improving the article, not discussing the subject or skirting WP:COI issues. Flowanda | Talk 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see that that trying to show the rise of RAL prices being related the consolidation of the indsutry is oringal research. But it is reality. I will let that one go.  :)  Cool10191 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Banking position

message: This is innaccurate: "RAL fees are generally calculated as 3% of the loan, while credit card advance fees vary from 2-5% of the amount advanced, making them clearly comparable." Only Chase Bank calculates the fees based on 3% of the loan. SBBT calculates on a variable precentage based on the refund amount between 1.07% and 2.5%. The other two banks in charge tiered fees based on the refund amount. tiered: http://www.rcbral.com/pricing.html, https://www.republicrefund.com/Products/Pricing.aspx. Chase and SBBT don't list their pricing but i can upload pdfs of their brochures. Not sure if that is against wiki rules though.. 
:I don't see that this entry has been corrected yet. Please look at the links, they links directly to two of the 4 ral banks. Their fees are NOT based on 3% of the loan amount, in fact i varies from 1-5% of the loan amount. The statement is inaccurate.Cool10191 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that this has been corrected either. Here is a good story explaining the difference between a RAL and a pre-season loan. The "paytub loan" that was taken in decemeber is not a RAL. But they do get a ral later in january or feburary to pay off their paystub loan. There are also lots of story about the banks stoping to offer the products. The real reason, which is not in any story i can find, is because they lost a fortune on them! Here is another good link that explains the difference too.  Cool10191 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  innaccurate statement about fees 

message: Edits I made to this article removing primary and promotional/POV links and the info they were supporting were reverted. The sources do not meet WP:RS because they are a press release from a bank saying it was the first RAL retailer, a PDF of a lawsuit on a website that tracks back to a trademark attorney's blog site, a bunch of uploaded pages on Google about patents, and a 93-page research paper funded by a major tax service. These sources do not meet the requirements for third-party, independent sources, especially in an article that is as contested as this one is. It would make the article a lot stronger to find mainstream articles that quote these websites (and in the case of a 93-page book, distill the info so it's more easily understood by casual readers)...are there any articles we can use to support this info? Flowanda | Talk 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources not meeting [[WP:RS]] 

message: From the article: "By the early 1990s the system became being exploited; filers would misreport their income to inflate their refund. As a result and also to discourage filers from this rather uneconomical offer, in 1994 the IRS stopped providing tax preparers a confirmation that a deposit would take place for a certain amount and that it would begin sending refunds directly to taxpayers instead of banks that made the loan.[4]"
This is kinda of a bad stopping point for the history of RALs. The confirmation of deposit (officially called an acknowledgment), was re-instated shortly after if was stopped. It had the oposite effect the IRS hoped, it instead caused RAL prices to increase significantly to cover the additional risk and caused the banks offering them to link the loan more directly to the customers credit report and less to the tax return. So then the customers where taking out loans, the IRS was not always honoring direct deposit so people would get a RAl and then their IRS check in the mail and end up owing a bank thousand of dollars because the IRS didn't send the funds to the bank.. This of course did not make the taxpayers happy and acknowledgments were re-instated  the next year. And to be most specific, acknowledgments where never completed stopped, just a the debt indicator and confirmation of deposit portion of the acknowledgments. I am going to add just a bit of this to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool10191 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this needs to go further: 

message: I have also added a little bit on CADE. I think it is very relevant to this article. Once it is online there will be no need for refund anticipation loans and this article can be committed to history! CADE is a the new IRS processing system. Once online it will process tax returns within one day and be able to deposit money within 48-72 hours! So taxpayers can get their money back as in the same time as getting a RAL. I know I am baised on this artcile.. So I won't put anything controversialCool10191 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CADE 

message: I have removed a section of edits that constitute original research or discussion of the subject rather than the article. Running your own numbers and wishing you could link to your company's website are not helpful additions for other editors wanting to improve this article. None of the info added can be added to the article, so what are we supposed to do with it? And yes, adding and subtracting is original research when you draw conclusions from it. Let the media do that, and then we can quote them. Flowanda | Talk 02:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flowanda, you are mistaken. Stating numbers is not original research when they are based on sources. And i have given you two excellent sources: an actual application with actual fees and aprs, and another source from the IRS showing the schedule of payments. dates. There are several posts on your user talk page about your lack of credibility in editing financial and legal articles. Please refrain from deleting my comments. If you will read those sources they completely concur with what my comments on the variable repayment and APR dates, and if it not enough to support an edit - it is enough disprove the APRs as they were stated.. By your statement it is original research for me to use two population reports and subtract the difference to state the rise or fall in population. That is not original research. This is no different. And since when is the media all that reliable? You have to go back to the original source.. And I am not drawing a conclusion from the numbers, I trying make the number accurate.Cool10191 (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you take a closer look at the sources of those comments on my talk page. And you're not just stating numbers; you are making calculations. And despite what you personally think of the media, they are the accepted sources for citations on Wikipedia, especially for controversial subjects, such as this one. Flowanda | Talk 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but media sources also have to have verified primary sources to be included as a legitimate source here. There are media stories that say the jews are evil - al jazera - is that a good source? but that is off subject. And listen to what you are saying, calcuations of NUMBERS are not original research when your base numbers are sourced. And Flowanda, how is deleting most of the article at all helping it? At least I am trying to improve it. And I have reviewed your history and I find that the majority of your edits are removals and arguing with references and sources. But you rarely seem to provide any sources of your own. It is easy to tear things apart, you would be better served trying to build up wikipedia. If you want to delete half of an article you need to discuss it on the talk page first. Other editors have put alot of time into building articles and I am sure do like to see one torn down by one who user without providing any sources to discredit their edits. If you have problems with facts you need to add citation needed tags and take it to the talk page PRIOR to a major deletion. If this was an article i had spent much time on I would be quite upset to have you delete most of it. You are jumping all around the the actual questions I pose and simply stating -CIO or WP:this and WP:that, please, lets try to improve the article with some dialog. And finally, i don't know why i need to say this again: I am not drawing conclusions, the APRs are stated clearly in that document and the repayment dates are stated clearly in the other - all you have to do is apply the APR applicable to the repayment date and see if it matches. Cool10191 (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you want this info you're adding to the talk page used to improve the article? Flowanda | Talk 05:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be used to put the correct APR information into the article. I think the thing to do, overall with the article  would be to keep the history and controversy section as they are, adding some more information. But to also add a neutral section that just explains what the product is, how it works, the cost of doing it, and the benefits and the drawbacks. And keep any points that are critical of the product in the controversy section. And keep information on patenting and how it was developed in the history section. The controversy of the product should be included, but the primary point of the article should be to accurately explain what the product is. Cool10191 (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing, conflict of interest and encyclopedic content 

message: I removed a statement early in the article that a RAL loan has a 100% chance of being paid by IRS.  Obviously the chance is not 100%, otherwise the fees would be much lower.  In my experience approved RAL loans have about an 85% chance of being paid on time.  I substituted the word significant instead of 100%.
Also, I added a good bit of information under the recent state regulation subhead that covers precisely why RALs are legal and why state actions against them always take the form of alleging overpromotion or fraudulent presentation of the product.
Further, I added some limited information regarding the "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" that was issued by the IRS in January 2008 which is a hint towards potential future regulation of RALs by the IRS.
Finally, in reading the article I still have concerns that the NPV flag might should come back.  The article is considerably out of balance in terms of the quantity of information slanted against RALs and the quantity of information slanted for RALs.  Consider this:  if 10% of RALs are oversold then using the legacy numbers in the current article of 12 million RALs per year, there are over 10 million properly sold, happy, and very satisfied purchasers of RALs in the United States every year.  Does that warrant an article with such a negative slant.
As always, to my own detriment, I have written almost completely from memory, with very little documentation.
72.254.22.168 (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind finding and citing sources? ~~ N (t/c) 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008 Regulatory Developments and minor other changes

message: The following is from Hood vs. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2006/b184489.html
"On January 31, 2002, Hood went to a Jackson Hewitt office for tax preparation service. A Jackson Hewitt employee told Hood that she had two options for a quick refund--a "rapid refund" that she could receive the next day, or another refund that would be payable within 48 hours. The Jackson Hewitt employee did not explain that these options were loans.  .  .  .  Santa Barbara sent Hood a letter dated February 3, 2002, stating that her RAL was denied because Santa Barbara had "been informed of an outstanding [RAL] debt with [Household Bank]." Santa Barbara's letter stated that Hood's 2001 tax refund would be used to satisfy the Household Bank RAL debt and that Santa Barbara would send Hood any funds remaining after the Household Bank RAL debt was satisfied. Hood did not receive her 2001 tax refund. Nor did she receive the Accelerated Check Refund described in the RAL application as an alternative product for applicants who were ineligible for RAL's."   FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cross collection is when you owe an entity a debt, and it is collected on behalf of that entity by another entity. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, next question, when a person walks into H&R Block or Jackson Hewitt to apply for the "Rapid Refund" or the "Money Now," or whatever it is they'll be calling it next year (including taking the tax prep out of the refund, which also involves a bank product and also involves this risk), is the client informed of all this in a meaningful way?   FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Cross-Collection?

message: I don't have the time, and not sure how much sourcing would be available, but there have been major developments in the last four monthes. One of the Major RAL banks was forced out of business by the OCC due to sub-prime mortgage problems. There was not enough funding during this season so significant percentage of firms, including many large franchises, where unable to offer the loans this year. FDIC is proposing a plan to bank state chartered banks from originating the loans in the future. There has been a major downward shift in pricing over the last year as well. There is also no information on the OTS and FDIC findings at Republic Bank. There are probably only primary sources available on any of this. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry developments 

message: From History:
:RALs began with the IRS's introduction of electronic filing in the mid 1980s as a way to decrease its cost of operation.
This is highly unlikely. The revenue from RALs goes to the financial institutions, not the IRS. The cost of operating e-file would have been incident on the IRS. Am I missing something? Pnm (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: IRS to end release of taxpayer debt information, Associated Press, EILEEN AJ CONNELLY, Friday, August 6, 2010.
“The indicators served as a warning that some or all of a person's refund might be held to cover old debt, including back taxes, unpaid child support or delinquent federal student loans.
“They are typically used by the banks that fund refund anticipation loans to decide whether to loan taxpayers money backed by their expected refunds.”
---------------
And the IRS news release itself:IRS Removes Debt Indicator for 2011 Tax Filing Season, IR-2010-89, Aug. 5, 2010.'WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that starting with next year’s tax filing season it will no longer provide tax preparers and associated financial institutions with the “debt indicator,” which is used to facilitate refund anticipation loans (RALs).  .  .  '  .  .  .  The IRS announcement would remove the debt indicator starting with the upcoming 2011 tax filing season. The IRS noted that taxpayers will continue to have access to information about their tax refunds and any offsets through the “Where’s My Refund?” service on IRS.gov.  .  .  '
:And perhaps the next part for us to add--> This same IRS news release, at the bottom, also says they are considering for the season after that (Jan. 2012), letting filers split off part of the refund to pay for tax prep, and the IRS is looking for input from taxpayers, consumer advocates, and tax prep professionals.   FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aug. 2010:  IRS To Stop Providing Third-Parties with DI (Debt Indicator) 

message: I was getting ready to add the same info that FRO has already added...great furry brains think alike. The AP article is much better, but articles are sometimes removed after a certain period of time, so here's another source of similar info in case the other link goes dead: http://www.americanbanker.com/bulletins/-1023886-1.html. Flowanda | Talk 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much Flowanda for the kind compliment.  And thank you for all the good work that you do!   FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another 2011 IRS change source 

message: In a 2006, the office of the Attorney General for the state of California described this as a “deceptive debt collection scheme.”
:Attorney General Lockyer Files Lawsuit Against H&R Block for Illegally Marketing and Selling High-Cost Loans as �Instant' Tax Refunds, State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Press Release, Feb. 15, 2006.
In 2006, the IRS Taxpayer Advocate stated that “At the very least, banks should be barred from transferring EITC under a cross-collection arrangement to satisfy a debt owed to a third party bank.”
:National Taxpayer Advocate's 2007 Objectives Report to Congress, Volume II, The Role of the IRS in the Refund Anticipation Loan Industry, June 30, 2006, see section on “Debt Collection Offset Practice,” pages 10-12.
--------------------
  
Instead, clients are often not even informed of this practice (and also IRS Taxpayer Advocate as above).
:SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
:Hood, et al. v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, et al.
:Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Case No. 1156354
(page 5)“A. Business Practices to Be Followed“1.  Defendant Santa Barbara and Cross-Defendants agree not to engage in Cross-Collection during the 2009 calendar year  .  .  .  “2.  For future years in which Cross-Collection may occur, Defendants agree to provide a notice to Jackson Hewitt customers regarding collection of taxpayer refunds to pay RAL debts from prior years.  .  .  ”
(page 6)“B. Monetary Relief“Defendant Santa Barbara’s records show that there are over 100,000 members of the Class. Defendants and Cross-Defendants will pay a total of $8,500,000 pursuant to the Allocation Agreement amongst Defendants and Cross-Defendants.  .  .  “2.   .  .  .  each Class Member will receive a minimum of 5.5% of the total amount of his or her tax refund that was collected by Santa Barbara and paid to a Third-Party Creditor.  .  .  ”
http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/litigation/closed/hood-settlement-agreement.pdf
@@@@
“The Sturdevant Law Firm and the National Consumer Law Center in Boston represented Canieva Hood, Tyree Bowman, and a proposed class of individuals who have had their tax refunds seized to pay back alleged debts to other banks.  .  .  
“  .  .  .  On April 29, 2009, the Court approved a final settlement that secured 8.5 million in compensation to individuals whose RALS were seized as well as comprehensive injunctive relief that ceased SBBT’s practice of cross-collection for a limited time and ensured consumers are provided adequate notice of the potential of cross-collection.”
http://www.sturdevantlaw.com/cases-hood.html
I want to continue to work on this, maybe adding some more, in part making this section more readable.   FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving section on "cross-collection" (more vaguely called "previous debt") 

message: Refund Anticipation Loans Come With Risks, Better Business Bureau, 2/26/2013.  “  .  .  .  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has forced all major national banks to discontinue these types of loans. Be wary of sketchy lenders, both online and off.”
Tax refund offers include extra fees, KGET [California], Feb. 7, 2013.  ‘  .  .  .  "It's still the same animal, it's just packaged differently. Before people weren't aware that it was a loan, so they did do away with that. They had to restructure how they were selling it to the consumer because there is interest, there are fees associated with it that people need to be aware of," said Hudson.  .  .  ’
Action Line: Tax-time 'refund anticipation loans' to no longer be widespread, Tulsa World [Oklahoma], By PHIL MULKINS World Action Line Editor, Jan. 20, 2013.  '  .  .  .  "Even with the end of RALs, low-income taxpayers still remain vulnerable to profiteering," says the center's report. "Tax preparers and banks continue offering a related product - 'refund anticipation checks' (RACs) - which are subject to significant add-on fees and represent high-cost loans of the tax preparation fees. Tax preparation fees can often be opaque and expensive, with taxpayers unable to obtain estimates of fees to comparison shop.  [Center for Responsible Lending]  .  .  "
http://www.responsiblelending.org/other-consumer-loans/refund-anticipation-loans/tools-resources/rals-news.html
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/06/pf/taxes/tax-refund-loans/   <-- And this last one looks like a hodge-podge of financial products taking the place of the traditional RAL.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  news items from Jan., Feb., March 2013:  No more RALs, but RACs, plus hodge podge of other products 

message: I having been the patent owner of the software at question here, and having been approached on February eighth of the year nineteen hundred eighty eight, by a representative who acted on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, a person who is named Melody Moody Press, who asked for my permission to use my patented software for their own use for the electronic processing of tax refunds, they offered me patent protection and three dollars for every tax refund that was processed using my patented software. I opened up my 401k for the royalties and the account was soley in my maiden name. I have paperwork to prove this fact. The permission for tax accountants and the banks who would be processing the loans were the named few entities who would be given my permission to know the information surrounding my authorship of this and many other softwares as the information pertaining to me was top secret government contracts and considered governmental secrets of various trades. One of the bank who had been listed and specified on the documents to be processing the software was HSBC bank but they are not and were never the patent owner or author this was already a valid patent one of many in my portfolio that was already valid on February eighth of the year nineteen hundred eighty eight, at the time if my contract signing pertaining to my patented software and these various entities being able to use my patents with my permission. 2600:387:F:5734:0:0:0:3 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I personally am a witness that this information has been falsified and