Retirement Assets In A CDP Hearing

 

Let’s talk about a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, how CDPs came about and a great way to flub one.

Think of filing taxes as having two phases:

·      The assessment of tax

 For most of us, this means filing the return. It shows total tax due, from which is subtracted tax withholdings and other payments. In general, processing the return is tantamount to assessing the total tax due shown on the return. Assessment in turn begins the statute of limitations. 

·      The collection of tax 

If you are overpaid, you are normally done with the process right here. 

Go the other way and the IRS may send notice and demand for payment. If the taxpayer fails to pay, a tax lien is created automatically retroactive to the date of assessment (Sec. 6321). 

This lien is a quiet lien and does not take priority over other competing claims. The lien we fear - the publicly-recorded lien which does take priority – requires a second step. 

The lien establishes a pathway for the IRS to take property to satisfy that unpaid assessment. The IRS could, for example, bring suit to enforce the lien. More commonly, the IRS will take collection action without seeking court approval. 

That ability to take property – a bank account, a garnishment on a paycheck – is generally referred to as a power to levy.

The CDP hearing takes place here – at the point where the IRS wants to formally file its lien and/or engage its Collection division.  Code section 6330 provides for CDP hearings. Congress wanted to protect taxpayers from arbitrary or abusive IRS actions (there was history) as well as provide procedural guardrails for taxpayers.

Section 6330 requires the IRS to notify a taxpayer at least 30 days in advance of his/her right to an administrative hearing (the CDP hearing) before the IRS Office of Appeals. After the Office issues its determination, the taxpayer may then petition the Tax Court for judicial review. This review is very limited and concerns abuse of discretion by the IRS.

It may come as a surprise to a nonpractitioner, but a taxpayer is generally not allowed to dispute a tax liability at a CDP hearing. The reasoning is that the taxpayer had earlier opportunities to dispute a liability. The CDP is instead a collection hearing. To the extent review of an underlying liability is permitted, it is as a remedy against abusive collection and as protection for taxpayers who would fall through the cracks (for example, a taxpayer who was never notified that they were in Collections).

Let’s talk about a CDP case in Scanlon and Fairweather v Commissioner.

“The only issue for decision is whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Office of Appeals (Appeals) abused its discretion in sustaining” collection actions against the taxpayers.

The Court’s involvement is limited: it will not reopen the matter (nerd term is “de novo”), but it will review to determine if the IRS abused its authority, perhaps by not following its own rules. This limit is intentional. CDP cases constitute approximately 15% of Tax Court cases annually, even with this limited reach.

Lawrence Scanlon was an associate professor of English at Rutgers University, and his wife (Aline Fairweather) was an attorney with Pepper Hamilton. For the years 2011 through 2013 their taxable income ranged from $345,603 to $441,185. The tax issue was their failure to pay estimated taxes against that income, resulting in a considerable tax bill.

Here is a timeline:

10/21/14      IRS sent Notice of Federal Tax Lien for 2011 and 2012.

11/27/14        Taxpayers sent Form 12153 (Request for CDP or Equivalent Hearing). Taxpayers did not challenge the underlying liabilities.

1/12/15        IRS Settlement Officer (SO) requested financial information (Form 433-A), collection alternatives, a copy of the 2013 return, and a scheduled follow-up call for 2/4/15.

1/13/15        IRS sent a second lien notice for 2013.

1/31/15        Taxpayers’ representative (Markham) sent the SO Form 433-A and proposed monthly payments of $3,000.

2/4/15          The SO tried but failed to contact Markham.

2/4/15          Later that day Markham faxed the SO saying that a follow-up was not necessary, that taxpayers had submitted financial information, and reiterated the monthly $3,000 proposal.

2/10/15        IRS sent Final Notice of Intent to Levy for 2013, which liability exceeded $117 grand.

2/20/15        Taxpayers submitted another 12153 (for a second CDP hearing). Taxpayers also resubmitted the 433-A from 1/31/15 proposing a monthly $3,000 payment.

3/16/15        The SO determined that taxpayers had enough retirement assets (one account at TIAA-CREF and a second at Vanguard, both totaling $645,538) to pay the IRS ($271,941) and scheduled a telephone conference for 7/24/15.

7/24/15        Taxpayers objected to the retirement proposal, arguing tax implications. The SO had another call. She was to return the call by end of day, but she could not reach Markham. The SO scheduled another conference call for 9/23/15.

9/23/15        Markham told the SO that taxpayers could not reach the retirement funds; the SO asked how Mrs Fairweather had managed to borrow $30,000 against her Vanguard account. The SO wanted some verification that no further borrowings or withdrawals were available from Vanguard or TIAA-CREF. She requested a response date of 9/30/15.

11/20/15      Taxpayers had not responded. The SO checked 2014 (not enough tax payments to cover the liability) and 2015 (no payments at all). She left a message for taxpayers that she was proceeding with collection action.

And … we are in Tax Court.

I could predict how this would go when I got to 7/24/15.

Through that date, the SO was behaving with restraint. The taxpayers were repeating a pattern (not paying) and the taxes due were adding up. The taxpayers however appeared to be acting in good faith, even though one had to wonder where the household income was going.  

Then we reached the two retirement accounts. Mrs Fairweather argued that one (Vanguard) was beyond her reach. We know next to nothing about the second. We do know that Markham (taxpayers’ representative) objected “because of its tax implications.” Really? If you are this deep into IRS machinery, I doubt the SO is overly concerned about your tax implications. I might, if pressed, request the SO to allow withdrawal and payment over two calendar years - to lessen some of the tax pressure.

And here is decades of tax practice speaking: you cannot - CANNOT - blow-off a response date. If there is a problem obtaining paperwork, let the IRS know as soon as possible. If life makes you unavailable that day, have someone in the office contact the IRS, preferably ahead of any scheduled call. There are … companies … out there that will use CDPs (and similar) to delay and obstruct collection activity. I know this. The IRS knows this. Do NOT give the SO reason to think you are one of those people. 

NOTE:  I have found that failure to make current estimated tax payments will generally doom a taxpayer’s request for a payment plan. I understand the issue: how can I pay this year when I cannot afford to pay the back years? Pay something toward the current year. Extend the return and continue paying on the year until you file on the last day of extension. Cut out some expenses and redirect the money. The IRS wants to see you stop digging the hole you are in.

Here is the Court:

Petitioners do not challenge the validity of their underlying Federal income tax liabilities for 2011, 2012, and 2013."

As discussed, a CDP is not the place for this anyway.

… petitioner’s underlying liabilities are not properly before the Court, and we will review Appeal’s determination for abuse of discretion…”

We do not conduct an independent review and substitute our own judgement for that of the appeals officer.”

What is the Court going to look at?

The only issue petitioners raise is whether Appeals determination to reject their proposed installment agreement and sustain the lien filings for 2011, 2012, and 2013, and the proposed levy for 2013 was an abuse of discretion.”

The first issue is the failure to make current estimated tax payments.

But …

No surprise. I have butted heads here too many times to count.

The second issue involves burning the retirement account(s).

I see that Mr Scanlon was 60 years old and Mrs Fairweather was 55. How about an economic hardship argument - only so many years to restore the monies otherwise drained from the retirement account and such?

Here you see an instance of hard procedure. There are areas in tax where “turn right” is not the same as “turn left, then left, then left.” This is one of them.

The IRS won. The IRS almost always wins a CDP case. The Court is reviewing for abuse of discretion and not for commendable application of common sense. It is a very high bar to overcome.

Our case this time was Scanlon and Fairweather v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2018-51.

A Lesser Known Statute Of Limitations

The last time I checked, IRS Appeals personnel count was down by approximately 20% and – no surprise – getting a case through Appeals is taking over a year.

There is danger – and potentially an immediate one – to taxpayers and tax advisors.

Take a look at this cheerful composition:

26 U.S. Code § 6532 - Periods of limitation on suits

(1) General rule

No suit or proceeding under section 7422(a) for the recovery of any internal revenue tax, penalty, or other sum, shall be begun before the expiration of 6 months from the date of filing the claim required under such section unless the Secretary renders a decision thereon within that time, nor after the expiration of 2 years from the date of mailing by certified mail or registered mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice of the disallowance of the part of the claim to which the suit or proceeding relates.

(2) Extension of time

The 2-year period prescribed in paragraph (1) shall be extended for such period as may be agreed upon in writing between the taxpayer and the Secretary.

(3) Waiver of notice of disallowance

If any person files a written waiver of the requirement that he be mailed a notice of disallowance, the 2-year period prescribed in paragraph (1) shall begin on the date such waiver is filed.

(4) Reconsideration after mailing of notice

Any consideration, reconsideration, or action by the Secretary with respect to such claim following the mailing of a notice by certified mail or registered mail of disallowance shall not operate to extend the period within which suit may be begun.

We see the following:

The IRS has 6 months to respond to a claim for refund. If no response is forthcoming within that time, the taxpayer can sue for refund, as long as the suit or proceeding occurs within the two-year period beginning with the date the IRS formally disallowed the claim.

What if the IRS never responds to the claim? Your tax advisor (CPA or attorney) will likely recommend you file suit within 2 years from filing the claim. If you file, a tax CPA will hand you off to a tax attorney. A tax CPA can do a lot, but one must be a member of the bar to litigate.

What happens if you miss the Section 6532 deadline?

Let’s look at this next artful arrangement:

26 U.S. Code § 6514 - Credits or refunds after period of limitation

(a) Credits or refunds after period of limitation

A refund of any portion of an internal revenue tax shall be considered erroneous and a credit of any such portion shall be considered void—

(1) Expiration of period for filing claim

If made after the expiration of the period of limitation for filing claim therefor, unless within such period claim was filed; or

(2) Disallowance of claim and expiration of period for filing suit

In the case of a claim filed within the proper time and disallowed by the Secretary, if the credit or refund was made after the expiration of the period of limitation for filing suit, unless within such period suit was begun by the taxpayer.

(3) Recovery of erroneous refunds

For procedure by the United States to recover erroneous refunds, see sections 6532(b) and 7405.

(b) Credit after period of limitation

Any credit against a liability in respect of any taxable year shall be void if any payment in respect of such liability would be considered an overpayment under section 6401(a).

Section 6514(a)(2) can be brutal: the IRS is prohibited from issuing the refund unless within such period suit was begun by the taxpayer.

Oh, this is all big corporate tax stuff, you say. Unless your name is Apple or Nvidia, can this ever reach you?

Yepper.

What if you filed for an ERC (employee retention credit) and (1) have never heard back from the IRS or (2) did hear back but the IRS disallowed the claim? The IRS has been using Letter 105C (if they disallowed the ERC claim in full) or Letter 106C (if they partially disallowed the claim). A 105C letter will include language like this:

         

There is the disallowance language that Sections 6532 and 6514 allude to.

When was the IRS sending out these letters?

After running ERC claims through a risk-scoring algorithm, the IRS sent out approximately 28,000 letters 105C and 106C during the summer of 2024. If the taxpayer responded (to the 105C or 106C), the IRS would then conduct an mini-audit before sending the file to Appeals.

2024 plus 2 years equals 2026 – your two-year statute of limitations is coming up.

Is there a way to avoid filing in Court but still preserve your rights to a refund?

Yes. Let’s go back to Section 6532(a)(2).

There is a form that goes with it.

  

Here is the Internal Revenue Manual on Form 907:

On first impression, I like the Form 907 option. What more do we need to know about it?

(1)  First, you are still within Section 6532, so this must be done within the 2-year window.

(2)  Both parties – you and the IRS – must sign Form 907.

(3)  If the case is being actively worked, the Revenue Agent or Appeals Officer can hopefully help obtain the appropriate IRS signature.

But what if the case is not being actively worked?

There are several ways this can happen:

·      The file is lost (I had one lost in IRS Kansas City a few years ago; it held up a real estate closing).

·      You are waiting for the protest to be transferred to Appeals.

·      The protest has been transferred to Appeals but remains unassigned.

·      The protest was transferred and assigned but your AO is no longer working at the IRS. It again is … unassigned.

·      You never even filed a protest to either Letter 105C or 106C.

The IRS considers Form 907 to be an internal form, to be initiated by IRS employees. If you have settled on Form 907 and your back is to the wall on obtaining an IRS signature, consider the Taxpayer Advocate.

But give yourself breathing room. I suspect that trying to obtain an IRS signature on short notice – whether actively worked or not, assigned or unassigned – will prove futile.

You might have to file suit to preserve the claim.

 

Firing A Client

We fired a client.

Nice enough fellow, but he would not listen. To us, to the IRS, to getting out of harm’s way.

He brought us an examination that started with the following:

We filed in Tax Court. I was optimistic that we could resolve the matter when the file returned to Appeals. There was Thanos-level dumb there, but there was no intentional underreporting or anything like that.

It may have been one of the most demanding audits of my career. The demanding part was the client.

Folks, staring down a $700 grand-plus assessment from the IRS is not the time to rage against the machine.  An audit requires documentation: of receipts, of expenses. Yes, it is bothersome (if not embarrassing) to contact a supplier for their paperwork on your purchases in a prior year. Consider it an incentive to improve your recordkeeping.

At one point we drew a very harsh rebuke from the Appeals Officer over difficulties in providing documentation and adhering to schedules. This behavior, especially if repetitive, could be seen as the bob and weave of a tax protester, and the practitioner involved could also be seen as enabling said protestor.

As said practitioner I was not amused.

We offered to provide a cash roll to the AO. There was oddball cash movement between the client and a related family company, and one did not need a psychology degree to read  that the AO was uncomfortable. The roll would show that all numbers had been included on the return. I wanted the client to do the heavy lifting here, especially since he knew the transactions and I did not. There were a lot of transactions, and I had a remaining book of clients requiring attention. We needed to soothe the AO somehow.

He did not take my request well at all.

I in turn did not take his response well.

Voices may have been raised.

Wouldn’t you know that the roll showed that the client had missed several expenses?

Eventually we settled with the IRS for about 4 percent of the above total. I knew he would have to pay something, even if only interest and penalties on taxes he had paid late. 

And that deal was threatened near the very end.

IRS counsel did not care for the condition of taxpayer’s signature on a signoff. I get it: at one point there was live ink, but that did not survive the copy/scan/PDF cycle all too well. Counsel wanted a fresh signature, meaning the AO wanted it and then I wanted it too.

Taxpayer was on a cruise.

I left a message: “Call me immediately upon return. There is a wobble with the IRS audit. It is easily resolved, but we have time pressure.”

He returned. He did not call immediately. Meanwhile the attorneys are calling the AO. The AO is calling me. She could tell that I was beyond annoyed with him, which noticeably changed her tone and interaction. We were both suffering by this point.

The client finally surfaced, complaining about having to stop everything when the IRS popped up.

Not so. The IRS reduced its preliminary assessment by 96%. We probably could have cut that remaining 4% in half had we done a better job responding and providing information. Some of that 4% was stupid tax.”

And second, you did not stop everything. You had been in town a week before calling me.”

We had a frank conversation about upping his accounting game. I understand that he does not make money doing accounting. I am not interested in repeating that audit. Perhaps  we could use a public bookkeeper. Perhaps we could use our accountants. Perhaps he (or someone working for him) could keep a bare-boned QuickBooks and our accountants would review and scrub it two or three times a year.

Would not listen.

We fired a client.

An IRS Examination And A New IRS Hire

 

I have gotten dragged into a rabbit hole.

I often get involved with clients on a one-off basis: they are buying a company, selling their business, expanding into other states, looking into oddball tax credits and so forth. Several of our clients have been selling their businesses. In some cases, they have been offered crazy money by a roll-up; in others it is the call of retirement. I was looking at the sale of a liquor store last fall. As business sales go, it was not remarkable. The owner is 75 years old and has been working there since he was a teenager. It was time. The sale happened this year.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago. The CPA who works with the liquor store was taking time off, but I was in the office. The owner remembered me.

“Can I see you this afternoon,” he asked.

“Of course. Let me know what works for you.”

He brought an IRS notice of appointment with a field revenue officer. I reviewed the notice: there was a payroll issue as well as an issue with the annual deposit to retain a fiscal year.

I had an educated guess about the annual deposit. This filing is required when a passthrough (think partnership or S corporation) has a year-end other than December. We do not see many of these, as passthroughs have mostly moved to calendar year-ends since the mid-eighties. The deposit is a paper-file, and clients have become so used to electronic filing they sometimes forget that some returns must still be filed via snail mail.

The payroll tax issue was more subtle. For some reason, the IRS had not posted a deposit for quarter 4, 2022. This set a penalty cascade into motion, as the IRS will unilaterally reorder subsequent tax deposits. Let this reordering go on for a couple of quarters or more and getting the matter corrected can border on a herculean task.

I spoke with the revenue officer. She sounded very much like a new hire. Her manager was on the call with her. Yep, new hire.

Let’s start the routine:

“Your client owes a [fill in the blank] dollars. Can they pay that today?”

“I disagree they owe that money. I suspect it is much less, if they owe at all.”

“I see. Why do you say that?”

I gave my spiel.

“I see. Once again, do you want to make payment arrangements?”

I have been through this many times, but it still tests my patience.

“No, I will recap the liabilities and deposits for the two quarters under discussion to assist your review. Once you credit the suspended payroll deposit to Q4, you will see the numbers fall into place.”

“What about the 8752 (the deposit for the non-calendar year-end)?

“I have record that it was prepared and provided to the taxpayer. Was it not filed?”

“I am not seeing one filed.”

“These forms are daft, as they are filed in May following the fiscal year in question. Let’s be precise which fiscal year is at issue, and I will send you a copy. Do you want it signed?”

The manager chimes in: that is incorrect. Those forms are due in December.”

Sigh.

New hire, poorly trained manager. Got it.

I ask for time to reply. I assemble documents, draft a walkthrough narration, and fax it to the field revenue officer. I figure we have one more call. Maybe the client owes a couple of bucks because … of course, but we should be close.

Then I received the following:

 

I am not amused.

The IRS has misstepped. They escalated what did not need to escalate, costing me additional time and the client additional professional fees. Here is something not included when discussing additional IRS funding for new hires: who is going to train the new hires? The brain drain at the IRS over the last decade and a half has been brutal. It is debatable whether there remains a deep enough lineup to properly train new hires in the numbers and time frame being presented. What is realistic – half as many? Twice as long? Bring people out of retirement to help with the training?

Mind you, I am pulling for the IRS. The better they do their job the easier my job becomes. That said, there are realities. CPA firms cannot find qualified hires in adequate numbers, and the situation does not change by substituting one set of letters (fill-in whatever word-salad firm name you want) for another (IRS). Money is an issue, of course, but money is not the only issue. There are enormous societal changes at work.

What is our next procedural move?

I requested a CDP hearing.

The Collections Due Process hearing is a breather as the IRS revs its Collections engines. It allows one to present alternatives to default Collections, such as:

·      An offer in compromise

·      An installment agreement

I have no intention of presenting Collections alternatives. If we owe a few dollars, I will ask the client to write a check to the IRS. No, what I want is the right to dispute the amount of tax liability.

A liability still under examination by a field revenue officer. I have agreed to nothing. I have not even had a follow-up phone call. A word to the new hires: it is considered best practice – and courteous - to not surprise the tax practitioner. A little social skill goes a long way.

The Notice of Intent to Levy was premature.

Someone was not properly trained.

Or supervised.

I question whether this would have happened 15 or more years ago.

But then again, 15 years from now the new hires will be the institutional memory at the IRS.

It is the years in between that are problematic.

IRS Collection Alternatives: Pay Attention To Details

 

I was glancing over recent Tax Court cases when I noticed one that involved a rapper.

I’ll be honest: I do not know who this is. I am told that he used to date Kylie Jenner. There was something in the opinion, however, that caught my eye because it is so common.

Michael Stevenson filed his 2019 tax return showing federal tax liability over $2.1 million.

COMMENT: His stage name is Tyga, and the Court referred to him as “very successful.” Yep, with tax at $2.1-plus million for one year, I would say that he is very successful.

Stevenson had requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. It must have gone south, as he was now in Tax Court.

Why a CDP hearing, though?

Stevenson had a prior payment plan of $65 grand per month.

COMMENT: You and I could both live well on that.

His income had gone down, and he now needed to decrease his monthly payment.

COMMENT: I have had several of these over the years. Not impossible but not easy.

The Settlement Officer (SO) requested several things:

·      Form 433-A (think the IRS equivalent of personal financial statements)

·      Copies of bank statements

·      Copies of other relevant financial documents

·      Proof of current year estimated tax payments

Standard stuff.

The SO wanted the information on or by November 4, 2021.

Which came and went, but Stevenson had not submitted anything.

Strike One.

The SO was helpful, it appeared, and extended the due date to November 19.

Still nothing.

Strike Two.

Stevenson did send a letter to the SO on December 1.

He proposed payments of $13,000 per month. He also included Form 433-A and copies of bank statements and other documents.

COMMENT: Doing well. There is one more thing ….

The SO called Stevenson’s tax representative. She had researched and learned that Stevenson had not made estimated tax payments for the preceding nine years. She wanted an estimated tax payment for 2021, and she wanted it now.

COMMENT: Well, yes. After nine years people stop believing you.

Stevenson made an estimated tax payment on December 21. It was sizeable enough to cover his first three quarters.

COMMENT: He was learning.

The SO sent the paperwork off to a compliance unit. She requested Stevenson to continue his estimated payments into 2022 while the file was being worked. She also requested that he send her proof of payments.

The compliance unit did not work the file, and in July 2022 the SO restarted the case. She calculated a monthly payment MUCH higher than Stevenson had earlier proposed.

COMMENT: The SO estimated Stevenson’s future gross income by averaging his 2020 and (known) 2021 income. Granted, she needed a number, but this methodology may not work well with inconsistent (or declining) income. She also estimated his expenses, using his numbers when documented and tables or other sources when not.

The SO spoke with the tax representative, explaining her numbers and requesting any additional information or documentation for consideration.

COMMENT: This is code for “give me something to justify getting closer to your number than mine.”

Oh, she also wanted proof of 2022 estimated tax payments by August 22, 2022.

Yeah, you know what happened.

Strike Three.

So, Stevenson was in Tax Court charging the SO with abusing her discretion by rejecting his proposed collection alternatives.

Remember the something that caught my eye?

It is someone not understanding the weight the IRS gives to estimated tax payments while working collection alternatives.   

Hey, I get it: one is seeking collection alternatives because cash is tight. Still, within those limits, you must prioritize sending the IRS … something. I would rather argue that my client sent all he/she could than argue that he/she could not send anything at all.

And the amount of tax debt can be a factor.

How much did Stevenson owe?

$8 million.

The Court decided against Stevenson.

Here is the door closing:

The Commissioner has moved for summary judgement, contending that the undisputed facts establish that Mr. Stevenson was not in compliance with his estimated tax payment obligations and the settlement officer thus was justified in sustaining the notice of intent to levy.”

Our case this time was Stevenson v Commissioner, TC Memo 2023-115.

Part Time Bookkeeper, Big Time Penalty

 

We filed another petition with the Tax Court this week.

For a client new to the firm.

Much of this unfortunately was ICDIM: I can do it myself. The client did not understand how the IRS matches information. There was an oddball one-off transaction, resulting in nonstandard tax reporting. Stir in some you-do-not-know-what-you-do-not-know (YDNKWYDNK), some COVIDIRS202020212022 and now I am involved.

I am looking at case that just screams YDNKWYDNK.

Here is part of the first paragraph:

This case is before the Court on a Petition for review of a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 13, 2018 (notice of determination). The notice of determination sustained a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) filing (NFTL filing) with respect to trust fund recovery penalties (TFRPs) under section 6672. The TFRPs were assessed against petitioner for failing to collect and pay over employment taxes owed by Urgent Care Center, Inc. (Urgent Care), for taxable quarters ending June 30 and September 30, 2014 (periods at issue), resulting in outstanding liabilities of $6, 184.23 and $4, 190.77, respectively.

That section 6330 is hard procedural, and it is going to hurt.

Mr Kazmi was a bookkeeper. He worked part-time at Urgent Care. Urgent Care did not remit employment taxes for a stretch, and unfortunately that stretch included the period when Mr Kazmi was there.

We are talking the big boy penalty, otherwise known as the responsible person penalty. The point of the penalty is to migrate the tax due to someone who had enough authority and responsibility to have paid the IRS but chose not to.

Mr Kazmi had no ownership interest in Urgent Care. He was not an officer. He was not a signatory on any bank accounts. He had no authority to decide who got paid. At all times he worked under the authority of the person who owned the place (Dr Senno). What he did have was a tax power of attorney.

Folks, I probably have a thousand tax powers of attorney out there.

Sounds to me like Mr Kazmi was the least responsible person (at least for payroll taxes) at Urgent Care.

The IRS Revenue Officer (RO) thought otherwise and on December 16, 2015 issued Mr Kazmi a letter 1153, a letter which said “tag, you are a responsible party; have a nice day.”

From what I am reading, this was a preposterous position. I generally have respect for ROs, but this one is a bad apple.  

Still, there are consequences.

Procedurally Mr Kazmi had 60 days to challenge the 1153.

He did not.

Why?

He did not know what he did not know.

A little time passed and the IRS came for its money. It wanted a lien. It also wanted a vanilla waffle ice cream cone.

Mr Kazmi yelled: Halt! He filed for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. In the paperwork he included the obvious:

I am just a part-time bookkeeper. I am not responsible for collection or accounting or making payments for any tax payments for Urgent Care.

Makes sense.

Doesn’t matter.

He did not know what he did not know.

Let’s talk about the “one bite at the apple” rule.  In the current context, the rule means that a taxpayer cannot challenge an underlying liability if he/she already had a prior opportunity to do so.

One bite.

Mr Kazmi had his one bite when he received his letter 1153. You remember – the one he blew off.

He was now in CDP wanting to challenge the penalty. He wanted a second bite.

Not going to get it.

CDP was happy to talk about a payment plan and deadbeat taxpayers and whatnot. What it wouldn’t do was talk about whether Mr Kazmi deserved the penalty chop to begin with.

I am not a fan of such hard procedural. The vast majority of us will go a lifetime having no interaction with the IRS, excepting perhaps a minor notice now and then. It seems unreasonable to hold an average someone to stringent and obscure rules, rules that most attorneys and CPAs – unless they are tax specialists – would themselves be unaware of.

Still, it is what it is.

Does Mr Kazmi have any options left?

I think so.

Maybe a request for reconsideration.

Odds? So-so, maybe less.

A liability offer in compromise?

I like that one better.

Folks, it would have been much easier to pop this balloon back when the IRS trotted out that inappropriate letter 1153.

Mr Kazmi did not know what he did not know.

Our case this time was Kazmi v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-13.

  

Talking Tax Levies

I don’t see it very often.

I am referring to an IRS bank levy.

However, when it happens it can be disrupting.

Let’s distinguish between a lien and a levy.

A lien is a claim against property you own to secure the payment of tax that you owe. The most common is a real estate lien, and I have one on my desk as I write this.

A lien means that you are fairly deep into the collection process. It does not necessarily mean that you have blown-off the IRS. Owe enough money and the IRS will file a lien as a matter of policy. It does not mean anything is imminent, other than the lien hurting your credit score. When I see one is when someone wants to either sell or refinance a property. In either case the lien has to be addressed, which – if you think about it – is the point of a lien.

A levy is a different matter. A levy takes your stuff.

The threat of a levy is a powerful inducement to come to a collection agreement with the IRS. Perhaps the agreement is to pay-off the liability over time (referred to as an installment agreement). There is a variation where one cannot – realistically – pay-off the full liability over time. The IRS settles for less than the full liability, and this variation is called a partial-pay agreement.  A cousin to the partial-pay is the offer in compromise, that of notorious (“pennies on the dollar”) middle-of-the-night TV fame. If one is in dire enough circumstances, there is also currently-not-collectible status. The IRS will not collect for a period of time (around a year). A code is posted on your account and further collection action will cease (again, for about a year).

What collection agreements do is put a stop to IRS levies – with one exception.

Let’s talk about the three most common levies that the IRS uses.

The first is the tax refund offset.

This happens when you file a tax return showing a refund. The IRS will not send you a refund check; rather they will apply it to tax due for other periods or years. It is a relatively innocuous way of collecting on the debt, and I have seen clients intentionally use the offset as a way of paying down (or off) their back taxes.

The offset, by the way, is the one exception to continued IRS levy action mentioned above.

The second is the garnishment. The most common is the wage garnishment. The IRS sends a letter to your employer, advising them to start withholding. Your employer will, because – if they don’t – they become responsible for any amounts that should have been garnished. I have heard of people who will then keep changing jobs, with the intent of staying one step ahead of the IRS.  

There are other types of garnishments, depending on the income source. An independent contractor can be garnished, for example. Even social security can be garnished.

In general, if you get to this type of levy, you REALLY want to work something out with the IRS. The tax Code addresses what the IRS has to leave for you to live on; it does not address how much it can take.

The third is the bank levy.

The IRS sends a notice to the bank, which then has to freeze your account. The notice can be mailed (probably the most common way) or it can be hand-delivered by a revenue officer. The freeze is for 21 days, after which the bank is (unless you do something) sending your balance (up to the amount due) to the IRS.

That is how it works, folks. It is not pretty, and it is not intended to be.

You may wonder what the 21 days is about. The IRS wants you to contact them and work-out a collection plan. Hit the ground running and you might be able to stop the levy. Delay and all hope is likely gone.

The risk of a bank levy is one reason why some taxpayers are hesitant to provide bank information with their tax returns. Granted, as private information becomes anything but and as tax agencies are mandating electronic bank payments this issue is receding into the distance.

Did you, for example, know that the IRS can ping your bank account, just to find out your balance?

Take a look at this:

         § 6333 Production of books.

If a levy has been made or is about to be made on any property, or right to property, any person having custody or control of any books or records, containing evidence or statements relating to the property or right to property subject to levy, shall, upon demand of the Secretary, exhibit such books or records to the Secretary.

There is something about a bank levy that you may want to know: it is a one-time shot.

An offset or wage levy is self-sustaining. It will continue month after month, payment after payment, until the debt is paid off or the levy expires.

The bank levy is different. It applies to the balance in your bank account when the levy is delivered.  This means that it cannot reach a deposit made to the account the following day, week or month. If the IRS wants to reach those deposits, it has to reissue the levy (the term is “renew”).

What got me thinking about bank levies is a Chief Counsel Advice I was reading recently. A bank received a levy, and, wouldn’t you know, the taxpayer made a deposit to the account the same day – but after the bank’s receipt of the levy. The bank had zero desire to mess with surrogate liability and asked the IRS what it should do with that later deposit.

Remember that a bank levy is a photograph – a frozen moment in time. The IRS said that the later deposit occurred after that moment and was not in the photograph. The bank was not required to withhold and remit that later deposit to the IRS.

Makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that the IRS would have/should have issued a blizzard of paperwork to the taxpayer, including an ominous “Notice of Intent to Levy” and “Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Rights to a Hearing.” Both those notices give one collection rights. I prefer the rights given under the “Final Notice,” but sometimes it takes a saint’s patience to explain to a client why we are not responding to the “Notice of Intent” and instead waiting on its sibling “Final Notice of Intent.”

Anyway, the taxpayer apparently blew-off these notices and kept depositing to the same bank account as if nothing was amiss in their world. Everything in the CCA made sense to me, with the exception of the taxpayer’s behavior.

This time we talked about Chief Counsel Advice 202118010.