Therefore, if one is seeking a retroactive effective date for tax purposes, the first requirement is that the document be above board as to what is going on.Thus, showing the true date the agreement is signed, along with an earlier "effective as of" clause, is advisable.However, they did not report their ownership as being changed as of the retroactive effective date in filing their tax returns.The IRS sought to apply the retroactive date – and the taxpayers argued that such a retroactive date would be an unenforceable backdating of a document and should be ignored. It is interesting that this is the opposite of what you would expect – normally it is the taxpayer that wants to use the prior effective date and the IRS seeking to ignore it.Attorney Forrest Mc Surdy of the Stern firm admitted that a careless mistake had been made, explaining that the mortgage assignment document was prepared and signed in 2007 but wasn’t notarized until months after that.
In a hearing earlier this month in another mortgage foreclosure case in nearby Pinellas County, a hearing transcript (PDF) shows, the judge suggested that law firm employees “should be deposed to see whether they ought to be charged with perjury,” reports the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.The case was instructive of several principles that apply to retroactive effective dates.These include:-impermissible "backdating" generally involves an effort to make it appear that the document in question was executed on a date prior to its actual execution date; there is an effort to mislead the reader.“Judges get in a whirl about technicalities because the courts are overwhelmed,” he states.“The merits of the cases are the same: People aren’t paying their mortgages.” A U. Bank spokesman says it was, essentially, a middleman, representing investors who own a mortgage-securities trust that holds the Harpster loan as part of its portfolio. division collected payments from Harpster and began the foreclosure action on the investors’ behalf, he says.In a written statement, Wells Fargo says it is “troubled” by the court’s conclusions and plans to review the circumstances of the case.