SBA Microloans Available Online
If you have questions about any SBA related issues, including the tax offset program, SBA loan foreclosure, or responding to an SBA demand letter, call us.
We Provide Nationwide Representation of Small Business Owners, Personal Guarantors, and Federal Debtors with More Than $30,000 in Debt before the SBA and Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Service
No Affiliation or Endorsement by any Federal Agency
Millions of Dollars in SBA Debts Resolved via Offer in Compromise and Negotiated Repayment Agreements without our Clients filing for Bankruptcy or Facing Home Foreclosure
Millions of Dollars in Treasury Debts Defended Against via AWG Hearings, Treasury Offset Program Resolution, Cross-servicing Disputes, Private Collection Agency Representation, Compromise Offers and Negotiated Repayment Agreements
Our Attorneys are Authorized by the Agency Practice Act to Represent Federal Debtors Nationwide before the SBA, The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Fiscal Service.

Client personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan to help with a relative’s new business venture. After the business failed, Treasury was able to secure a recurring Treasury Offset Program (TOP) levy against his monthly Social Security Benefits based on the claim that he owed over $1.2 million dollars. We initially submitted a Cross-Servicing Dispute, but then, prepared and filed an Appeals Petition with the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (SBA OHA). As a result of our efforts, we were able to convince the SBA to not only terminate the claimed debt of $1.2 million dollars against our client (without him having to file bankruptcy) but also refund the past recurring amounts that were offset from his Social Security Benefits in connection with the TOP levy.

Our firm successfully negotiated an SBA offer in compromise (SBA OIC), settling a $974,535.93 SBA loan balance for just $18,000. The offerors, personal guarantors on an SBA 7(a) loan, originally obtained financing to purchase a commercial building in Lancaster, California.
The borrower filed for bankruptcy, and the third-party lender (TPL) foreclosed on the property. Despite the loan default, the SBA pursued the offerors for repayment. Given their limited income, lack of significant assets, and approaching retirement, we presented a strong case demonstrating their financial hardship.
Through strategic negotiations, we secured a favorable SBA settlement, reducing the nearly $1 million debt to a fraction of the amount owed. This outcome allowed the offerors to resolve their liability without prolonged financial strain.

Our firm successfully resolved an SBA COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) default in the amount of $150,000 on behalf of Illinois-based client. After the business permanently closed due to the economic impacts of the pandemic, the owners faced potential personal liability if the business collateral was not liquidated properly under the SBA Security Agreement.
We guided the client through the SBA’s Business Closure Review process, prepared a comprehensive financial submission, and negotiated directly with the SBA to release the collateral securing the loan. The borrower satisfied their collateral obligations with a payment of $2,075, resolving the SBA’s security interest.
The adequacy of an SBA OIC must begin with an evaluation of the assets of the obligor(s). The starting point is ordinarily the net present value of the forced sale value of such assets (not the loan balance). This value combined with the prognosis of the obligors’ earning power form the basis for determining the adequacy of the offer. The review must balance the right of the Government to collect the amount owed and the obligation to treat all obligors with dignity and fairness.
An SBA Offer in Compromise is not possible if the liability of the debtor is clear and the SBA can collect fully without protracted litigation. The amount offered for settlement must bear a reasonable relationship to the estimated value of the projected amount of recovery available through enforced collection. An SBA OIC is not available when the obligor has the ability to pay the deficiency in full within a reasonable time frame – generally, no later than 5 years. An OIC cannot be accepted if there is any evidence or knowledge of fraud, substantial misrepresentation, or financial dishonesty on the part of the offeror.
SOP 50 51 2A, Ch. 17, 8-12 states that “[a]ny settlement amount must bear a reasonable relationship to the present value of the estimated amount of recovery available through foreclosure (using a forced sale equivalent value) and enforced collection. This value, combined with the earning potential of the debtor, will form the basis for the offer in compromise.“ Litigative risks” involve answering certain legal questions as to the actual liability of the debtor and will be thoroughly explored by the SBA, if raised properly. The degree of doubt coupled with the potential costs, expenses and time involved in pursuing collection matters will generally determine the acceptable amount for a settlement. Thus, when considering an SBA OIC, it is very important for your qualified representative (who should have a background in litigation and thus be an attorney and have a working knowledge of SBA matters) to be able to advise SBA debtors regarding litigative risks and the costs associated with litigation and how all of these factors can impact the proposed offer to the Federal Government.
An SBA Offer in Compromise with a “going concern” business is extremely rare and generally the SBA does will not consider this unless settlement arrangements have been made with all other creditors and the business must show it will not be able to operate under its current debt structure.
To be eligible for this option, a debtor must meet the following criteria:
The CARES Act further expanded the eligibility for businesses to qualify under this bankruptcy path.
This legislation increases the eligibility pool to also include companies with up to $7,500,000 in debt (both secured and unsecured) to reorganize under Subchapter V. This is a significant increase from the otherwise limit of $2,725,625.