Economic Impact Payment Sent to Pay Past Due Child Support

The courts have supported the use of the Economic Impact Payment to satisfy child support debt. An incarcerated taxpayer failed to state a claim for relief when his Economic Impact Payment (EIP) was not paid to him but rather paid to his children's mother for his past due child support, a district court held. The court stated that while EIPs are intentionally exempt from reduction or offsets against certain debts, there is no exemption for child support debt. Therefore, the IRS was not wrong to have taken the Taxpayer’s EIP and send it to pay his child support. [Byars v. Dept. of Treasury, No. 3:20-CV-944-DRL-MCG (N.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 2021)] 

Marcus Byars, Plaintiff, Pro se, Michigan City, IN.

INDIANA STATE PRISON E-FILE (Court Use Only), Miscellaneous Party, Pro se.

OPINION AND ORDER

Marcus Byars, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) improperly paid his Economic Impact Payment to someone else.

After he filed the complaint, but before it was screened, Mr. Byars filed a motion explaining the IRS paid the money to his "x-wife/babymama [which] she used to help my kids . . .." Based on this filing, it is clear his Economic Impact Payment was taken to pay past due child support. "While the [Economic Impact Payment] Act intentionally exempts these rebates from reduction or offset against certain debts, there is no exemption for child support debt." Therefore, the IRS was not wrong to have taken his Economic Impact Payment and sent it to pay his child support.

Finally, Mr. Byars asks the court to dismiss this case because he does not want to pay the filing fee. The case is being dismissed because it does not state a claim. Furthermore, the filing will not be waived because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) , "if a prisoner brings a civil action . . . the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee." Mr. Byars was a prisoner when he filed, so he must pay the filing fee.

For these reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A .

SO ORDERED.

March 29, 2021

/s/ Damon R. Leichty, Judge, United States District Court