Contact Our SBA Attorneys for Nationwide Representation of SBA and Treasury Debt Problems
Book a Consultation CallWe provide individuals with solutions whose SBA loan problems & other federal non-tax debts are referred to Treasury for aggressive collection. We employ practical strategies to resolve your Treasury collection problems and teach you about submitting a Compromise Offer.
On October 7, 2012, the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, issued Treasury Order 136-01 which consolidated and re-designated the bureaus formerly known as the Bureau of the Public Debt and the Financial Management Service as the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.
This Order delegated to the Commissioner, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the authority that was previously delegated to the Commissioner of the Public Debt and the Commissioner, Financial Management Service.
As a result of this Treasury Order, all federal non-tax delinquent debts are now serviced and collected by this special Bureau of the Treasury Department.
If your federal non-tax delinquent debt (e.g. SBA loan, SEC debt, FCC debt, USDA loan etc.) has been transferred to the Department of the Treasury (DoT) from an existing federal creditor agency, it will be aggressively serviced and collected by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS).
BFS can use those aggressive collection tools available to all federal agencies pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
Some of the aggressive collection tools available for Treasury debt defense are:
If your federal non-tax debt has been referred to the BFS for cross-servicing, is is critically important for you as a borrower, obligor or guarantor to hire qualified Federal Agency Practitioners who can help defend you against some of the Bureau’s most aggressive collection actions as noted above.
Because practice before the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Fiscal Service requires specific knowledge and understanding of several core areas of law and process, most notably (1) the federal agency maze, (2) federal administrative law and procedure, (3) constitutional law requirements, (4) federal administrative litigation, (5) federal administrative hearing representation and appeals, (6) federal agency rules and internal procedures of the referring federal creditor agency which originated the federal non-tax debt, (7) federal collection defense representation, (8) Department of Justice collateral liquidation and collection litigation defense, (9) bankruptcy law and asset exemptions and (10) DoT compromise and negotiation tactics, it is very important that you conduct your due diligence and choose your professional representatives wisely.
If your federal agency practitioners are not authorized to practice before the federal agencies pursuant to the Agency Practice Act and do not have experience with the core areas as identified above (and all non-attorney federal agency representatives do not have the necessary qualification as they neither have the education, training or, most importantly, the actual license to legally practice within the scope of these parameters), then “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware.”
As a result of this Treasury Order, all federal non-tax delinquent debts are now serviced and collected by this special Bureau of the Treasury Department.
If your federal non-tax delinquent debt (e.g. SBA loan, SEC debt, FCC debt, USDA loan etc.) has been transferred to the Department of the Treasury (DoT) from an existing federal creditor agency, it will be aggressively serviced and collected by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS).
BFS can use those aggressive collection tools available to all federal agencies pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996.
Some of the aggressive collection tools available for Treasury debt defense are:
If your federal non-tax debt has been referred to the BFS for cross-servicing, is is critically important for you as a borrower, obligor or guarantor to hire qualified Federal Agency Practitioners who can help defend you against some of the Bureau’s most aggressive collection actions as noted above.
Because practice before the Department of the Treasury and the Bureau of Fiscal Service requires specific knowledge and understanding of several core areas of law and process, most notably (1) the federal agency maze, (2) federal administrative law and procedure, (3) constitutional law requirements, (4) federal administrative litigation, (5) federal administrative hearing representation and appeals, (6) federal agency rules and internal procedures of the referring federal creditor agency which originated the federal non-tax debt, (7) federal collection defense representation, (8) Department of Justice collateral liquidation and collection litigation defense, (9) bankruptcy law and asset exemptions and (10) DoT compromise and negotiation tactics, it is very important that you conduct your due diligence and choose your professional representatives wisely.
If your federal agency practitioners are not authorized to practice before the federal agencies pursuant to the Agency Practice Act and do not have experience with the core areas as identified above (and all non-attorney federal agency representatives do not have the necessary qualification as they neither have the education, training or, most importantly, the actual license to legally practice within the scope of these parameters), then “caveat emptor” or “buyer beware.”
Our firm successfully resolved an SBA COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) in the original amount of $150,000 for a Florida-based borrower. The loan, issued on June 4, 2020, was secured by business assets and potential personal liability through the SBA's Security Agreement.
Following the permanent closure of the business, we guided the client through the SBA’s Business Closure Review process and prepared a comprehensive collateral analysis. We negotiated directly with the SBA, obtaining a full release of the business collateral for $2,910 — satisfying the borrower’s obligations under the Security Agreement and eliminating any further enforcement risk against the pledged assets.
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.
Client received the SBA's Official 60-Day Notice for a loan that was obtained by her small business in 2001. The SBA loan went into default in 2004 but after hearing nothing from the SBA lender or the SBA for 20 years, out of the blue, she received the SBA's collection due process notice which provided her with only one of four options: (1) repay the entire accelerated balance immediately; (2) negotiate a repayment arrangement; (3) challenge the legal enforceability of the debt with evidence; or (4) request an OHA hearing before a U.S. Administrative Law Judge.
Client hired the Firm to represent her with only 13 days left before the expiration deadline to respond to the SBA's Official 60-Day Notice. The Firm attorneys immediately researched the SBA's Official loan database to obtain information regarding the 7(a) loan. Thereafter, the Firm attorneys conducted legal research and asserted certain affirmative defenses challenging the legal enforceability of the debt. A written response was timely filed to the 60-Day Notice with the SBA subsequently agreeing with the client's affirmative defenses and legal arguments. As a result, the SBA rendered a decision immediately terminating collection of the debt against the client's alleged personal guarantee liability saving her $50,000.
.jpg)
