Unsigned Check to IRS

Good thing you signed your tax return, or that probably would have been sent to you and treated as not filed.

Interesting. The IRS sent mine back for signature this year.

Like most govt offices, it just depends on what what employee looks at it, and what do they see; or not see.

But if one of my clients writes the wrong amount on that line and it's not what's in the numeric box above and to the write on a check, all tellers at my bank will catch it immediately. Like the one lady who wrote in $100 correctly, but absentmindedly on the next line wrote out "One and 00/100------"!

ChEAr$, Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

Actually, it seems the IRS has a streamlined procedure for handling this. A couple of years ago I sent in an unsigned return. This was accepted (it was a payment due return), and in a couple weeks I just got a letter that described the return and just asked for a signature on the letter verifying the correctness of the return. The return itself was not sent back, and as far as I could tell there was no indication that the return was not considered as timely filed.

Since the words describing the amount on a check by law supercede the numerals, I hope you got paid what she actually owed.

Stu

I've had unsigned checks to utilities and a doctor paid by my bank. In theory I could have forced my bank to back the check out but since they once called to ask what they should do with an accidental NSF check I forgave them.

Back in the late '70's I was reconciling my bank statement, and when I came to a check I had written to American Express, the signature line bore the words "wife says ok"

There was no problem of course. I brought check back to office with me and called her. I knew she would be embarrassed and she was. Moral of the story: I check all checks before making out deposit slip.

ChEAr$, Harlan

HAH Now THAT one I would have "called the bank" on.

But I forget that just maybe that check was on a joint account. could have been.

ChEAr$, Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

Which would probably have cost you a lot more, because you'd still have had to pay the utilities and doctor, and they'd have added charges for sending them bad checks.

Seth

If the bank noticed the missing signature, it should not have been honoured.

That's up to the bank. The account owner might be able to have it bounced retroactively, but the bank is certainly allowed to pay it. (Check the UCC; the relevant section reads "The bank wins.")

Seth

They may even honor the check if the signature doesn't match. I once signed a check "Mickey Mouse" just to see if it would go through and it did.

Banks don't routinely check the signature on small value checks, it is cheaper for them to take the occasional hit for mistakes or fraud than to verify millions of checks each day. That's quite different from a bank noticing the missing signature, stamping it "refer to drawer" then still paying it. An unsigned check is not a valid instrument.

Did the bank stamp that, or the recipient?

I forgot to sign a check, and it went through anyway, with something like "lack of endorsement guaranteed" stamped on it by the phone company.

Seth

The endorsement is not the same as the signature of the maker. As someone else mentioned earlier, an unsigned check is technically not good. A signed check without an an endorsement is good. The issue is who guarantees the recipient gets paid.

Stu

Good point. It was more like "lack of signature guaranteed", stamped by the phone company.

I suspect that the bank at most saw there was something on that line (if they even looked, not likely for a 2-figure check) and let it go through.

Seth

In my case, all's well that ends well. But I don't know whether to be annoyed that the bank honored an unsigned check, or be happy that the check wasn't returned, making the payment even later than it already was. Or both.

========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:

- given those choices, I'd pick "happy".