Talk:Refund anticipation loan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

NPOV alert: 70.69.239.136 (talk · contribs) has been systematically removing information unfavorable to H&R Block. —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-02 04:35Z

I've temporarily blocked 70.69.239.136 (talk · contribs). —Quarl (talk) 2006-03-22 05:27Z

Contents

[edit] Ronald Smith?

I removed this sentence:

The Refund Anticipation Loan system was first invented, developed and implemented in Virginia Beach, Virginia by an accountant named Ronald Smith in 1985 and was quickly copied by major tax firms across the United States and the world.

pending verification - I couldn't verify it despite User:Wikistatman claiming (back in January) that there is ample media coverage on Ronald Smith on CNN, Dateline, USA Today, etc. I found no relevant Google hits except for Wikipedia mirrors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald A. Smith. The deleted article Ronald A. Smith made the same claim of inventing RALs and other unverifiable claims, and the same user also created Inventor Advance Rapid Refund and Inventor Advance Rapid Tax Refunds as copy&paste forks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-10 03:03Z


The earliest earliest date I am aware of that anyone was offering Rapid Refund was by Mr. David Aboud CPA, who is now the president of refund advantage. He first started offering what we now call RALs in 1984. He first partnered with a bank in 1987. I am not sure where you could find this info at online or in any publication though. www.refundadvantage.com maybe?

Cool10191 (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I added an NPOV tag to this article because I only see one sentence that talks about the support for this product. Everthing else in this article seems to be against the marketing or sale of this product.

I work for a tax preparation company, and do not push these on people, though we offer them. I explain to a customer all of their options, and let them chose the one that best fits their needs. The Georgetown study that is referenced in the article states in the Executive Summary that there are people who need this type of product, and, for the most part, they are the ones buying it.

I welcome all discussion on this topic. Thanks.--Keith 17:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article needs more positive info to balance the criticisms; please go ahead and add information supporting this product, with references. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-23 01:02Z

I notice that the neutrality tag has apparently been on the article for quite a while. I don't see a strong need for the tag at this point. Any comments, anyone? Famspear 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the invention of refund anticipation loans, the patent was issued to an executive of Beneficial Corporation, which later merged with Household International, which in turn was acquired by HSBC. Beneficial worked closely with the IRS's electronic filing initiative, and the term "refund anticipation loan"(or RALS)was actually coined by the IRS in their initial document permitting the loans in 1987. The patent was granted on December 26, 1989, patent # 4,890,228, titled "Electronic Income Tax Refund Early Payment System". Three subsequent patents were issued in the 1990's. HSBC continues to be the major provider of these loans. While sometimes controversial, the longevity of the program and the millions of annual borrowers certainly attest to its popularity. Newjersyan 00:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added extensive information that I believe rebalances the article in terms of neutrality, also provides some more specific information and examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.171.32 (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is sufficiently neutral now, though not perfect, so I've gone ahead and removed the NPOV tag. fsiler (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations added

I have added several citations to this page. One in particular - the one where it says certain banks are stopping pre-seasons loans because of pressure is definitely inaccurate. They are stopping the products because they are very unprofitable and because they are loosing money on them. I work in the lending industry and I hear things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool10191 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, Cool10191, but blanketing an article with citation tags isn't nearly as useful as doing some quick googling and comparing the rates, for example, or adding a quick link about withholding. fsiler (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I add citations to parts that I am quite certain are incorrect. For instance who ever figured these APRs used 10 days for the repayment date, when it is actually a minimum of 14 days at all RAL banks. And as i have said again and again, APR is not fair to categorize these products, it is a finance charge. If the person defaults and does not pay the loan back there is no interest, it is a one time fee! So what about the peopel who take the bank for a ride and take 10000, get charged $135 and do not pay it back until next year when they get another RAL? Then they jsut got a RAL for 1.35% interest rate, right? You never calculate an accurate APR when the repayment date is variable. 10 days is the absolute easiest the IRS will deposit, 14 days is the average, and 21 days is the theoretical "Max". I obviously cannot re-write this article because I am not at all neutral. But I am bringing it to your attention so someone else will.Cool10191 (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sure that someone who pays back a year later is going to have substantial finance charges from the bank, but that's a tangential issue. The main, and undisputed, point is that the effective cost of capital for an RAL is exceptionally high. fsiler talk) 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No actually, there is no additional charge for defaulting on the loan on any of the five, soon to be four, RAL banks, that is the difference between a finance fee and an actual loan interest rate. And that it costs a high APR, as I said is unfair and APRs are not intended by the FDIC to be used as a means of regulating short term loans. It is argued that high RALs are somehow translated to high profit margins, price gouging, or the like. The profit on a typical RAL is 15-20% of the total fee. That does not seem very outrageous to me. The price of a RAL is high enough for the bank to turn a FAIR profit, as is set forth by the FDIC. If the profit from a RAL was in violation of FDIC rules then they would be shut down.Cool10191 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. I find it hard to believe that there are no additional charges for late payment. In any event, in the average, intended case, the interest rate imputed from the costs incurred is still extremely high, which tends to be the case with any kind of short-term time value of money problem (the implied interest rate on a 2/10, net 30 payment arrangement is 44.6%, for example). If you can produce reliable sources for your information then we should rewrite the article to explain the terms better. I was unable to locate any contracts for these loans online. fsiler (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My original comment was the inaccuracy of the statement about offer RALs prior to January. That is incorrect. The other thing i said was the article computed APRs at 10 days repayment, not 14, and although it is still high, it is significantly lower that the currently listed APRs. And I do have a loan contract that I am getting this info off of. And no, there is not additional fees for late payment, RALs are not a typical loan. Cool10191 (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, produce sources for these and we'll fix the article: as I said earlier, adding a bunch of blank citations isn't terribly useful. What are the nominal rates from the banks (I would imagine it's prime plus quite a bit)? If you have a source for those we can compute an effective rate over a one year term, for example, though it needs to be clear that it's not a representative case. fsiler (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please only add existing examples quoted from objective, third-party sources meeting WP:RS. Computing rates from an external source to provide a unique example as suggested above is original research; Wikipedia articles reflect what's already out there; not content cobbled together to form/support original assertions. And please note that primary sources do not meet the criteria for sourcing content per WP:RS. Flowanda | Talk 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Flowanda, I don't believe you understand the policy on primary sources. When getting base numbers, or base information the primary source is the preferred source to use - read the policy. It is in the different interpretations of the primary sources that a third party source is useful. If you are siting the population of a town do you site the census beauro or a book about the the census beauro report? You would only cite the book if you were talking about the "impact" of the information in the report. It is when you rely on "interpretations" to explain the orignal data is when you run the risk using inaccurate figures and information because you are getting the information second hand. This is no different.Cool10191 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Time value of money solutions are not "research", but the issue here is that I didn't make my point clearly: what I meant to convey is that in order to support claims made by Cool10191, such as the one above regarding effective cost of capital in a situation where one pays back a loan a year later, sources are needed. I don't think there's satisfactory evidence to even support the implied interest rates stated in this article; the only way to know them for sure is to find a reliable source for the cash flows and associated timings involved and compute the implied interest rate. I stand by my objection to adding blank citations all over this article, though of course I agree with the necessity of external sources. fsiler (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Annual Percentage Rate Discussion

Hey guys here is a chase bank application: [1]. Interest rates are sited on the app. In the case of chase they use 11 days as the repayment date, that is theoretically the earliest the irs will deposit. (this is not the case in 5% of returns being proccesed by CADE) Also see the IRS refund cycle chart, [2]. The repayment date is variable between 10-21 days, some calculate it at 10 days because that reflects the highest possible number when the average repayment date would be more like 14 days (this does drop the apr number significantly). And, technically repayment at 10 days would be based on ACH Pre-notes, not actual funding, that might be noteworthy too - no online reference for that, but when money is ACHed, as anyone in banking knows, it does clear the fed for about 2 days, however you do receive pre-notes the same day, typically. This is the only bank application i can find online. I wish i could link the bank apps of Republic Bank and Trust and RCB Tax Division, their rates are based on 14 day repayment periods. I am not sure what SBBT bases theirs on. As far a fee on defaulting, I have checked that out; also stated in the chase application there is no static fee but a 16%+prime apr charged to balances outstanding after 90 days so in extreme cases the repayment APR could be based on 90 days, which would lower it to the point of less than 10% anually in some cases. SBBT and HSBC no longer charge any fee like that due to lawsuits. I will look for those court records, they were sued in california. RCB Tax Division and RBT refund solutions never charged defaulting fees. Also when you calculate the APRs be sure to note on the application (the same as the other banks) that they charge a standard fee for each product they process, including non-loan products like RACs or RADs, so using standing lending standards that fee should not be calculated into the APR imho. Expressed as apr, rates are still high, between 40% and 200% apr, but still lower than what is stated in calculations in this article. And fisler, thank you understand that adding and subtracting is not original research. :) I think it ok to calculate the APR at 10 days, but i think 14 days is better, and at the least it should be mentioned that repayment date is variable , the apr could fluctuate by about 35% depending on what day they file their taxes even though the fee paid is the same. My central point here is that the repayment date is variable, therefore the APR fee is not static and should be represented as such in the article. And secondly, in the case of defaulted loans no penalty is applied by chase until 90 days, so in that situation it is a 90 day loan, not 10, and the fee is still the same. While the other banks do not charge any fee at all. For these two reason I think it is entirely unfair to use APRs to describe the fees without in someway explaining the repayment process and repayment date being variable, etc. (the banks don't need to charge late fees or press for collections, the losses are expected and recovery is built into the fee structure.)

Let me put it this way, maybe will make it clearer: If a person does their taxes on Friday then the apr is say 100%, if they had did it the day before on thursday it would have been 60%, if the IRS has to double check their return (common) then there is another 7 day delay and apr is now 30%, if direct deposit is not honored (not uncommon) then there is another 10 day wait APR is 20%, if their eic is audited (about 20% are) then there is a 3 week delay - apr is now about 12%, if they falsified information and get to refund, (according to chase) they are not responsible for repayment for 90 days, now their apr is about 8%. You see, the APR fluctuates quite a bit, even though the fee they pay is th exact same dollar amount.

fsiler I do see your point about adding blank citations, but I did that so the reader would know that those statements are possible inaccurate since they are not sourced (and I am quite certain they are incorrect) See my posts below.

Cool10191 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banking position

I removed the content of this section as it seems to only promote info and links that would not survive in main article without WP:RS and provides no real concrete ways for uninvolved editors to make changes. As discussed before, the talk page should be about improving the article, not discussing the subject or skirting WP:COI issues. Flowanda | Talk 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I could see that that trying to show the rise of RAL prices being related the consolidation of the indsutry is oringal research. But it is reality. I will let that one go.  :) Cool10191 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] innaccurate statement about fees

This is innaccurate: "RAL fees are generally calculated as 3% of the loan, while credit card advance fees vary from 2-5% of the amount advanced, making them clearly comparable." Only Chase Bank calculates the fees based on 3% of the loan. SBBT calculates on a variable precentage based on the refund amount between 1.07% and 2.5%. The other two banks in charge tiered fees based on the refund amount. tiered: http://www.rcbral.com/pricing.html, https://www.republicrefund.com/Products/Pricing.aspx. Chase and SBBT don't list their pricing but i can upload pdfs of their brochures. Not sure if that is against wiki rules though..

I don't see that this entry has been corrected yet. Please look at the links, they links directly to two of the 4 ral banks. Their fees are NOT based on 3% of the loan amount, in fact i varies from 1-5% of the loan amount. The statement is inaccurate.Cool10191 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Another incorrect thing is this: "In 2006, firms like Jackson Hewitt and H&R Block were making refund anticipation loans as early as October 15, 2006,[citation needed] aimed at providing money to individuals for Christmas. These were RALs and encouraged (but did not require) the individuals to return to file their taxes 4-5 months later with that tax company." These were NOT refund anticipation loans. a RAL cannot be calculated until a refund is established. How can a refund be calculated in october? These products where called holiday loans and wer enot much different than a short term un-secured loan. The idea was that the person would take the loan then come back in January and THEN get the refund aniticpation loan and use those proceeds to pay for the holiday loan. Cool10191 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that this has been corrected either. Here is a good story explaining the difference between a RAL and a pre-season loan.[3] The "paytub loan" that was taken in decemeber is not a RAL. But they do get a ral later in january or feburary to pay off their paystub loan. There are also lots of story about the banks stoping to offer the products. The real reason, which is not in any story i can find, is because they lost a fortune on them! Here is another good link that explains the difference too. [4] Cool10191 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added multiple citations to this article. Several things said are clearly opnion, others, if fact need to point to a source.Cool10191 (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources not meeting WP:RS

Edits I made to this article removing primary and promotional/POV links and the info they were supporting were reverted. The sources do not meet WP:RS because they are a press release from a bank saying it was the first RAL retailer, a PDF of a lawsuit on a website that tracks back to a trademark attorney's blog site, a bunch of uploaded pages on Google about patents, and a 93-page research paper funded by a major tax service. These sources do not meet the requirements for third-party, independent sources, especially in an article that is as contested as this one is. It would make the article a lot stronger to find mainstream articles that quote these websites (and in the case of a 93-page book, distill the info so it's more easily understood by casual readers)...are there any articles we can use to support this info? Flowanda | Talk 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think this needs to go further:

From the article: "By the early 1990s the system became being exploited; filers would misreport their income to inflate their refund. As a result and also to discourage filers from this rather uneconomical offer, in 1994 the IRS stopped providing tax preparers a confirmation that a deposit would take place for a certain amount and that it would begin sending refunds directly to taxpayers instead of banks that made the loan.[4]"

This is kinda of a bad stopping point for the history of RALs. The confirmation of deposit (officially called an acknowledgment), was re-instated shortly after if was stopped. It had the oposite effect the IRS hoped, it instead caused RAL prices to increase significantly to cover the additional risk and caused the banks offering them to link the loan more directly to the customers credit report and less to the tax return. So then the customers where taking out loans, the IRS was not always honoring direct deposit so people would get a RAl and then their IRS check in the mail and end up owing a bank thousand of dollars because the IRS didn't send the funds to the bank.. This of course did not make the taxpayers happy and acknowledgments were re-instated the next year. And to be most specific, acknowledgments where never completed stopped, just a the debt indicator and confirmation of deposit portion of the acknowledgments. I am going to add just a bit of this to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool10191 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CADE

I have also added a little bit on CADE. I think it is very relevant to this article. Once it is online there will be no need for refund anticipation loans and this article can be committed to history! CADE is a the new IRS processing system. Once online it will process tax returns within one day and be able to deposit money within 48-72 hours! So taxpayers can get their money back as in the same time as getting a RAL. I know I am baised on this artcile.. So I won't put anything controversialCool10191 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Sourcing, conflict of interest and encyclopedic content

I have removed a section of edits that constitute original research or discussion of the subject rather than the article. Running your own numbers and wishing you could link to your company's website are not helpful additions for other editors wanting to improve this article. None of the info added can be added to the article, so what are we supposed to do with it? And yes, adding and subtracting is original research when you draw conclusions from it. Let the media do that, and then we can quote them. Flowanda | Talk 02:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Flowanda, you are mistaken. Stating numbers is not original research when they are based on sources. And i have given you two excellent sources: an actual application with actual fees and aprs, and another source from the IRS showing the schedule of payments. dates. There are several posts on your user talk page about your lack of credibility in editing financial and legal articles. Please refrain from deleting my comments. If you will read those sources they completely concur with what my comments on the variable repayment and APR dates, and if it not enough to support an edit - it is enough disprove the APRs as they were stated.. By your statement it is original research for me to use two population reports and subtract the difference to state the rise or fall in population. That is not original research. This is no different. And since when is the media all that reliable? You have to go back to the original source.. And I am not drawing a conclusion from the numbers, I trying make the number accurate.Cool10191 (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you take a closer look at the sources of those comments on my talk page. And you're not just stating numbers; you are making calculations. And despite what you personally think of the media, they are the accepted sources for citations on Wikipedia, especially for controversial subjects, such as this one. Flowanda | Talk 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes but media sources also have to have verified primary sources to be included as a legitimate source here. There are media stories that say the jews are evil - al jazera - is that a good source? but that is off subject. And listen to what you are saying, calcuations of NUMBERS are not original research when your base numbers are sourced. And Flowanda, how is deleting most of the article at all helping it? At least I am trying to improve it. And I have reviewed your history and I find that the majority of your edits are removals and arguing with references and sources. But you rarely seem to provide any sources of your own. It is easy to tear things apart, you would be better served trying to build up wikipedia. If you want to delete half of an article you need to discuss it on the talk page first. Other editors have put alot of time into building articles and I am sure do like to see one torn down by one who user without providing any sources to discredit their edits. If you have problems with facts you need to add citation needed tags and take it to the talk page PRIOR to a major deletion. If this was an article i had spent much time on I would be quite upset to have you delete most of it. You are jumping all around the the actual questions I pose and simply stating -CIO or WP:this and WP:that, please, lets try to improve the article with some dialog. And finally, i don't know why i need to say this again: I am not drawing conclusions, the APRs are stated clearly in that document and the repayment dates are stated clearly in the other - all you have to do is apply the APR applicable to the repayment date and see if it matches. Cool10191 (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
How do you want this info you're adding to the talk page used to improve the article? Flowanda | Talk 05:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be used to put the correct APR information into the article. I think the thing to do, overall with the article would be to keep the history and controversy section as they are, adding some more information. But to also add a neutral section that just explains what the product is, how it works, the cost of doing it, and the benefits and the drawbacks. And keep any points that are critical of the product in the controversy section. And keep information on patenting and how it was developed in the history section. The controversy of the product should be included, but the primary point of the article should be to accurately explain what the product is. Cool10191 (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Something like this:

A Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) is a short term loan from a bank using an expected tax refund as collateral. The product is offered through professional tax preparation firms that offer E-File to their customers. When a consumer has there taxes prepared they can request the loan product in order to access funds 10-35 days quicker than if they there where to wait for the IRS to direct deposit or mail their tax refund. Consumers who receive RALs are usually charged an application or documentation fee by their tax preparation firm in addition to the the loan's service and financing fees. Fees are variable depending upon the bank financing the loan, most banks charge approximately $110 for a $2800 refund anticipation loan[1].[2][3] ($2800 is the average refund amount, that would be a good number to use in the article [5]) Expressed as an APR the loan fee for a $2800 can between 120%-57% depending on the day of the week the the tax return is filed and length of time it takes the IRS to process the tax return. The loan requests can be denied based upon certain forms that may be filed as well as in a credit check for delinquent government obligations. In cases where the loans are not fully repaid by the tax refund within 90 days, consumers then become responsible for repayment.

The benefit of this product would be for customers who are in immediate need of funds. Since the product is a unsecured loan it can also boost credit scores after it's payoff. The product also allows consumers to have there taxes prepared with no up front fees, the client can optionally have them deducted from their tax refund.

There are several drawbacks to the product. One is that if the loan is declined the client in most cases will be unable to have their check mailed or direct deposited to their account, they will still have to receive their check through their tax preparation firm. Another drawback is that in some cases if the client owes a loan balance from a prior year RAL then their refund can be seized as a cross-collections repayment.[4]

[edit] 2008 Regulatory Developments and minor other changes

I removed a statement early in the article that a RAL loan has a 100% chance of being paid by IRS. Obviously the chance is not 100%, otherwise the fees would be much lower. In my experience approved RAL loans have about an 85% chance of being paid on time. I substituted the word significant instead of 100%.

Also, I added a good bit of information under the recent state regulation subhead that covers precisely why RALs are legal and why state actions against them always take the form of alleging overpromotion or fraudulent presentation of the product.

Further, I added some limited information regarding the "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" that was issued by the IRS in January 2008 which is a hint towards potential future regulation of RALs by the IRS.

Finally, in reading the article I still have concerns that the NPV flag might should come back. The article is considerably out of balance in terms of the quantity of information slanted against RALs and the quantity of information slanted for RALs. Consider this: if 10% of RALs are oversold then using the legacy numbers in the current article of 12 million RALs per year, there are over 10 million properly sold, happy, and very satisfied purchasers of RALs in the United States every year. Does that warrant an article with such a negative slant.

As always, to my own detriment, I have written almost completely from memory, with very little documentation.

72.254.22.168 (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind finding and citing sources? ~~ N (t/c) 08:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed statement

I have moved this statment here:

A 2006 study by the NCLC and the Consumer Federation of America found that "based on national averages, an EITC borrower could expect to pay $900 in fees for refund loan, electronic filing, check cashing and tax preparation fees to obtain a $2,150 refund."[5]

This statement is very misleading and should be changed or removed. This is talking about the total cost of tax filing plus a refund anticipation loan. Refund anticipation loan fees do not exceed $150, and for a $2,150 the cost would be more like $100. A quick review or the pricing on RAL websites will show this. The person would have to pay the tax prepareration fees and filing fees even if they did not get a RAL and that accounts for 80% of the cost. If you read the report it is talking about it shows that the average ral fee charged in 2006 was $100.16 and that the average application fee charged by the preparer was $29.08. The way this statement read it sounds as if it is trying to say the entire $900, or at least the big chunk is for rals.[6] To insinuate that tax preparation and filing fees are related to the amount of the refund is very misleading, and to link preparation fees and filing fees to the refund amount is illegal. The fees are charged for services rendered, not financing. Charles Edward 13:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because the content was accurately sourced per WP:RS. Please review WP:COI, WP:CORP and WP:OR if you want to continue to push your corporate POV on this talk page and the RAL article mainspace. Flowanda | Talk 09:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ RAL Pricing at Refund Solutions
  2. ^ RAL Pricing at the Tax Division
  3. ^ A RAL application from Chase Taxpayer Refund Solutions
  4. ^ Lawsuits are currently pending in California and Massachusetts on the legality of this practice
  5. ^ The high price of refund anticipation loans
This information was cited from an article that was misrepresenting a fact stated in a primary source. Do you ever discuss substance, or do you only quote wiki guidlines? That statement is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. Read the actual document that is being cited in the reference and you will find that it is a twist of the facts.
Please Flowanda just read the report.[7] It states on page 7: III. Price of a RAL for 2005

Based upon the prices for RALs in 2006, a consumer can expect to pay about $100 in order to get a RAL for the average refund of about $2,150 from a commercial tax preparation chain this year. This loan fee includes the fee supposedly for the “dummy” bank account used to receive the consumer’s tax refund from IRS to repay the RAL. The effective APR on this RAL would be 178%.29 This does not sound like $900, the source used is misrepresenting this report.

If you cannot see this I suggest we get an admin to mediate. I believe you are biased and have a COI as is demonstrated by your anti-corporate crusade on wikipedia. And for the record, I do not work for a corporation or a RAL bank. I did several years ago. At least I admit that I have suggested things that are original research, I have never pushed a corporate POV on this article - And that you see shows your own bias. However I suspect, once shown the folly of your ways with facts, you will as normal only site wiki guidelines and impune the editor rather base your decision on the facts of the sources. I am going to change that statement again. If there is an edit war let the record show you started it. Charles Edward 11:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)