Discussion:This is the last time...mortgage lender letters

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> This is the last time...mortgage lender letters


CPAFSU (talk|edits) said:

6 November 2006
I know this has been discussed over and over and I am sitting here seething after having both my client and the lender tell me that the letter I provided (using the language provided by the professional liability insurance company) was worthless, get pretty haughty about it and I'm not even billing for it. DUMB ME! If I had not told the client over a month ago that I would do this, I would not! Would someone please, please, please tell me if I am being stubborn and/or wrong. Here is what I sent:
 My services to Ms. X were and remain limited to the preparation of federal and state income tax returns from information provided to me by my client. As such, I have not performed any procedures or been given any information that would allow me to assist your institution in its decision on whether to extend credit to her.  Specifically, the tax returns for 2005 and 2004 only, were prepared for my client’s tax needs, and your request does not fall within the scope of the engagement that I performed for Ms. X. Again, as the tax returns are based on information given to me by the Ms. X, I have not reviewed, audited, or otherwise attempted to verify any of this information. Consequently, I cannot affirm its accuracy or completeness. 

If Ms. X authorizes me to do so, I can send you a copy of her 2004 and 2005 federal and state personal income tax returns so that you may compare your records with those in my office. If you wish me to do this, please send my firm a letter to this effect signed by Ms. X authorizing me to release this information to your company. However, by providing these returns to you, I am not confirming or in any way, verifying the accuracy of the information contained in the tax returns. If you intend to use or rely on the tax returns I send you, you should perform your own independent procedures and tests, as you deem necessary for approval of credit.

This is what the lender wants me to send:

I, CPA, have prepared Ms. Xs’ tax return for the last two years. She has been self-employed for the most recent continuous 24 months in the same line of work.

Any opinions, thoughts would be appreciated greatly.

Beengel (talk|edits) said:

November 6, 2006
I guess, assuming you want to keep the client and still limit liability, I would say something like:

I, CPA (assuming you are a CPA), have prepared Ms. Xs’ tax return for the the tax years of x and x. Based on the information submitted my Ms X, this return represents self employement as xx during this period....

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

November 6, 2006
Yeah, I'm with Beengel...assuming you want to keep the client. All they want is verification that the returns are filed, or that all the income in an S is available to the owner...pretty lame stuff. So I merely verify those things and leave it go.

CPAFSU (talk|edits) said:

6 November 2006
I don't really care about the client right now, but I'm not sure what your xx stands for. Yes, I am a CPA.

JCTMSTx (talk|edits) said:

6 November 2006
The first part is correct since your firm did prepare the returns. Therefore, a statement of fact. I have a problem with the last statement, since it causes you to comfirm that they were self-employed. You relied on the fact that the taxpayer told you they were self employed. The bank can draw their own conclusion from the tax returns attached schedule.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

6 November 2006
Your letter, Beengel, is the typical one I get asked for.....confirm self-employment. What you have not given us, FSU, is the criteria of what you were asked for. I do only taxes, no financial statements and little or no accounting besides one of two write-ups, but I know that if a lender asks for more than I can give or want to give, I explain to the client that this could cost money, and what I often add, 'if they persist, you may have to find someone else, but what I will tell you is, this is their way of saying 'we don't want to lend you money.'

CPAFSU (talk|edits) said:

6 November 2006
I agree. But with these 'stated income' loans, the lenders will not accept the tax returns from either the client or the preparer. They will accept the one from the IRS, but they're in such a hurry (I just got the 'official' request from my client on Friday morning and sent it out today, Monday) they can't wait for the filed copy from the IRS. This stinks!

CPAFSU (talk|edits) said:

6 November 2006
Death&Taxes, I guess the criteria is the language the lender asked for? The last part of my original post is word for word from the lender what they want me to say. The worse part about it is that this client hasn't been in the same line of work. She has a couple of little Sch C businesses and that's it. What, does the lender think we're going to manipulate the returns downward?

Bbla (talk|edits) said:

6 November 2006
I have done 4 of these letters for clients this year. I simply state that "I have prepared Ms. X's tax returns for the past two years (2004 and 2005).The Schedule C inticates that Ms. X is self employed as a painter (or whatever). I charge the current client $75.00 for this letter. I have had one mortgage person ask that I expand on his ability to earn income, etc. "No Way". In the mortgage business they call these "Liar" loans.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

6 November 2006
I think the loan officer had a cow because you provided too much information. How ridiculous, but I have never seen the 'same line of work' line! I have had loan officers call to ask me to delete information that 'complicates things.' One in a case where my client had a loss on Schedule C as an artist, but decent income from rents. I pointed out that rents were not considered earned income by IRS and this was the phrase that had to go.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

November 6, 2006
Now I see your trouble and point FSU...I have had one or two that were troublesome letters as well, that took some negotiating and rewriting a few times to satisfy the lender and me and not blow the loan. Most of the time, I've not had lenders picky. They take the letter and file it and check it off the list. It could be blank. Only once or twice did they actually care what it said...and in both of those, my situation was much like yours..client in a different biz than at tax time...etc. etc. I still like to keep them simple and vague if necessary rather than intentionally deep six the deal. But going to jail violates rule #1 for me. Rule #2 is to keep the client out so that they can keep paying me.

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

6 November 2006
I would send them the letter your insurance company recommends. Tell your client and the lender this is what my insurance company allows me to say. End of story. The only possible reason a lender wants this letter on your letterhead is for another pocket to sue if something goes wrong on the loan.

Lizzit (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2006
I get these all the time. They just want to confirm the taxpayer is indeed self-employed. They're not asking for an audit. You can caveat the letter by stating "the figures reported on the returns were unaudited". If you are uncomfortable writing these sorts of letters, then you should just gracefully bow out rather than write the kind of letter you ended up writing. That sort of letter will lose them the loan and lose you your client.

Guya (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2006
Jdugan cpa is correct. The insurable risk is very high. Consequently one should do all one can to limit liability. In the UK where Lizzit is based the professional institutes have pre-drafted letters which are acceptable to UK insurers. In essence they say that the writer has no responsibility at all and the lender should not rely on the writer of the letter. If your local CPA association does not have similar drafts I would get your attorney to draft the letter as against risk losing your home if the borrower fails to pay what they owe and the lender looks to you in Court.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2006
I call these "stupid letters". They give the lender absolutely nothing on which to make a loan decision. It's just another piece of paper to put in the file. You'll notice they don't ask you to confirm the information provided by the borrower. They also don't ask you to verify that the return was FILED only that you PREPARED it. You can't and don't confirm that the return in their possession is the return that you filed. Does anyone know of an actual lawsuit by a lender concerning one of these letters?

Taxref (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2006
My office probably writes half a dozen letters a year saying clients are self-employed for we have prepared their taxes for x number of years. There has never been a problem resulting from any of the letters. Like Death and Taxes, I have never seen one which requested "in the same line of work."

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2006
I've seen a couple of "same line of work". I've even had a "moving to another state will not effect his business" (internet so it didn't effect).

Chase (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2006
I had a bookkeeper ask me the other day if I would prepare the letter for her, the bookkeeper, because the bank wanted a letter from a CPA. Would I review the returns that the bookkeeper prepared and then prepare a letter for the IRS? I told her my insurance company would frown on this. I get nervous enough preparing these letters for my own clients much less someone else's clients. Bookkeeper told me that she's been offered $500 to prepare these letters -- I must be in the wrong business or have the wrong clients!! Why would anybody pay this kind of $$ for such a letter??? Makes you wonder about the substance of the tax return!

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2006
I would also turn down that much money. Someone willing to pay that much sounds fishy. I've had no problems with mortgage companies regarding bookkeeper vs CPA. The "underwriters" (using their term) that look at these letters don't know the difference.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

November 7, 2006
Tax fraud, bank fraud. Both Federal felonies. Line up right over here.

Chase (talk|edits) said:

7 November 2006
Life's too short -- that's why working for yourself is the greatest !! You can stay away from people and transactions and issues that you don't want to mess with. No jail time for me...thank you very much!

Micktax7 (talk|edits) said:

8 November 2006
The lender is attempting to shift responsibility for assessing borrower information onto the CPA. Stick to your guns and keep using your insurance carriers letter.

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

8 November 2006
I get asked to do this fairly often with clients, I have never thought of it as a big deal. The first part is true, a statment of fact. The second part, about being self employed, well I really don't see a problem with that either, I signed the tax return as preparer with a schedule C. I've never had one ask for the same line of work, but I have had some ask me to put "at the same location" for x many years. If that is true according to my records, I don't have a problem with it. I'm signing it as the tax preparer, not the accountant, not the auditor, just the tax preparer.

Have you ever had a client who had a letter from IRS on EIC, asking to provide proof that the child lived with the taxpayer? They ask for a letter from the doctor, the school, something to that effect, well I had this happen to a client who's child was not old enough for school and not in day care. The only proof we could give that the IRS agent would accept was from the doctor. So we gave the IRS a bill from the doctor, IRS says no, that won't do, we won't accept that because that just proves that the child's medical billing address was the same as the taxpayer. Agent wanted a LETTER from the doctor saying the child lived with the taxpayer. Taxpayer goes up to the doctor and requests the letter, and the doctor says, "no way, I have never been to your house, and I cannot vouch for that" That's what this seems like to me, making a big deal out of nothing. The IRS knew the doctor had never been to her house, they just wanted a letter that said, "according to our records, child lived with taxpayer." The doctor was afraid to lie to the IRS, as he had no idea where the child lived. According to his records it was with the taxpayer, to me this letter is the same thing. "According to my records, taxpayer has been self employed for 2 years" And that's the truth, according to the records provided by the client, the client was self employed.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
I tend to agree with Kathyt that I generally don't have a problem with these letters. Usually the only thing the letter says is that I have prepared tax returns for the individual for x number of years. That is true. I have the paperwork and payment to prove it. In the letters, I don't verify income or say whether the return I prepared was filed or was the copy that was given to the bank. I was in the banking industry for 20 years with six of those years as a bank examiner. Believe me - this wouldn't get anywhere near bank fraud even if the writer had never seen the borrower! Does anyone know of anyone getting sued or arrested over one of these letters? (A real case not someone's second cousin's next door neighbor heard.)

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
I think you should direct that question to the insurance carriers that recommend the letter used by CPAFSU. I personally don't hear much about lawsuits until I attend a year end A&A Update course that I attend each year. Every year I get religion in that course. Most CPA's or CPA firms don't advertise that they've been sued by a client or a lender, regardless of how the suit turns out. Even when you win, you lose.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
I've asked some banker friends and they've never heard of any suits regarding this. (They'd brag if they had heard of any.) I'll ask around some more.

DZCPA (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
Keep the client=Do the letter!

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
You've got to believe that your insurance carrier sees a risk here, or they would not be handing out a suggested letter. It seems to me that all the accountant, EA, and tax preparer groups and societies need to get together and issue a strong joint statement on this issue. There's power in numbers. We are not in the banking business; if the banks are to reap the rewards (and I include the slimy and bogus loan brokers in with the bankers), let them assume the risk.

CPAFSU (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
I can only assume that those who don't mind or don't have an issue with doing these letters are not CPAs. I don't say that in a demeaning way, only that I am less concerned about the bank/lender than I am about my license. I just attended our annual issues update (by our state CPA association) and was again reminded that this is a major concern. The next day I received a call from "Eric with a small business" who wanted to know if I would prepare one of these letters, that his lender had stipulated that it had to be from a CPA, and I've never met the guy. I asked if he had someone do his returns and he prepares his own. Now, what is the lender supposed to request in this situation? I don't know a CPA in her/his right mind who would do this for him. What I don't understand is that the lender is apparently requesting a copy of the return (filing Form 4506-T) but is either in too much of a hurry to wait for it or just wants to get someone to assume some risk. I'm not going to.

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
I received a postcard in the mail for CAMICO insurance. The postcard asked a question "Is it good for CPA's to sue clients for unpaid fees?" and directed me to a website where I could take a risk management quiz. http://camico.com/quiz/questions.asp

Lo and behold, look at question 9:


9. A CPA has been preparing tax returns based on information provided by a client who files as self-employed. A mortgage company requests a letter from the CPA verifying that the client is self-employed. What should the CPA do?

 a.  Decline the request. The CPA would be providing what is in effect an attest letter based on nonattest work. 
b.  Verify self-employment. The client is well regarded in the community and is no doubt telling the truth. 
c.  Decline the request. The lender is attempting to shift responsibility for assessing borrower information onto the CPA. 

Sound familiar?

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
I once asked the banker why she needed this letter when my signature and firm name is clearly on the bottom of the returns as preparer, and she said that with this type of loan, they don't need a copy of the tax return. These letters are used for stated income loans, they do not have to submit any tax returns. Whatever they "state" their income to be is what goes on the application. I have no idea what they are stating their income is, I don't see the application, I was just asked to verify "I have prepared the tax return for xx for the last two years. His tax return shows that he was self employed both years" I don't see how anyone could possibly get in trouble over that, because it is the truth, if you really prepared the return. They never ask us for any dollar amounts on a stated income loan because the client is the one giving the stated income. If the IRS came to your office and said, "did you prepare the returns for the last two years, and was he self employed?" Would you say, "well he told me he was but I don't know that for a fact..." The letter isn't a lie, it's a fact. Now CPAFSU, I would never do that for a stranger, I would only do it if it were true, if I really did prepare the return. In the annual issue update did they mention these types of letters specifically? I just can't see how one could get in any trouble for stating that you prepared a return for a self employed person, when you actually did it.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
You know there is an accountant sitting on the other side of this question--the bank's auditor.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
Don't make me leave the site, JD, lest I have to sign in again [Hint, Tim]. What's the preferred answer?

Kathyt (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
Well I am shocked, the answer is decline. That makes no sense to me at all.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

November 9, 2006
I agree with Kathy. You guys are over-thinking the usual situation, which is nothing more than saying you prepared returns and he's self employed. No biggie at all, ever. For all the other weirdness, of course we shouldn't agree....but to state that you did the returns...there cannot be risk in that. Unless, none of us really are accountants anyway, and this site really isn't here, and all this is just our imaginations running wild....

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
Maybe, JR1 - I honestly believe there is risk to the lender from all that I have read and so currently I am on the fence on this one.


I went to the Camico site and obtained the answer to ? #9 - it is:

Best Answer: a or c. Decline the request. The CPA would be providing what is in effect an attest letter based on nonattest work. The lender is attempting to shift responsibility for assessing borrower information onto the CPA.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

November 9, 2006
But you're not attesting to anything, other than that you did the work. Sorry, but that's just stupid. This is something I'd expect to see from AICPA! Did you brush your teeth this a.m.? Factual question. Does that relieve anyone of liability if you get a cavity. Give me a break. The lender of course is trying to cover their butt, but shift liability? Because you filed the tax returns. Puhleeze.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
I am an Enrolled Agent, not a CPA, but I think what has happened with those of us who provide this letter is that in the beginning we might call the lender to see if they needed more, or to ask questions only to be told 'just give me what I need.' Naturally if things blow up, the lender's people will deny those conversations. Lord, I will never forget the client that I dropped not over a letter, but after she called me from outside the bank and asked 'what was a 4506' and then went to another lender. I never did find out if she was altering my returns or not. Back in the days of coated paper copiers and hand written returns, some people could do wonders with anything.

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
JR1 - Camico is not the AICPA but an insurance carrier. I have not seen anything written by the AICPA on this topic.

Now - I am in agreement with you but us "little" guys can certainly end up on the short end of the stick if we are not careful. We honestly and professionally prepare a 1040 with a Schedule C - it is a no brainer that with a Schedule C - the t/p is representing to be self employed - why the lenders wants/needs this darn letter makes no sence. Actually I never thought there would be any problems until a couple of years ago in a seminar when the topic was brought up and the room just exploded and it went on for 45 minutes - I just sat back and listened but admit I was totally caught off guard by the strong opinions.

Oh ya - and just this week I get a subpoena from a clients ex-wife's attorney and guess what - they are asking me about one of these letters I gave directly to the client. Tons of fun!

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

9 November 2006
You know, lenders and real estate brokers feel the same way about the home inspectors. They do not like it when a deal is blown up because of either an honest inspector or an accountant who wants to give them information they do not want to know. Lenders follow the saying of trial lawyers: never ask a question that you don't know the answer to already.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

November 9, 2006
Sure, get us started on home inspectors, aka legal extortion without liability. What a country.

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

10 November 2006
I used to be with CAMICO and so was familiar with CPAFSU's letter that started this whole topic to begin with. You know, we must each decide for ourselves which risks we live with and which risks we don't. The 55mph rule - we all speed. Some drive 60, some drive 80. But when we exceed the limit, we need to do it with eyes open. I am just passing on information I received.

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

10 November 2006
Jd - this is a topic we all need to be familiar with so it is again good this post is moving along. Lately, lenders (really mortgage brokers) have gotten off the phone with me totally irate over the letter I now send off - which I added to based on what I have picked up on this site. If the client's want to walk over the letter - well that will make room for better ones to come down the road. The lenders need to get off this letter from the CPA's (and yes EA's as well)kick and move on with their business/lending practices. We sure as heck do not need a letter from them to prepare the tax returns for those who own a home with a mortgage!

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

10 November 2006
The lenders want you on the line for one reason: so they can sue you if the #$@* hits the fan.

They will nail you in court for the "I prepared the return" [now, they are not gonna TELL you this on the phone]. What, exactly, goes into preparing a return? Just taking the numbers off the signed questionaire for a simple Sched. C? I can hear the lawyer now, "That's ALL you do? So all you do is just copy numbers over? Don't you have a duty to ask questions if something is amiss? etc. etc. Now, how do you define "amiss" in the middle of a busy tax season? Should I do ratio testing on the numbers? You see how this can merge into attest?

One accountant or preparer can't fight this. What assication or society do you belong to? Do they lobby? Again, there is power in numbers.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

10 November 2006
Assocition, sorry.


Keep in mind, they will have the tax return in court when your client defaults (through discovery). What do you suppose the default rate is on these loans made by loan brokers? Pretty high I imagine. Higher than normal, let's say. It will take a few years before these things start hitting the courts.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

10 November 2006
duh, association.

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

10 November 2006
It's expensive to go to court and sue over a loan deficiency! Let's follow the progression of a mortgage loan. Lender evalutes borrowers credit worthiness using information provided by borrower (stated income, tax returns, etc). Borrower signs statement saying that information is true and correct. Lender obtains information from third parties (credit report, appraisal, home inspections, tax preparer letter). If the loan was a good loan when it was made, the payments are made on time and nobody cares. If the loan goes bad, lender forecloses the house and sells it. If there's a deficiency, that's when the lender cares and tries to find other parties to blame and get money from. Lender re-evaluates the financial information provided by the client to see if there are other assets to attach. Lender orders a new asset search on the borrower to see if there are other assets to attach. Lender re-reviews the appraisal and home inspections to determine if values were overstated (appraiser and inspectors actually saw the house). The appraiser and inspectors are much more at risk because they are stating the value of the collateral based on physical inspection of it. All we do is take numbers provided by the clients and prepare tax returns. We don't verify that the income or expense information provided is true. If we did, each taxpayer would have to have their own assigned tax preparer overseeing every financial transaction that they do (including buying that drink at the convenience store). Seems to me this is just insurance companies running scared. I've spoken with a couple of more bankers. Commercial bankers don't use this garbage letter; only mortgage lenders do. Haven't heard of any suits against tax preparers, but have heard of some against appraisers for things such as representing that there was a house on the property when it was actually a vacant lot (appraiser got some jail time for that).

Gosix (talk|edits) said:

10 November 2006
<Let's follow the progression of a mortgage loan.>

Local Mortgage arm of Manufacutred Home Builder loans 100k on a modular home and lot, CountryWide obtains the loan, homeowner then redoes the loan for a cash out re-fi with Countrywide, loan now $160k, Countrywide offs the loan onto quasi-government Fannie Mae, Borrower defaults, Modular home sold for 80k at courthouse steps. (All in the space of 18 months. True story, I sold the lot to them and tried to buy it out of foreclosure)

Losers: Fannie Mae. Us eventually when Fannie Mae has to be bailed out.

Moral: Lenders are crazy.

Example: Loan to the above clowns. Yet I have a client trying to get 500k loan on his 6 million of land as collateral. But can't cause his "income" doesn't qualify.

Szptax (talk|edits) said:

14 July 2007
I have recently been aked to write 2 letters for clients. When I asked one of the lenders/salespeople/mtg lender/ whatever his title is why they request these letters, he said that it was required by law. Seriously, this just doesn't make sense! I asked him for the specific citation & he couldn't provide it. I wasn't confrontational, but I juat wanted tihe info for my own edification & he was quite defensive about these ruls/regulations. Just curious, does anyone know a citation requiring this?

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

14 July 2007
The real answer here is 'because I say so.' Don't hold your breath waiting, unless by some chance it is a law in your state.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

July 14, 2007
The Underwriters require it. It protects them on a bad loan. More likely a professional requirement, no law.

Jkm30309 (talk|edits) said:

14 July 2007
Not a CPA, but self-employed through my S-corp and I did a refinance in January.

I ran into this situation. I had to provide tax returns, bank statements, and the CPA letter. Now, I am just getting started with the CPA so the letter really just stated that starting with 2006 the CPA would be handling the returns. As mentioned earlier in the discussion, the letter is really just an item on the Underwriter's list.

Unfortunately most Underwriters aren't that knowledgeable. I have friends who are Realtors who have dealt with some of the ridiculous requests that Underwriters make, usually at the last minute. Yet they rarely seem to do the necessary checks to prevent mortgage fraud. Go figure.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

15 July 2007
JKM you are NOT self-employed, and if the letter stated you were, then the CPA doesn't know what self-employment is. Get a better tax advisor.

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

15 July 2007
Hate to think it, but maybe Jkm is not taking a salary but wrongly issuing a 1099.

I wonder how many here in business for themselves and incorporated have found that mortgage lenders ignore the form of business and still treat us as self-employed. I know I found this to happen twice. Arguing gets nowhere if a mortgage is desired.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

July 16, 2007
Easy guys. Jim is one of us, just calls himself self employed even tho' he's inc'd. I do it all the time. These days, considering the education level of most Americans, if you say you're the president, they might look at you and say, "Uh, get our guys out of Iraq will ya?"

Bottom Line (talk|edits) said:

16 July 2007
I stopped doing "stupid letters" about a year ago and interestingly am no longer getting many requests for them. When I do, I tell the client that I don't do them, explain why, and then give them the name of a mortgage lender that knows what he's doing.

LJACPA (talk|edits) said:

16 July 2007
The first two letters I was asked to provide (more than a year ago) were for 2 shareholders in an S corporation. Though I've now learned better and will NEVER do another one of these letters, it seemed innocuous at the time and I did one for each. It struck me as wrong and I argued the point, but the lender insisted that these two shareholders were self-employed and that's why they needed the letters. I simply stated that I had prepared the returns and did not confirm/deny/comment on the self-employed issue. I won't even do that much EVER again!

Wiltony (talk|edits) said:

16 July 2007
"The letter is really just an item on the Underwriter's list"

Don't discount it just because it doesn't appear important at first. There's a reason it was put on that list, and that reason is exactly what Camico stated: "The lender is attempting to shift responsibility for assessing borrower information onto the CPA."

If their deal goes south, the lender will be looking to recover their losses from any other sources. This letter makes you a source.

I recommend reading CrowJD's post again from 11/10/06. It's what will happen if give the lender a letter with your signature on it.

Jdugancpa (talk|edits) said:

17 July 2007
For cross reference purposes, http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Discussion:Requests_from_lendors_for_proof_of_self_employment

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools