Opinion
3:03-cr-344 (JAM)
10-18-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. STEVEN SMITH, Defendant.
ORDER RE MOTION TO OPPOSE RULING
JEFFREY ALKER MEYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court DENIES the defendant Smith's motion to oppose the ruling regarding the return of certain stimulus funds (Doc. #51). Smith has filed a motion seeking the return of $600 in stimulus funds he claims is statutorily exempted from garnishment pursuant to section 272(d) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. Doc. #51. Section 272(d) provides that “no applicable payment shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.” Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, § 272(d)(2)(A), 134 Stat. 1182, 1972 (2020). An “applicable payment” is “any advance refund amount paid pursuant to section 6428A(f) of Internal Revenue Code of 1986.” Id. § 272(d)(2)(E)(iii)(I). As the Government states in its brief, eligible individuals could receive their second stimulus payment as either an advance payment of tax credit known as an Economic Impact Payment, or as a Recovery Rebate Credit (RRC) when they filed a 2020 tax return. See Doc. #39 at 7. RRCs are not an advance refund amount as defined by section 272(d) and so are not subject to the exemption set forth in that section. See Internal Revenue Service, 2020 Recovery Rebate Credit - Topic E: Receiving the Credit on a 2020 tax return, Q E3 (last updated April 13, 2022), https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/2020-recovery-rebate-credit-topic-e-receiving-the-credit-on-a-2020-tax-return [https://perma.cc/4MGW-WBQN] (the 2020 Recovery Rebate Credit “can be reduced to pay debts owed to other federal government agencies”). Smith received his second stimulus payment when he filed a 2020 tax return-and therefore as a RRC rather than as an advance payment. See Doc. #39-1; Doc. #39 at 7. As such, the application of Smith's second stimulus payment toward his remaining restitution is proper.
It is so ordered.