§1692
27 cases·6 followed·2 distinguished·1 overruled·18 cited—22% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §1692
Statute text not available for this section.
27 Citing Cases
1692g (2006) ("Validation of Debts") imposes v rious requirements on a "debt collector", and Ms. Busche appears to havel assumed that the IRS is a "debt collector" for this purpose. That is not so. See id. sec. 1692a(6) ("The term 'debt collector' * * * does not include * * * (C) any officer or employep of the! United States * * * to the exten
By its terms, however, that act does not apply to employees of the Government whose collection activities are part of their jobs. See 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692a(6) (2000). Congress has amended the Internal Revenue Code to require respondent to observe some FDCPA procedures. See sec. 6304 as added by RRA 1998, sec. 3466, 112 Stat. 768; s
1692k(a)(3) a limitation on the ability ofcourts to award costs under rule 54 ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure in part because other "[s]tatutes confirm that Congress knows how to limit a court's discretion * * * when it so desires").9 Congress did not do so in section 6707A, instead opting to impose the penalty as a percentage "ofthe dec
That section imposes various obligations on a "debt collector", and Ms. Rice contends that respondent is a debt collector subject to those provisions. However, 15 U.S.C. sec. 1692a(6) provides that the term "debt collector" does not include "any officer or employee ofthe United States * * * to the extent that collecting or attemp
1692 (2000), prohibits garnishment without a signed court order. Petitioner fails to explain where or how the FDCPA so provides, and we find no such prohibition in that act. Petitioner contends that section 334.24 of the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) does not require employers to honor notices of levies. We disagree. The IRM provides that any