New Tax Rules To Pose Challenges for Low-Income Taxpayers in 2018

As taxpayers file their federal and state income taxes for 2017, many are wondering what effects the federal Tax Cuts and Job Acts (TCJA) passed by Congress in December will have on what they will owe when they file returns for 2018.  For low-income taxpayers, particularly those with children aged 17-23, those whose children do not have a social security number or who depend on public housing, and anyone who gambles, the questions are especially acute.

According to Keith Fogg, the Faculty Director of the Federal Tax Clinic at the WilmerHale Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, some of the federal changes under TCJA are not going to be “helpful at all” to low-income individuals.  In late January, Fogg was one of 15 experts selected to testify before the Massachusetts House and Senate Joint Committee on Revenue regarding the impacts of TCJA on low-income taxpayers.

Massachusetts does not automatically adopt the federal government’s tax code to determine state income tax rules, but rather picks and chooses which statutes it will apply at a state level. As a result, testimony by Fogg and his colleagues will be particularly crucial as state officials examine whether and how to adjust state tax codes in response to the federal tax overhaul.

Overall, the tax cuts enacted under the federal bill may hardly be noticeable – the final draft of TCJA settled on an after-tax income cut of 0.4 percent for households making under $25,000 per year.  That comes out to about $60, on average, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institute

Those in the top 1 percent of earners – that is, those who are making more than $3.4 million per year — will see much a larger dollar tax benefit, and as a percentage of their earnings it will be nearly three times as large as the low-wage earners.  The average household in this tax bracket will see cuts amounting to $51,000.  However, that number is significantly lower than the $175,000 proposed in the earliest version of the bill, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Although the income tax cuts may go unnoticed, particularly by the lowest wage earners, there are other ways in which TCJA could directly and adversely affect the lives of low-income taxpayers.

Tax bill hits low income families hard

One of the changes about which Fogg is most concerned is the removal of the dependency exemption and the subsequent expansion of the child tax credit.

Prior to the passage of TCJA, parents could claim a dependency exemption of up to $4,150 for each child they were supporting financially.  The effect of that exemption was simply to reduce taxable income, so parents would pay less in taxes.

However, under TCJA, the dependency exemption is gone, as part of an effort to simplify the tax code.

Consequently, to ‘make up’ for the loss of the dependency exemption, the child tax credit was increased from $1000 to $2000 under TCJA, and the level at which an individual or dual wage earners could qualify was increased.

The expansion in itself does not pose any problems for low-income families.

“Where it fails,” explains Fogg, “is when children do not qualify for the child tax credit.”

Indeed, while the dependency exemption covered dependent children up to age 23, the child tax credit only applies to taxpayers with children under the age of 17.  As a result, individuals with dependent children aged 17-23 will lose out not only on the dependency exemption, but also on the child tax credit as well.

Yet “the problem of the mismatch between the loss of the dependency exemption and the child tax credit doesn’t only apply to children,” says Fogg.

In fact, it applies to any person who would have been claimed as a dependent under prior law as a qualified relative.  Qualified relative dependents do not cause the taxpayer to receive the child tax credit.  So anyone who was taking care of elderly parents or other relatives or who had unrelated persons living with them for the entire year will no longer receive any tax benefit for this support to others.

Noncitizen immigrants also hit hard

 Another population disqualified from receiving the child tax credit are children without a Social Security number, who are overwhelmingly undocumented immigrants.

While documented immigrants are able to file for a Social Security number for their children –after they provide ID and their work-authorized immigration status with the application – undocumented immigrants are unable to do so.  Barring those without a Social Security number from receiving the child the tax credit places many vulnerable noncitizen families at risk, with the issue again being exacerbated by the repeal of the dependency exemption.

Tax rules eliminate incentives for public housing

Additionally, an indirect aspect of TCJA that affects lower-income populations is the elimination of incentives for investment in public housing.  The result of this is that those who need this assistance to cope with high prices in the housing market could face homelessness.

Gamblers beware

Finally, those who like to take the occasional trip to Foxwoods, as well as more serious gamblers, may struggle with alterations in the wagering laws introduced in TCJA.  To illustrate the differences between TCJA and the previous tax code, Fogg provides the example of a gambler who wins a few thousand dollars then loses that same amount shortly thereafter.

In the past, that individual could report both his winnings and his losses when filing taxes.  Now, with the repeal of miscellaneous itemized deductions in TCJA, the gambler can only report the few thousand dollars of winnings, while the equal amount that he or she lost is not taken into account in determining taxable income.

This may result in a significantly higher tax rate for frequent gamblers, many of whom are elderly or low-income.

Timeline for Massachusetts decision

With these changes in mind, the question becomes what Massachusetts will choose to do in response to TCJA’s passage.

Since the federal legislation affects the 2018 tax year instead of 2017, the state will have until next fall to come to a conclusion.

What sort of resolution would Fogg like to see?

Though admitting at this point that the details “are a work in progress,” he says he hopes Massachusetts lawmakers “will look at the broad issues stemming from this and create laws that will protect low-income taxpayers and ease some of the fallout from the federal tax rules.”

— Taylor Mahlandt

 

LSC To Celebrate Its 40th Anniversary April 5, 2019

The Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School  turns 40 in 2019.  A series of activities, culminating in a celebration on Friday, April 5, 2019, will recognize the organization’s  40 years of fighting for fairness and justice and its work meeting the community’s legal needs, training the next generation of lawyers, and fostering legal, economic, and social change.

Check back to this page for details on activities planned and for more information about the Friday, April 5, 2019 celebration.

Partial Borrower Defense Denials Violate Due Process, Privacy Act: Injunction Sought Against DeVos, Department of Education

A court filing over the weekend revealed that the U.S. Department of Education secretly, illegally, and unconstitutionally used Social Security data to deny loan discharges to students cheated by Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Four borrowers, on behalf of a nation-wide class, seek an injunction to block the administration from applying its recently-announced plan to partially deny student loan relief to which defrauded borrowers are entitled, and that the Department had previously provided to certain cohorts of Corinthian borrowers through the borrower defense application process set up by the Department.

The motion for an injunction and amended complaint were filed in federal court in California as part of a class-action lawsuit brought by the former students of Corinthian-owned for-profit colleges. The borrowers and the putative class are represented by the Project on Predatory Student Lending of the Legal Services of Harvard Law School and Housing and Economic Rights Advocates.

“The Department of Education had already unfairly and unlawfully refused to cancel these bogus loans for so long,” Project on Predatory Lending attorney Joshua Rovenger said. “Now, it has secretly and illegally coopted Social Security data to try to argue for something less than the complete cancellation and refund that these borrowers are due. We are seeking to rescind these illegal partial denial notices that never should have been issued in the first place.”

Earlier this month, the Department notified certain former students that, because their “average earnings” were not less than half of the “average earnings” of some unspecified group of students who went to a different, non-Corinthian school, they must repay their loans. In coming up with this murky and convoluted calculation, the Department secretly and illegally gathered information about borrowers’ earnings from the Social Security Administration. Perversely, the Department obtained the data from SSA pursuant to an information sharing agreement entered into for the purpose of protecting the public at large from predatory institutions like Corinthian by publishing “gainful employment” metrics.

“This ‘average earnings rule’ is not only a theft of data, but more importantly, it is a fact-free attempt by the Department of Education to double cross borrowers who were scammed by Corinthian and then waited months or even years for the relief that the Department promised them,” said Noah Zinner, an attorney at Housing and Economic Rights Advocates who is representing plaintiffs.

For borrowers who were scammed by Corinthian and then waited months or even years for the relief that the Department promised them, the “average earnings rule” is yet another government-inflicted intensification of Corinthian’s harms.

One of the named plaintiffs representing the nation-wide class is Jennifer Craig of Baldwin Park, California. She attended a medical billing and coding program at the Corinthian-operated Everest College—City of Industry. Recruiters convinced her to enroll in the program with assurances that she would get a job, using falsified job placement statistics. Despite completing the program, she has never been able to get a job as a medical biller. She has only been able to get the same minimum-wage jobs that she worked at before going to Everest. She applied for cancellation of her loans in 2016, using an “attestation form” that the Department of Education created especially for Corinthian borrowers. Last week, she was informed by email (included in the filing) that the Department had applied its “average earnings” calculation, and she must repay 80% of her loans. She and her husband, who lost his job earlier this year, are barely able to make ends meet. They have three children, including a three-month old daughter.

Another family impacted by the Department’s actions are Zovinar Tchouldjian and Alina Farjian of Los Angeles. Alina, who submitted a declaration in support of the motion for preliminary injunction, attended Everest in Receda for medical assisting. Her mother, Zovinar, borrowed Parent PLUS loans to help pay for the program, despite her reservations that the school could support her daughter, who was in special education programs throughout her schooling. They were convinced by the job placement rates that Everest recruiters showed them. Alina has never worked as a medical assistant. She currently drives for Lyft. Both Zovinar and Alina applied to the Department for loan cancellation. Zovinar’s loans were completely cancelled months ago. Alina learned last week that the Department had used its “average earnings” rule to determine that she must repay 70% of her loan.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the Department to stop applying the Average Earnings Rule; to keep applying the Job Placement Rate Rule by granting complete relief to borrowers in the findings cohort; and to rescind the partial denials it has issued. The Department’s current conduct is illegal in numerous ways, including:

  • The Department’s failure to explain its rationale, its inability to provide borrowers with the data underpinning its calculations, and its illogical reliance on this data to decide individual claims violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and is arbitrary and capricious;
  • The Department’s capricious adoption of the Average Earnings Rule constitutes impermissible retroactive rulemaking in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act;
  • The Department’s abandonment of the Job Placement Rate Rule is arbitrary and capricious and denies class members the relief they have been promised and on which they relied; and
  • The Department’s use of average earnings violates the Privacy Act by secretly and unfairly deploying individuals’ information to determine their rights.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren raised flags in January about the Department’s misuse of Social Security data in a letter to the Department’s Inspector General, asking for an investigation into the use of earnings data to make decisions on partial relief for defrauded student loan borrowers.

The borrowers and the putative class are represented by the Project on Predatory Student Lending of the Legal Services of Harvard Law School and Housing and Economic Rights Advocates. The First Amended Complaint is posted here, and the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction here.

About HERA

Housing and Economic Rights Advocates (HERA) is a California statewide, not-for-profit legal service and advocacy organization dedicated to helping Californians — particularly those most vulnerable — build a safe, sound financial future, free of discrimination and economic abuses, in all aspects of household financial concerns. It provides free legal services, consumer workshops, training for professionals and community organizing support, create innovative solutions and engage in policy work locally, statewide and nationally.

About the Project on Predatory Student Lending

Established in 2012, the Project on Predatory Student Lending represents former students of the predatory for-profit college industry. Its mission is to litigate to make it legally and financially impossible for the for-profit college industry to cheat students, and to relieve borrowers from fraudulent student loan debt.

The Project has brought a wide variety of cases on behalf of former students of for-profit colleges. It has sued the federal Department of Education for its failures to meet its legal obligation to police this industry and stop the perpetration and collection of fraudulent student loan debt. It has also brought its clients’ experiences to bear on federal and state policymaking.

ITT Students’ $1.5 Billion Settlement Heard by Judge In Bankruptcy

Today, former ITT students proposed a $1.5 billion settlement claim in bankruptcy court that would cancel more than $500 million in debts. All participants in the case and members of the class have until April 24 to submit their views of the settlement with the court before it is heard for final approval on June 13.  This is good news for former ITT students, but there is still a long way to go.

ITT Tech systematically defrauded students. ITT lied to and misled students about financial aid and cost of attendance, job placement and salaries, the quality of equipment and experience of instructors, the employability of ITT graduates, ITT’s programmatic accreditation, the transferability of credits, and career placement assistance.

It would be simpler to list the things ITT didn’t mislead students about.

Data from 2014 show that on average, ITT graduates earn on average the same or less than high school graduates with no college education. Approximately one in five ITT students defaulted on their federal student loans within three years.

Now, a group of ITT students have reached a proposed a settlement with the bankruptcy estate that includes a $1.5 billion allowed claim. In addition to cancelling nearly $600 million in debts, the settlement would also return the $3 million that students paid directly to ITT after it declared bankruptcy. This landmark settlement shows that the only path forward is to cancel fraudulent and unenforceable debts created by predators like ITT.

The settlement is a good start, but there is still a long way to go to make things right for former ITT students.

More than 7,000 former ITT students have submitted borrower defense applications to the Department of Education to cancel their federal student loans. These loans – and the federal loans of all former ITT students, totaling nearly $4 billion – should be cancelled.  ITT’s estate has cancelled the student debts because of the school’s fraudulent actions, and it’s time for the Department of Education and all private holders of ITT debt to do the same.

As Paul Goodwin, a former ITT student, said: “I have still been struggling to pay back my student loans, which I should not even owe because of the way that ITT systematically lied to students. Getting more relief on temporary credit loans is great news for me and my family, but I am still waiting for the Department of Education to discharge my federal student loans.”

We will continue to fight for the Department of Education to meet its legal obligation to cancel these fraudulent student loans.

If you are a former student of ITT, click here to sign up for future updates.

Kensinger Named Co-winner of 2018 ABA Tax Section Spragens Pro Bono Award

Legal Services Center volunteer tax attorney Dale Kensinger has been named recipient of the Janet Spragens Pro Bono Award from the American Bar Association’s Tax Section. He will receive the award at a luncheon on February 10, when the Tax Section holds its mid-year meeting in San Diego, California.

The ABA Tax Section established the award in 2002 “to recognize one or more individuals or law firms for outstanding and sustained achievements in pro bono activities in tax law. In 2007 the award was renamed in honor of the late Janet Spragens, who received the award in 2006 in recognition of her dedication to the development of low income taxpayer clinics throughout the United States.”

The Janet Spragens Pro Bono Award is the only annual award given by the Tax Section.

Co-winner of this year’s award is co-winner is Kathryn Sedo.  Sedo directed the low income taxpayer clinic at the University of Minnesota for 35 years before her retirement in May 2016

Kensinger has been a tax lawyer for almost five decades. Through years of service he has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to pro bono activities assisting individuals with their federal tax obligations. He currently volunteers with the Federal Tax Clinic at the Legal Services Center (LSC) of Harvard Law School, and over the past several years he has volunteered an average of more than 500 hours per year both directly representing clients and assisting students with their cases.

Kensinger also played a vital role in assisting with the start-up of the Tax Clinic at LSC.

In 2012, LSC started a Veterans Legal Clinic. As the Veterans Legal Clinic became operational, its staff noticed that many of its clients needed assistance with tax issues. Because LSC did not have a tax clinic, the Veterans Legal Clinic sought a means of assisting its clients with their tax problems and providing holistic representation wherever possible.

Through conversations with tax lawyers in Boston, the Clinic director learned that the incredibly talented and dedicated former director of the University of Missouri-Kansas City Low Income Tax Clinic (UMKC-LITC) had retired and happened to be living in Boston in order to be nearer family.

A cold call to Kensinger in 2013, followed quickly by a meeting at the Legal Services Center to discuss the unmet tax needs of low-income veterans were all that the former UMKC- LITC director needed to be brought out of retirement. Soon, volunteer law students from Harvard were working under Kensinger’s expert tutelage and praising his kind, patient, and thoughtful mentorship.  As he began to help more and more clients — especially veterans — additional waves of clients began to seek the assistance of the new pro bono project.

As the client base grew, the Veterans Legal Clinic became convinced that it would be beneficial to start a tax clinic at LSC. Out of Kensinger’s volunteer work — and with his expert guidance — grew the Federal Tax Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School.

Current Federal Tax Clinic Director Keith Fogg — who first worked with Dale in 1977 when they were assigned to the same branch in the Refund Litigation Division of the Office of Chief Counsel, IRS—says “the award could not be going to a more deserving recipient.  Dale’s commitment to low income taxpayers provides a model for lawyers who still have much to offer as they enter the retirement phase of their careers.  We are extremely fortunate to have such a knowledgeable and caring volunteer working in the tax clinic.”

Dan Nagin, Director of the Legal Services Center and the person who recruited Kensinger to work in establishing the tax clinic, stated that “in short order after I reached out to Dale, he was enthusiastically heading a new pro bono project focused on tax at the Legal Services Center and representing scores of clients from the Veterans Clinic before the IRS.”

Kensinger graduated from University of Pennsylvania Law School and served in the military for three years during the Vietnam War era.  Upon the completion of his military obligation, he worked for over three decades with the Office of Chief Counsel, IRS, spending the bulk of his time in the Kansas City field office where he served for many years as the Assistant District Counsel.

After a distinguished career with the government, Kensinger began a second career as a professor and the highly successful co-director of the low income tax clinic at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.  During his time as the director of the low income taxpayer clinic at UMKC, he served in leadership on the Low Income Taxpayer Committee of the Section of Taxation for several years. Kensinger taught at UMKC for a decade before retiring again and moving to Boston in order that he and his wife could live near his daughter — a professor at Boston College — and help care for a granddaughter.

Proposed Settlement to be Heard January 24

A year ago former ITT students filed a complaint against ITT and a class Proof of Claim in the ITT bankruptcy case. In this last year we have worked hard to fight on behalf of the Student Class, including urging the Trustee to stop collection on all debt owed directly to ITT.

Today we are happy to announce that a motion was filed asking the court for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between the Student Class and the Trustee. The proposed settlement agreement would recognize a $1.5-billion-dollar claim against ITT by students who attended the school between 2006 and 2016, for widespread, systematic fraud and breach of contract. The Students’ allegations included ITT’s use of high-pressure sales tactics to get students to enroll and remain enrolled. It was also alleged that ITT deceived and misled students about financial aid options and costs of attendance, job placement and salary rates, the quality of equipment and experience of instructors, the desirability of ITT graduates by employers, ITT’s accreditation status, the transferability of credits, and career placement assistance.

Some Key Terms of the Agreement

  • All of the nearly $600 million in “temporary credits” — accounts the company claimed students owed directly to ITT — will be canceled. This settlement only cancels debts that were owed directly to ITT and does not affect private or federal student loans.
  • All of the almost $3 million students paid directly to ITT since ITT declared bankruptcy in September 2016 will be returned to students, and there will be accurate credit reporting showing that these accounts have been deleted or paid in full.
  • The Students’ Proofs of Claim will be allowed in the amount of $1.5 billion as unsecured claims. If at the end of the bankruptcy there is money in the estate to pay unsecured claims, the student class will receive a proportional share based on the size of the allowed claim. Any amount distributed to the student class will be divided among the entire student class, and the distribution must be approved by the court.
  • In exchange for the allowed claim, former ITT students give up their claims against the estate of ITT, and keep their rights to seek further relief from the Department of Education and private lenders.

The motion and the settlement agreement will go before the court for preliminary approval on January 24, 2018. If the court grants preliminary approval, there will be a period of time for student class members to review and comment on the agreement and also choose not to participate. After that, we will seek final approval of the settlement from the court.

In our view, the proposed settlement agreement is a victory for former students who were defrauded by ITT. However, we know that the student class still faces billions of dollars of federal and private student loans from ITT and we will continue fight for all ITT-related debt to be canceled.

Tax Clinic Student Argues Case Before US Court of Appeals

In December, Amy Feinberg ’18 became the second Federal Tax Clinic student to have the exhilarating experience of arguing an appeal in circuit court since the Clinic opened at Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School in 2015.

Clinical Professor of Law Keith Fogg, who directs the Federal Tax Clinic, notes that many attorneys can be practicing for 10 or more years before they get the kind of experience that Feinberg has gotten while taking the Clinic.

Other students  have had the opportunity to file amicus briefs and help prepare appeals for court.  All students work directly with clients and carry a docket of cases. And almost all have the opportunity to negotiate directly with the IRS and state tax authorities – experiences that many lawyers seldom get, even if they are tax attorneys.

“The opportunity to appear in the circuit courts, file amicus briefs, and to promote law change through policy advocacy if necessary is an outgrowth of a strategy that the Federal Tax Clinic has developed to assist taxpayers, many of whom are low income, who have missed the deadline to file a petition in the United States Tax Court by one or more days because of misleading information or notices sent by the IRS, “ Fogg says.

Learn more about Feinberg’s experience and the work of the Federal Tax Clinic on this issue here.

Department of Education Illegally Slashes Debt Relief for Corinthian Borrowers

Martin was talked into WyoTech’s automotive technology program instead of community college. But the program was a complete fraud – he rarely touched a car while there, and the great jobs promised to him were unavailable. The Department of Education acknowledged that Martin was lied to and misled, and he applied to have his federal student loans from WyoTech discharged. Still, the Department has seized two years of Martin’s tax refunds and garnished his wages to pay back his federal loans from this fraudulent institution.

This isn’t just wrong, it’s illegal. By announcing that it was illegally attempting to slash the relief available to borrowers, the Department is engaging in the same bait and switch tactics as Corinthian—which owned Heald, Everest, and Wyotech.

That’s why this week, Martin and two other named plaintiffs filed a filed a nation-wide class action against the Department of Education for illegally and unfairly denying complete relief to tens of thousands of former Corinthian students who the Department already decided are entitled to have their loans discharged and their payments refunded.

The borrowers are represented by the Project on Predatory Student Lending at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, and Housing and Economic Rights Advocates of Oakland, California.

The three named plaintiffs in this suit are just three of many thousands of people who have experienced the systematic exploitation and fraud that for-profit colleges have engaged in –fraud that is enabled by taxpayer funds and the Department of Education.

  • Martin Calvillo Manriquez barely had an opportunity to touch cars or car parts while he was enrolled in his automotive program. The school didn’t have tools or certified instructors. Martin has never had a job related to auto repair. His debt from Corinthian is the only line on his credit report.
  • Rthwan Dobashi owes more than $20,000 for the same program. He has also never worked in the field. He is married, has two children, and is expecting a third. In early 2016, he found out from the attorney general that he was eligible to have his debts from WyoTech cancelled, and he applied. He also told one of his friends from school, and his friend applied, too. His friend’s loans were discharged almost a year ago, while Rthwan still hasn’t heard anything from the Department.
  • Jamal Cornelius attended the Information Technology-Emphasis in Network Security program at Heald College, and borrowed more than $25,000. He has been waiting more than fourteen months for any response to his application for relief.

All three borrowers, and all class members, are entitled to relief pursuant to the Department’s Corinthian Job Placement Rate Rule, which it has established through countless public statements, previous discharges, and direct notice to tens of thousands of covered individuals.

After we filed this case, the Department announced that it would slash the loan cancellation for defrauded borrowers who attended schools owned by Corinthian Colleges – departing from the established rule and illegally applying changes retroactively. It is completely unlawful for the Department to go back on its word in this way.

These students were already lied to by Corinthian. Now they have been lied to by the federal government, too.

Tax Lawyer from India Describes Her LSC Federal Tax Clinic Experience

Varsha Bhattacharya L.L.M. ’18  is a tax lawyer hailing from India who previously dealt primarily with corporate clients and is now getting an L.L.M. degree at Harvard Law. As a student  in LSC’s Federal Tax Clinic, she not only needed to learn an entirely new body of tax law and administrative proceedings, she also found herself working with low-income individuals rather than corporations.   As she notes:  “A lot about getting the work right lies in caring about the client. The moment I call a client, hear their story, and feel a direct connection with them, as their representative I feel a greater responsibility to give them the best chance in their cases.”  Learn more

Kaplan Has Been Exploiting Veterans

For-profit colleges have exploited the promise of higher education by deceiving tens of thousands of students seeking a better life. One of the groups the for-profit industry has particularly targeted are veterans and servicemembers.

That is why the Project on Predatory Lending represented the Veterans Education Success organization to prepare a new report outlining the predatory actions of one for-profit institution, Kaplan Colleges and University, against veterans and servicemembers.

VES collected complaints from nearly 100 veterans who attended Kaplan-owned programs. Their complaints include things like:

  • Raising the costs on veterans once they enroll and failing to inform them of additional fees;
  • Misleading veterans about their military benefits covering the tuition costs, resulting in unexpected and burdensome debt; and
  • Borrowing money on behalf of veterans without their consent.

Unlike the for-profits colleges that are forced to shut down when their fraudulent behavior is exposed, Kaplan is still an active and functioning college. In fact, Kaplan University was just purchased by Purdue, a public university in Indiana, to conduct its online programs. And the Department of Education just approved this transaction, which will remove some of the protections for borrowers and taxpayers that apply only to for-profit schools not conducting business under the auspices of public entities.

We hope you will read the full report to understand the extent of the predatory behavior by Kaplan.

Click here to read the report.

Military servicemembers and veterans deserve our respect and gratitude. And, like all students, they deserve to seek higher education without facing fraudulent and unscrupulous companies trying to extract federal funds. Kaplan’s actions run directly counter to that. It’s time for the government to step in to help, or they too will have failed in their duty to support veterans who have sacrificed so much for us all.