Thursday, July 20, 2017

Building a Better America Budget A Laugh for Student Loans: Great Essay By Steve Rhode

The House Budget Committee has just rolled out a first pass at a new federal budget titled Building a Better America.

People dealing with student loans had better start thinking quickly and clearly if their political ideology is more important than the future of student loan debtors.
Here are a couple of choice sections.
“The Federal Government holds most student loan debt; as of the first quarter of 2017, its portfolio was $1.29 trillion, up from roughly $516 billion in fiscal year 2007. As Federal lending consumes an ever-larger share of the student loan market, it crowds out private and other lenders that may have better products to meet borrowers’ needs.”
It would appear the argument is the government wants to get out of the student loan market and drive more people to private student loans which don’t have any of the payment options, forgiveness programs, or helpful options federal loans have.
“Account for the True Costs of Student Loans. By statute, the government’s accounting procedures for assessing the costs of student loan programs do not incorporate market risk. For example, borrowers may have trouble finding a job and repaying loans in an economic downturn. To measure student loan program costs, the budget recommends using fair value accounting, which does assume such market risk.”
While the budget may recommend fair value accounting, the Department of Education is busy trying to gut regulations protecting students from underperforming schools which lead to failed educations and problem debt. The administration can’t have it both ways.
“In areas such as health care, welfare, environmental regulation, education, workforce development, and transportation, we put federal spending on a budget and empower the states, which are best suited to address the individual needs of their citizens and communities.”
I get the philosophy of returning more responsibility to the states but won’t this just create an inequity in the ability of individuals to plan for education when there may be a patchwork of education initiatives by state instead of one federal regulation when it comes to student loan and education issues?
“Simplify and Streamline Higher Education Programs and Financing to Protect Students and Taxpayers. The current Federal aid system is complicated and time-consuming for students and parents trying to make higher education financing decisions. In addition to Federal grant aid, six loans, nine loan repayment plans, eight loan forgiveness programs, and 32 options for loan deferment and forbearance exist. Each program has different eligibility criteria and terms. The budget envisions a simplified, transparent, and fiscally sustainable aid system. Principles for reform include more transparency for loans and repayment plans, removing perverse incentives to over-borrow, consolidating the array of programs, and protecting taxpayers.”
While it is possible that some changes could be made in the loan options, forgiveness programs, and repayment options, the key question here in a budget that is poised to trim costs is what will be cut and eliminated? The administration has already indicated they would like to like to change income driven repayment programs to make them shorter but have higher monthly payments. The Trump administration also would like to make wholesale changes or eliminate forgiveness programs like the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
I’d love to hear your opinion. Do you think the changes proposed in this budget will help to make American education great again? Post your comments below.

_______________________________________________________________________________

This essay by Steve Rhode first appeared in  Get Out of Debt Guy on July 18, 2017. To learn more about Steve Rhode, click here.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Missing Paperwork for Private Student Loans May Make Them Uncollectible: Boo Hoo!

Some debt collectors for private student loans are finding it difficult to collect because they can't prove they actually own the debt.  According to the New York Times, "Judges have already dismissed dozens of lawsuits against former students, essentially wiping out their debt, because documents proving who owns the loans are missing."

A little background. The federal government is the largest student-loan lender; it now holds $1.4 trillion in outstanding federal-loan debt.  But there is also a smaller private student-loan market. About $108 billion is private student loans is held by banks and private financial agencies like Sallie Mae.

National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, an umbrella name for 15 trusts, holds about $12 billion of the total private student-loan debt. More than 40 percent of that debt--$5 billion--is in default; and National  Collegiate has been aggressively pursuing defaulters in court. According to the Times, the trusts brought 800 collection cases last year--an average of 4 a day.

But National Collegiate has a big problem: when it goes to court it often cannot prove it is legally entitled to collect on the debt. How did that happen?

Many of these student loans were taken out more than 10 years ago by dozens of private banks. These loans were then bundled together into securities and sold to investors. A lot of this debt was sold and resold several times before it wound up in the hands of National Collegiate's trusts.

Somewhere along the way, a lot of important paperwork got lost, and now National Collegiate often can't prove it owns the underlying debt it seeks to collect. As a result hundreds of its debt collection cases have been thrown out of court. Boo hoo!

This is essentially the same problem that arose during the home mortgage crisis of 2008. Home mortgages were packaged into asset-backed securities and then sold and resold to various investors. When the loans went into default, the owners of the repackaged mortgages often could not prove they were entitled to collect the debt.

I have a few comments on National Collegiate's troubles.

First, the federal government doles out $150 billion a year in student aid. No one should be going to private lenders for student-loan money. If the higher education industry had any integrity, it would discourage students from taking out private loans. But our rapacious colleges and universities don't care if their students are taking out private loans to pay tuition.

Second, the private student-loan market grew after Congress passed the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, which made private student loans nondischargeable in bankruptcy unless the borrower could prove undue hardship. The banks know that their student-loan customers will find it almost impossible to discharge their private loans in bankruptcy.

Third, the banks have further protected themselves against losses by requiring student borrowers to find co-signers for their student loans. Millions of parents and grandparents have cosigned private loans for their relatives and are liable to repay them if the student defaults. And bankruptcy isn't an option for grandma or grandpa because they too are subject to the undue hardship rule.

In short, the private student loan industry is a sleazy business and ought to be shut down. Congress could close this industry almost overnight if it repealed the undue hardship standard in the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act.  And colleges and universities could help shut the industry down if they would publicly discourage their students from taking out private loans.

Personally, I don't give a damn if National Collegiate and its investors lose a ton of money because they don't have the paperwork proving they own the student loans they purchased.  After all, National Collegiate is a sophisticated party. If it purchased debt without obtaining the necessary documents proving ownership, it deserves to have its collection cases thrown out of court.



References

Stacy Cowley and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. As Paperwork Goes Missing, Private Student Loan Debt May Be Wiped Away. New York Times, July 17, 2017.







Saturday, July 15, 2017

A single mother of three children gets a bankruptcy discharge of her student loans: Price v. Betsy DeVos and U.S. Department of Education

Kristin Price, a single mother of three young children, won an important victory in a Pennsylvania bankruptcy court last month. On June 23, Judge Eric Frank issued an opinion discharging all of Ms. Price's federal student loans--approximately $26,000. This is another win for the good guys.

Price v. DeVos and the U.S. Department of Education: A single mom files for bankruptcy

At the time of trial, Ms. Price was 29 years old and had three children ages 3, 5 and 11. Although she was still married, she was separated from her husband and anticipated a divorce.

Price obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Radiology Science from Thomas Jefferson University in 2011, financing her studies with federal and private loans.  At the time of trial, she worked part-time as a vascular sonographer but was unable to find full-time work in her field. She testified she could obtain a second part-time job working outside her field but the additional child care costs did not justify that option.

Price received informal child support from her estranged husband, but her reasonable expenses still exceeded her income. She testified that she lived with her mother in return for paying her mother's mortgage payment--about $1400 a month.

At the time Price filed her adversary complaint in the bankruptcy court, she owed nearly $26,000 in federal loans and $30,000 to Chase Bank.  Price settled with Chase prior to trial. Thus the only issue before Judge Frank was whether Price was entitled to have her federal loans discharged.

Judge Frank applied the three-part Brunner test to rule for Ms. Price

Judge Frank applied the three-part Brunner test to decide Price's case. The Department of Education conceded that Price passed the first prong of the Brunner test; she could not pay back her federal loans and maintain a minimal standard of living.

The Department also conceded that Price passed Brunner's third prong. It acknowledged that she had handled her student loans in good faith.

But DOE argued that Price could not pass Brunner's second prong. According to DOE, Price could not show additional circumstances making it likely that her financial situation would not improve "for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans." Basically, DOE maintained that Price was young and healthy and was qualified for a good job in the medical field. Eventually, DOE pointed out, Price's children would grow up and leave the home, which would enable Price to get a better job and repay her student loans.

And here is where Judge Frank's opinion gets interesting. Price argued that her future financial prospects should be considered for no longer than the remaining period of her 10-year loan repayment obligation, which ended in 2024. DOE argued that Judge Frank should consider Price's financial prospects for a much longer time--the 20- or 25-year period of an income-based repayment plan.

Fortunately for Price, Judge Frank did not buy DOE's argument. The judge ruled that Price had rejected a long-term income-based repayment plan in good faith; and thus he would consider her financial prospects based on the terms of her ten-year repayment obligation and not the 20 or 25 years DOE requested.

Judge Frank said he was obligated to consider Price's future financial prospects based on "specific articulable facts, not unfounded optimism." If he were required to consider Price's financial situation over a 20- or 25-year term, Judge Frank reasoned, his determination "[would] be nothing more than mere guesswork, without any reasonable degree of certitude."

Moreover, Judge Frank pointed out, DOE's own expert testified that DOE's 20-year REPAYE program was ill-suited for Price and that he would not recommend it for her. Judge Price also noted that a REPAYE plan would require Price to consolidate her debt, which would cause accrued interest to be capitalized into a larger loan balance--meaning she would be "paying interest on interest."

If Price's meager income did not improve significantly in later years, Judge Frank explained, her loan would eventually "reach a kind of 'escape velocity,'" meaning that her monthly payments would not be enough to cover accruing interest and her loan balance would grow "for the next several decades."

Based on this analysis, Judge Frank then considered what Price's financial prospects would likely be over the next five years--about 70 percent of the remaining repayment period. The judge concluded Price would probably be unable to pay back her loans over that period.

In short, after applying the second prong of the Brunner test to Price's financial outlook, the judge discharged all of Price's federal loans.

Without question, the heart of Judge Price's ruling was based on his conclusion that Price had rejected a long-term payment period in good faith. And of course, his decision was made a lot easier due to the fact that DOE's own expert admitted that a long-term repayment plan was not appropriate for her.

What does the Price decision mean for other overburdened student-loan debtors?

 Judge Frank's Price decision is significant for at least three reasons:

 First, this is the most recent in a string of bankruptcy court decisions that have discharged student-loan debt owed by single mothers with dependent children. Price follows in the wake of Lamento, Acosta-Conniff (on appeal), Fern, and McDowell--all decisions involving single mothers with children who won discharges or partial discharges of their student loans.

Second, this is the latest in a series of very well-reasoned bankruptcy court decisions in which bankruptcy judges have worked hard to grant relief to overburdened debtors within the harsh constraints of the Brunner test. Judge Frank's decision was 25 pages long; Judge Berger's decision in the Johnson case out of Kansas was extensively researched. The Abney decision, the Fern decision, and several more have displayed remarkable intellectual agility and commendable commitment to the bankruptcy courts' core purpose, which is to grant overburdened debtors a fresh start in life.

Third, Judge Frank ruled that when a court applies the second prong of the Brunner test to determine whether  a debtor's financial prospects will improve in the future, the appropriate time period for consideration is the original term of the loan (generally 10 years) rather than the extended term of a hypothetical 20-year or 25-year income-based repayment plan.

Admittedly, Judge Frank's conclusion on this last point is a little fuzzy. Price had refused to sign up for a long-term, income-based repayment plan, and Judge Frank ruled that Price's decision to reject such a plan had been made in good faith. Judge Frank might have ruled differently if Price had signed up for a 20-year REPAYE plan before filing for bankruptcy.

Indeed, the judge wrote that the "outcome may well be different in other cases in which the extended loan repayment programs present a more attractive option, or for other appropriate reasons." And the judge also noted that DOE did not dispute the fact that Price's decision to reject a long-term repayment plan had been made in good faith.

In the final analysis, all we can say for sure about the Price decision is this: A healthy 29-year old mother of three children with good future job prospects won a bankruptcy discharge of her student loans based primarily on the fact that her judge did not think Price would be in a position to repay her loans over the next five years.

Personally, I would have liked the Price decision better if Judge Frank had said that a student-loan debtor's financial prospects should always be limited to the term of the original student loan--generally no more than 10 years. That's not what the judge ruled. Nevertheless, it is a good decision for student-loan debtors.

References



Acosta-Conniff v. ECMC [Educational Credit Management Corporation], 536 B.R. 326 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2015), reversed550 B.R. 557 (M.D. Ala. 2016), reversed and remanded, No. 16-12884, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6746 (11th Cir. Apr. 19, 2017).
Richard Fossey & Robert C. Cloud. Tidings of Comfort and Joy: In an Astonishingly Compassionate Decision, a a Bankruptcy Judge Discharge the Student Loans of an Alabama School Teacher Who Acted as Her Own Attorney. Teachers College Record, July 20, 2015. ID Number: 18040.

In re Lamento, 520 B.R. 667 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Ohio 2014).

Price v. U.S. Department of Education, ky. No. 15-17645 ELF, Adv. No. 16-0011, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 1748 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2017).


McDowell v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 549 B.R. 744, 774 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2016).






Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Half a millon bucks in student loans to become a pharmacist: Does that make any sense?

Earlier this week, I read a letter posted on Steve Rhode's web site: Get Out of Debt Guy and distributed on the Personal Finance Syndication Network.  An anonymous writer asked Mr. Rhode how to handle $500,000 in student loans that he or she borrowed to become a pharmacist.  Rhodes' advice was spot on, and I won't comment further about how this individual should manage all that debt.

My purpose here is to ask the simple and obvious question: How could anyone be permitted to accumulate a half million dollars in student loans to obtain a pharmacy degree?

As I said, the writer posted anonymously, so I have no way of knowing whether the person is male or female.  I'll just refer to this debtor as Pete.

As Pete mentioned in his query to Steve Rhode, he obtained a GED when he was 35 years old, about ten years ago. He obtained a BS in Neuroscience, another BS in biochemistry, and a doctor of pharmacy degree, which he recently completed. So I'm guessing Pete is about 45 years old, and he's embarking on a new career as a pharmacist.

Will Pete earn enough money as a pharmacist to pay off $500,000 in student loans? No, he won't.  We don't know the interest rate on his loans, which are both federal and private; but let's assume all his loans are accruing interest at 6 percent a year. That's $30,000 a year just to pay accruing interest on the debt.

What are Pete's options? Perhaps he can enroll in a 20-year income-base repayment plant, whereby his loan payments are based on his income. If he obtains a job paying $60,000 a year, which seems reasonable, his payments will be less than $400 a month. But of course, a payment that low won't begin to cover accruing interest on Pete's loans.

Pete might get a public service job that will allow him to make income-based payments for 10 years with the balance forgiven if he makes 120 consecutive payments.  Again, his monthly payments probably won't even cover accruing interest.

Bottom line is this: Pete, who is in his mid-40s, doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever paying back $500,000 in student loans.

We can blame Pete for borrowing so much money or for obtaining two bachelor's degrees instead of one. Perhaps we can criticize him for making poor choices when choosing where to study. Maybe he could have borrowed less money had he attended less expensive colleges.

But that would be pointless. The parties who bear the blame for Pete's unmanageable debt load are the U.S. government and the banks, which loaned Pete way too much money.

Pete's situation is atypical, I'll grant you, but it is far more common than many people believe. Not long ago I blogged on a Hofstra law graduate who owes $900,000 in student loans--pretty damn near a million bucks!

The student loan crisis is not small beer. Less than half of the nation's student borrowers in repayment are paying down the principle of their loans. The problem is as obvious as a tsunami barreling down on a beach full of sunning vacationers.

Why can't we put some limit on the amount of money students can borrow? The amount of interest that can accrue? The amount of penalties and fees that can get added to borrowers' debt when they default?

In fact there are lots of things we could do to limit the harm caused by the student loan crisis. But nobody is talking about fixes. The college presidents, whether they are Ivy League college leaders or the CEO of Bobby Joe's College of Auto Mechanics, are saying nothing about the student loan mess. Every school, college, and university participating in the federal student loan program--more than 4,000 institutions--is dependent on regular infusions of student-loan dollars to keep the doors open.

Someday, it will become apparent that a high percentage of the nation's accumulated student-loan debt--30 percent, 40 percent, perhaps 50 percent--is not going to be paid back; and this house of cards will collapse.

But until that day comes, our politicians, academics and the national media will continue focusing on what they think is the most important topic of the day--President Trump's alleged communications with the Russians. And like summer vacationers lolling on the beach, a lot of pundits, intellectuals and journalists are going to be caught unawares as the student-loan tsunami flows over America's colleges and universities and destroys a good many of them--beginning with the small liberal arts colleges.

References

Steve Rhode, How Do I Handle My $500K of Student Loans to Become a Pharmacist? Personal Finance Syndication Network. 


Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Grambling State University graduates have highest average student-debt load in the United States: $51,887!

Grambling State University, a public HBCU located in rural Louisiana, is not known for much, but it does have this distinction: In 2015, GSU's graduates had the highest average student-loan debt of any university in the United States: $51,887!

On average, Grambling graduates leave school with more debt than Harvard or Yale graduates. In fact, Grambling students graduate with a higher debt load than people graduating from more than 1,000 other colleges.

How could this be? GSU's tuition is relatively modest; according to U.S New & World Report, Grambling's tuition is only about $7,000 for the 2016-2017 academic year. And its students get a lot of needs-based financial aid; 82 percent received some sort of needs-based financial assistance in  a recent year at an average amount of $5,359. Indeed,  according to a 2015 AAUP report, 73 percent of Grambling students received Pell grants, the highest rate among all Louisiana's  four-year colleges and universities.

In my view, Grambling graduates' high debt load cannot be justified. Grambling is located in rural Louisiana where the cost of living is low.  Tuition is relatively modest; and a high percentage of Grambling students receive needs-based student aid.  How is it possible for Grambling graduates to rack up more than $50,000 in student-loan debt?

Not surprisingly, Grambling graduates are having difficult paying back their loans.  Grambling's three-year default rate for its FY 2013 cohort is 17.7 percent, and of course that rate doesn't count people who have their student loans in deferment or forbearance and aren't making payments. According to a very useful report compiled by Monroe College, only 40 percent of Grambling's former students were making any progress on paying down their loans five years into the repayment period.

Grambling is a historically black university and a public institution that is partly supported by Louisiana taxpayers. Everyone supports the mission of the HBCUs, but we are not doing African Americans any favor if we allow them to enroll at an institution where graduates leave school with more than $50,000 in debt--debt that a high percentage of former Grambling students cannot pay back.

It is also worth noting that GSU's 4-year graduation rate is only 11 percent, and that the university ran an operating budget deficit for five consecutive years (FY 2011-2015). Willie Larkin, Grambling's president at the time, wrote an open letter in February 2016, in which he said that Grambling was "fighting for her life." Larkin reported that Grambling faced an operating budget deficit of more than $5 million when it began the 2015-2016 academic year and an even larger deficit in the athletic budget: $5,746,321.

Surely it is time to ponder whether the public investment in Grambling is paying off, not only for the people of Louisiana as a whole, but for Grambling's students. Or perhaps we don't care enough about the African American students who attend Grambling to ask some probing questions about why they leave school with so much student debt.

Postscript: Four months after writing an open letter stating that Grambling was "fighting for her life," Willie Larkin resigned as president of GSU.



References

Howard Bunis. Overview of the Financial Situation for Higher Education in Louisiana. American Association of University Professors, May 2015.

Greg Hilburn and Bob Lenx. Update: Grambling President Larkin resigns. thenewsstar.com, June 23, 2016.

Marc Jerome to Jea-Didier Gaina. Letter regarding proposed defense to repayment rule. Docket Number ED-2015-OPE-0103. August 1, 2016.

Willie Larkin. Grambling State University Is Fighting For Her Life. February 22, 2016.

Louisiana Legislature Auditor. Grambling State University Report Highlights. Audit Control # 80150088. December 2015. 

Delece Smith-Barrow. 10 Colleges Where Grads Have High Debt. U.S. News  World Report, July 4, 2017.

Monday, July 3, 2017

Department of Education Punts on Borrower Defense to Repayment Rules. Essay by Steve Rhode



I’m still waiting to be pleasantly surprised by the Trump Department of Education (ED) under Secretary DeVos. It has not happened yet.

From the recent actions to remove critical information from consumer notices to wanting to get a single loan servicer to handle all federal loans, the current incarnation of ED seems to be moving in a direction that provides less support and help for debtors.

On October 2016, the then ED announced new regulations to go into force on July 1, 2017. “The U.S. Department of Education today announced final regulations to protect student borrowers against misleading and predatory practices by postsecondary institutions and clarify a process for loan forgiveness in cases of institutional misconduct. These final regulations further cement the Obama Administration’s strong record and steadfast commitment to protecting student loan borrowers, deterring harmful practices by institutions, safeguarding taxpayer dollars and holding institutions accountable for their actions.” – Source

The Betsy DeVos ED is delaying the implementation of the Borrower Defense to Repayment rules. The ED announced today “Postsecondary institutions of all types have raised concerns about the BDR regulations since they were published on Nov. 1, 2016. Colleges and universities are especially concerned about the excessively broad definitions of substantial misrepresentation and breach of contract, the lack of meaningful due process protections for institutions and “financial triggers” under the new rules.” – Source

So the current ED is going to start over again and says, “The Department plans to publish its Notice of Intent to Conduct Negotiated Rulemaking on BDR and GE in the Federal Register on June 16, 2017. The Department will conduct public hearings on BDR and GE on July 10, 2017, in Washington, D.C. and July 12, 2017, in Dallas, Texas.” Goodness knows how long this new process if going to take and what opportunities student loan debtors will have to actually have their loans discharged due to misrepresentation by colleges and schools who received federal student loans.
For example, the ED previously said, “Many of these claims are from borrowers who attended programs that the Department found had been publicized with misleading job placement rates.” – Source

What do you think, should schools who misrepresented the success of their programs or actual employment rates to induce students to enroll, get a free pass and eliminated from the new rules? Let me know what you think by posting your comment below.
Even under the old administration the Borrower Defense to Repayment processing was less than optimal. There are students that have been waiting years for a conclusion to their claims and the next changes will only serve to slow down the entire process of assisting harmed student loan debtors.

As an example, ED previously said they had ” received a total of approximately 82,000 claims.” And while a previous report on the status of the program said 16,000 had been processed and approved, the current ED press release says, “Nearly 16,000 borrower defense claims are currently being processed by the Department, and, as I have said all along, promises made to students under the current rule will be promises kept,” said Secretary DeVos. So where are the rest of the claims?

Steve Rhode

Get Out of Debt Guy – TwitterG+Facebook
This article by Steve Rhode first appeared on Get Out of Debt Guy and was distributed by the Personal Finance Syndication Network.

Sunday, July 2, 2017

College of New Rochelle failed to pay federal payroll taxes for about two years: Will anyone be held accountable?

College of New Rochelle, a Catholic college located in Westchester County, New York, announced last fall that it had failed to pay federal payroll taxes for about two years and that it owed approximately $20 million in unpaid taxes. A close examination of the college's financial picture also revealed that the college owed an additional $11.2 million to other creditors.

Paying federal payroll taxes is required by federal law; and failure to do so can lead to big trouble. The Internal Revenue Service can impose fines and even jail time for wilful failure to pay those taxes.

The college released a statement in November suggesting that the college's former controller, Keith Borge, was responsible for the error. Borge retired as controller of the college in May 2016. Without identifying Borge by name, college leaders said that the financial irregularity came to light only after the controller retired at the end of the 2015-2016 academic year.

Apparently, the college's auditor did not discover this mammoth financial problem for some time, which is curious. The College of New Rochelle's auditing firm was KPMG, a highly reputable global auditing firm with an reputation for competence and integrity.

CNR's president, Judith Huntington, stepped down shortly after the college announced its financial crisis. Huntington said she relied on the controller to manage the college's financial affairs, which is reasonable. But Huntington is herself a CPA and was employed for 15 years at KPMG as a senior audit manager. She's also the director of a major bank. According to Bloomberg, Huntington served as a bank director at Signature Bank during the same time she was president of CNR. Apparently being a college president is only a part-time job.

At least one more senior administrator departed CNR after the financial scandal broke. Betty Roberts, Vice President of Finance, terminated her employment at the college sometime in late 2016. According to a news story, Roberts came to CNR after serving in a similar position at Alcorn State University, a Mississippi HBCU that was under investigation by the Mississippi state auditor's office.

Will anyone be sued over this massive scandal? I doubt it. Little can be gained by suing individuals, who do not likely have the resources to pay any judgment that might result. And anyone who gets sued for the big screw up at the College of New Rochelle will likely implicate others.

How about KPMG? Can KPMG be sued for failing to pick up CNR's massive tax liability more quickly?

Perhaps, but Huntington and KPMG undoubtedly have close ties stemming from her 15 years as a senior audit manager for the firm.  And there may be lots of good reasons why the college might demur from suing a very powerful  global firm.

So let's just rack this incident up as an unfortunate episode in the institutional life of the College of New Rochelle. "Least said, soonest mended," as the old saying goes.

But then there is the matter of a mysterious $5 million donation to CNR, which was made anonymously after the scandal broke. This quick cash will buy CNR some time to get its financial house back in order. What party would make a $5 million anonymous gift to a college that may not survive this huge financial crisis?

Perhaps the money is not completely a  gift. Perhaps the donation was an exchange by some interested party for a covenant not to sue. We will never know.

We can take comfort, however, in a pledge made by KPMG, which was neck deep in CNR's travails, that appears on its web site:
At KPMG, our promise of professionalism to each other, our clients and the capital markets we serve compels us to align our culture of integrity with our values, words and actions.
This is the same KPMG that was auditor for Wells Fargo when the bank created two million bogus accounts. Robert Earl Keen is right: "The road goes on forever and the party never ends."

Judith Huntington, former president of College of New Rochelle
(photo credit: College of New Rochelle)

References

Judith Huntington. Executive Profile. Bloomberg.com (last visited July 2, 2017).


Associated Press. Alcorn State President Christopher Brown Resigns Amid Investigation. Gulflive.com, December 19, 2013.

Sarah N. Lynch. Lawmakers question quality of KPMG's Wells Fargo audits. Reuters, April 25, 2017.

Vani Murthy. The consequences of wilful failure to pay payroll taxes. Journal of Accountancy, June 1, 2014.

Jonathan Ortiz. College of New Rochelle Financial Probe Finds Millions in Unpaid Taxes. Westchester, Magazine, November 2, 2016.

Colleen Wilson. $5 million boost for struggling College of New Rochelle. USA Today, December 16, 2016.

Colleen Wilson and Mark Lungariello. Another finance official out at College of New Rochelle. Lohud.com, November 22, 2016.











The consequences of willful failure to pay payroll taxes

The penalties for failing to pay over trust fund taxes can be severe and sometimes include prison time.
BY VANI MURTHY,

The consequences of willful failure to pay payroll taxes

The penalties for failing to pay over trust fund taxes can be severe and sometimes include prison time.
BY VANI MURTHY,