Notice(s) Of Intent To Seize And Levy

 

I received the following notice under power of attorney for a client.  

Another accountant at Galactic Command works with the client. I am the tax nerd should problems arise.

Yeah, we have a problem.

For more than one year, too.

Combine the two and I can get cranky. Just because I know the route doesn’t mean I want to revisit the site.

But back to our topic.

The notice seems terrifying, doesn’t it? The IRS is talking about seizing and levying and all matters of unkindliness.

Let’s go through the sequence of these notices.

First, you owe the IRS. There is a sequence of four notices, sometimes referred to as the “500” sequence.

• CP501         You have unpaid taxes somewhere.
• CP502         We have not heard from you about unpaid taxes.
• CP503         Hey, dummy! Are you there?
• CP504         We intend to levy if you do not do something.

This is the fourth notice in the sequence for our client for tax year 2022. As you can see, he/she/they are moving through the IRS machinery rather quickly. Then again, almost $225,000 in taxes and penalties buys you a better spot in line.

The CP504 is however not the final:final notice.

Let’s talk IRS procedure.

Before the IRS can go after your stuff (bank account, car, John Cena collectibles), it must (almost always) allow you a hearing. This is called a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, and it entered the tax Code with the 1998 IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. The Act was Congress’ response to IRS horror stories, including aggressive collection actions.

The IRS is not allowed to go after you until you have been offered that CDP hearing. You can turn it down, blow it off or whatever, but the IRS must provide the opportunity before it can unleash the tender attention of Collections.

 Except …

There is a short list of stuff the IRS can levy before a CDP. The list is uncommon air, except for:

Your state tax refund

That’s it. For most of us, the IRS can only go after our state tax refund – at this stage.

Then you have the FINAL BIG BAD notice: either the 1058 or LT11.The difference depends on whether you have been assigned to a Revenue Officer (RO).

LIFE TIP: Avoid having your own Revenue Officer.

 

If you get to a 1058 or LT11, you are at the end of the line. You will be dealing with Collections, and it is unlikely you will like the experience.

You may want an attorney or CPA, depending upon.

Not that having a CPA seems to matter – because clearly not - to our client.

Offer In Compromise And Reasonable Collection Potential

Command Central is working two Collections cases with the same revenue officer.

For the most part, I am staying out of it. There is a young(er) tax guy here, and we are exposing him to the ins-and-outs of IRS procedure. This is a subject not taught in school, and training today is much like it was when I went through: a mentor and mouth-to-ear. Friday morning we spent quite a bit of time trying to determine whether someone’s tax year was still “open,” as it would make a substantial difference in how we approach the situation.

COMMENT: This is the statute of limitations. The IRS has three years to assess your return and then ten years to collect. Hypothetically one could get to thirteen years, but that would require the IRS to run the three-year gamut before assessing and then the ten-year stretch to collect. I do not believe I have ever seen the IRS do that. No, of greater likelihood is that the taxpayer has done things to suspend the statute (called “tolling”), things such as requesting payment plans or submitting offers in compromise. Do this repetitively and you might be surprised at how long ten years can stretch. 

Personally, I suspect one of these two clients is dead in the water.

Why?

Let’s like at some inside baseball for an offer in compromise.

Collections looks at something called reasonable collection potential (RCP). As a rule of thumb, figure that the IRS is looking at a bigger number than you are. RCP has two components:

(1)  Net realizable equity in your assets

The classic example is a paid-off house.

To be fair, the IRS does spot you some room. It will use 80% (rather than 100%) of the house’s market value, for example, and then allow you to reduce that by any mortgage. Yes, the IRS is pushing you to refinance the house and take out the equity. It is not unavoidable, however. The push could be mitigated (if not stopped altogether) in special circumstances.

(2)  Future remaining income

This is a multiple of your monthly disposable income.

Monthly disposable income (MDI) is the net of

·      Monthly income less

·      Allowable living expenses (ALE)

Trust me, what you consider your ALE is almost certain to be significantly higher than what the IRS considers your ALE. There are tables, for example, of selected expense categories such as allowable vehicle ownership and operating costs. The IRS is not going to spot you $1,000/month to drive a luxury SUV when calculating your ALE. You may owe it, but they are not going to allow it. Yep, the math has to give, and when it gives, it is going to fall on you.

MDI is then multiplied by either 12 or 24, depending on which flavor offer in compromise you are requesting.

The vanilla flavor, for example, requires you to submit a 20% deposit with the offer request.

That is a problem if you are broke.

Then you have to pay the remaining 80% payments over five months.

 But – you say – that 80% includes twelve months of income. How am I to generate twelve months of income in five months?

I get it, but I did not write the rules.

Let’s look at a recent case. We will then have a quiz question.

Mr. D owed taxes for 2009 through 2011, 2013 through 2017, and payroll tax trust fund penalties for quarter 2, 2014 and quarters 3 and 4, 2015. These totaled a bit under $410 grand.

Shheeessshhh.

Mrs. D owed taxes for 2011 and 2013 through 2017.

OK. Those were joint income tax liabilities and would already have been included in Mr. D’s $410 grand.

They filed and owed with their 2018 return.

In March 2020 they requested a Collection Due Process Hearing.

They filed and owed with their 2019 return.

In July 2020 they offered $45,966 to settle their personal taxes for 2009 through 2011 and 2013 through 2019. Total personal tax was about $437 grand.

Now began the Collections dance.

Their offer was submitted to the specialized unit that works with offers. The unit wanted more information. The D’s had disclosed, for example, that they had retirement accounts.

The IRS asked: could you send us paperwork on the retirement accounts? 

The D’s send information for her IRA but not for his 401(k).

COMMENT: It almost never works to play this game.

The IRS calculated RCP based on their best available information.

Let’s look at just one facet: the house.

The D’s said the house was worth $376,600 on their original application. It had a mortgage of $310,877.

The IRS said that the house was worth $680,816.

COMMENT: Really? Did they think the IRS had never heard of Zillow or Movoto?

Following is the taxpayers’ comment:

On September 24, 2021, petitioners acknowledged that this value did not reflect the actual fair market value of the personal residence, stating that ‘we always start low as the initial starting point of the negotiation.’”         

COMMENT: Again, it almost never works to play this game.

Here is the math for NRE:

FMV	680,816
	80%
Adjusted	544,653
Mortgage	(310,877)
RCE	233,776

                                          

 

 

The D’s argued that the $680,816 value for the house was ridiculous.

They had it appraised at $560,000.

The IRS said: OK. Even so, here is the NRE:              

FMV	560,000
	80%
Adjusted	448,000
Mortgage	(310,877)
RCE	137,123

The IRS of course determined the D’s could pay significantly more than their proposed offer. I want to stop our discussion here and go to our quiz question:

I have given you enough information to know the IRS would turn down their offer of $45,966. How do you know?

Go back and review how RCP is calculated.

It is the sum of realized assets and some multiple of income.

The offer was less than RCP.

In fact, it was less than the asset component of RCP.

Could it happen? Of course, but it would take exceptional circumstances: think elderly taxpayers, maybe severe if not terminal illness, the residence being the only meaningful asset, etc.

That is not what we have here.

So the D’s tried a gambit:

Petitioners propose that this Court find as fact their allegations that the SO was ‘hostile, irate [and] yelling’ and ‘not qualified to be impartial and honest in this case.’”

That might work. Must prove it though.

Jawboning the SO when gathering information does not seem like such a brilliant idea now.

Here is the Court:

Since the record before us (which we are bound by) is silent as to any of the SO’s alleged acts of impropriety or bias, we find this argument by petitioners to be unsubstantiated.”

Offer denied.

Our case this time was Dietz v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 203-69.

Collections and Hutzpah

 

An old partner of mine would have called it “hutzpah.”

The case is ridiculous, but it does give us a chance to review the tolling of the statute of limitations.

Let’s start:

·      The IRS has – barring unusual circumstances – only so much time to collect taxes from you. This period is 10 years from the date of assessment. A key concept here is that the date of assessment is not necessarily the date you filed, and that one tax year can have more than one ten-year period running concurrently (think an IRS audit a couple of years after you filed).

·      The 10 years can be interrupted (the fifty-cent word is “tolled”) for certain things, such as filing for an offer in compromise. This means that that 10-year statute can stretch to much longer than 10 years in the real world.

Let’s look at the Ward case.

The IRS determined the Wards had underreported income by $197 grand for 1996 and $209 grand for 1997. The Wards took the matter to Tax Court and lost.

The 1996 tax was assessed in November 2002.

COMMENT: Plus ten years puts one at November 2012.

The 1997 tax was assessed in December 2002.

COMMENT: Plus ten years means December 2012.

Alright, how in the world does one get to 2022 with these dates and facts?

Let’s look at the following:

(1)  Offer in compromise dated 12/27/2002

(2)  Due process hearing requested 7/15/2003

(3)  Offer in compromise dated 3/15/2004

(4)  Offer in compromise dated 12/4/2008

(5)  Due process hearing requested 12/16/2011

(6)  Offer in compromise dated 3/6/2014

(7)  Offer in compromise dated 9/23/2015

Five offers? This has the signature of tax protest and will likely go poorly with the Court.

Each offer tolls the statute. The IRS has up to two years to resolve an offer, and it is not uncommon for an offer to take a year or more to resolve. The statute is tolled while an offer is being considered. Just reviewing the dates quickly, the Wards added at almost seven years to the statute.   

Then we have the due process hearings.

A CDP is a Collections hearing and generally means that the IRS wants you to pay more tax than you think you can pay. The hearing allows one to propose a payment alternative – think a smaller monthly payment than the IRS wants. The statute is tolled during CDP, and the IRS tacks-on another 30 days to boot after the determination.

I see that just one of the CDPs added over a year and a half to the statute.

Add all the seven tolling events and the statute had tolled until the summer of 2021.

Yep, the tax years were open, and the IRS could pursue collection.

Let’s go back.

Remember I said that the Tax Court had decided the matter?

Two of the offers were to contest the tax liability.

Let’s give some background about offers.

There are three types of offers:

(1) You argue that you do not owe the tax (or at least as much). This is a "liability” offer.

(2) You argue that you cannot pay the amount due in full. Think of a “pennies on the dollar” late-night commercial and you get the drift. This is a “collectability” offer.

(3)  You argue that fair and effective and fair tax administration requires acceptance of an offer. This third type is rare. I have never done one in practice, although we presently have a client where I intend to request one. The facts are extraordinary, though, and involve financial malfeasance while the client was a minor.

A key point is that a liability offer is off the table once the Tax Court has decided. The Wards’ first and fourth offers were liability offers and were therefore invalid.

Still, the offers tolled the statute.

So, the Wards played a wild card: they argued that the IRS considered two invalid offers in order to toll the statute. The IRS was playing a cynical game to buy time, and the Wards should not be punished for the IRS’ egregious behavior.

Hutzpah!

The Court shut them down immediately:

It was Defendants who primarily benefited from these delays. While the offers remained pending, the IRS could not collect payment on the underlying assessments…. [By] filing so many offers, [Defendants] successfully blocked collections for years.”

The statute tolled. The Wards owed. The Court had little patience with people who knew just enough to muck-up the tax collection process for the better part of two decades.

Our case this time was United States of America v Walter and Virginia Ward, USDC AK, Case 3:21-cv-0056, July 6, 2022.

The Problem-Child Client: Recidivist

 

It happens: the problem-child client.

Let’s talk about one type of problem child: the recidivist.

Thomas Kelly was a securities broker in New York City. We have three tax years at play - 2013 to 2015. Thomas had not been filing his returns or paying his taxes.

On December 22, 2017, he filed 2013, reporting adjusted gross income of $1.9 million. The tax was approximately $690 grand.

A few days later (December 26, 2017) he filed 2014, reporting AGI of almost $1.5 million and tax of approximately $515 grand.

Keeping the streak going, on January 17, 2018, he filed 2015, reporting AGI of $1.2 million and tax over $400 grand.

Got it. Thomas fell out of the system and was now trying to get back in. Maybe there had been familial or medical setbacks. He was trying to correct his mistakes. Everybody likes a comeback story.

Let’s jump forward over a year and a half to September 2019. Thomas owed the IRS over $2.5 million for years 2013 through 2015.

Late file penalties. Late pay penalties. Interest on everything. Yep, it gets expensive.

The IRS issued three notices:

* Two for liens

* Another for a levy

Thomas requested a CDP (Collection Due Process) hearing. He was after three things:

* He wanted a payment plan

* He wanted withdrawal of the liens

* He wanted abatement of the penalties

Got it. So far this is standard stuff.

The hearing was scheduled for March 2020.

Then COVID happened.

The hearing was held-up until February 2021.

At the hearing …

FIRST, Thomas wanted to pay $30,000 per month.

Problem: Thomas owed enough that $30 grand would not pay his taxes in full before the statute of limitations played out.

CTG: This is a called a partial pay plan. There are requirements in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), and one is that the taxpayer be current on his/her other taxes. Thomas owed approximately $250 grand on his 2019 taxes.

The IRS did not want to include 2019 in his payment plan. In addition, the IRS did not see payments on his 2020 estimated taxes.

CTG: Borrow $250 grand and a bit more for those estimated taxes, Thomas. Battle, war, and all that.

It makes sense if you think about it. Thomas was asking the IRS to accept less than a dollar-on-a-dollar for past taxes. He was then asking the same deal for his current taxes. The IRS was not going to agree to this.

Thomas dug in his heels and wanted the IRS to include 2019 and 2020 in the payment plan.

The IRS of course didn’t.

Thomas complained that the IRS settlement officer abused his discretion in denying him a payment plan.

CTG: Thomas, shut up.

SECOND, Thomas wanted the liens removed.

CTG: This one is going to be tricky. The IRS is reluctant to remove a lien, especially once you get to those dollar levels.

Thomas argued that the IRS Settlement Officer abused his discretion in refusing to withdraw the liens.

CTG: Thomas … SHUT UP!

Thomas next argued that releasing the lien would facilitate his being able to pay the tax. The lien would affect his licensing, and that effect could negatively impact his earning power.

CTG: Nice segue. We now need to go from “could” to “would,” as we need to persuade skeptical parties. Is there a cite from governing body rules and regulations we can copy and paste? Can you get a letter from your employer? We need something more than our word, as that is considered self-serving.

Nope, says Thomas. My word is good enough.

CTG: You are not taking advice well, Thomas.

THIRD, Thomas wanted the penalties abated. He had two arguments.

CTG: Bring it.

The first was that he qualified for first time abatement (FTA).

CTG: OK, but that will address 2013 only. You won’t be able to use it again for the other years.

FTA is bread-and-butter. If you have been clean for the preceding 3 years, the IRS can waive the penalty. The FTA applies to a limited number of penalties, but the good news is that limited number included Thomas’s specific penalty.

Good job, Thomas.

However, the IRS pointed out that Thomas had penalties for 2012. The … tax … year … immediately … preceding 2013.

CTG: Thomas, did you even google what FTA is?

Thomas had a second argument: he had reasonable cause.

CTG: OK, Thomas, sway me.

His wife started spending money like madwoman in 2007. This caused all matters of marital and financial problems. She filed for divorce in 2015.

CTG: Thomas …

The attorney fees were crushing. He was having financial hardship …

CTG: Thomas …

… emotional problems …

CTG: Thomas …

… battling depression.

CTG: Thomas, the Court is going to want to know how your divorce proceedings – in 2015 – affected your tax responsibilities for 2013 and 2014.

Tax Court: Yes, Thomas, please tell us.

Here are a few trenchant comments by the Court:

He successfully conducted his securities business during 2013 – 2015, earning more than $1 million annually …”

… he has a history of tax noncompliance, dating as far back as 2009.”

His allegations of financial hardship at the relevant times thus seem questionable.”

CTG: We are losing them here, Thomas.

Tax Court:

In any event, financial hardship ‘generally does not affect a person’s ability to file.’”

CTG: Going…

Tax Court:

At the time of the CDP hearing petitioner’s outstanding liabilities for 2013 - 2015 exceeded $2.5 million. Those liabilities arose from his repeated failure to file returns and pay tax, despite earning between $1 million and $2 million annually. During the hearing he refused to pay even his (comparatively modest) estimated tax liability for 2020.

CTG: Gone.

Yes, the IRS sours with a recidivist. I have seen the IRS dig in when they see someone failing to file, never paying estimates, extending with no payment, repetitively filing returns with significant balances due. This is not a matter of knowing how to navigate the IRS. One can navigate like Magellan and not get there.

Thomas could have - I believe - gotten a partial pay. Perhaps he needed to borrow to pay 2019 and 2020, but: so what? He had the earning power, and borrowing would have facilitated the (much more significant) $2.5 million at play for 2013 through 2015.

He had a shot at releasing the liens if he could show (likely) injury to his earning power. He had to show some cause, though, otherwise everyone would make this argument and the IRS would never be able to lien.   

He was hosed on penalty abatement, however. Recidivist.

He certainly did not need to fling charges of abusing discretion. The Settlement Officer was just following IRM guidelines, which Thomas (or his tax advisor) could have double-checked at any time.   

Our case this time was Thomas E Kelly v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-73.

The IRS Caught Dumping A Collection Case

Let’s look at a taxpayer win on an issue not known for taxpayer wins.

Thomas Hamilton was an attorney and Edith Hamilton was a chaplain. They filed a 2016 tax return showing tax due of almost $72 thousand. They however did not pay the tax in full.

The IRS assessed.

The IRS then issued a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL) to secure its assessment.

This presented a procedural option: the Hamiltons could request a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. If they could work-out a payment agreement perhaps they might avoid the lien. Liens can be embarrassing.

They requested a CDP hearing.  

The IRS Settlement Officer (SO) asked for a lot of information, including:

(1)  Proof of 2018 estimated tax payments

(2)  Their 2017 personal tax return

(3)  Six months of bank statements

(4)  Three months of pay stubs

(5)  Proof of various expenses for the preceding three months

The SO also wanted the law practice to catch-up on its (mostly payroll-related) tax returns from 2015 through 2017.

The SO did stagger some of the due dates for the above: some were due on October 17, others were due October 24. The hearing itself was November 15, 2018.

The Hamiltons did not provide any documents by October 24.

Oh oh.

They did write a letter on October 31, explaining that their (now) previous bookkeeper failed to keep many documents, a fact which came to light as they were trying to comply with the SO’s request. They hired a CPA, who was helping reconstruct records as well as representing them during the CDP hearing. Finally, they had reordered online bank statements and would forward the requested documentation as soon as possible. They reiterated their desire for a payment plan.

Let me retract the “oh oh” comment, although they should have responded – in some manner - by the October 17 date.

Why? To discourage the SO from thinking that they were stalling.  

Between November 2 and November 15, the Hamiltons sent five faxes totaling hundreds of pages. They sent bank statements, copies of bills and some (but not all) of the payroll tax returns for the law practice.

The day before the hearing they also faxed personal and business financial information (Forms 433-A and 433-B) as well as a copy of their 2017 individual tax return and its electronic acceptance by the IRS.

The SO had spent no time on the case from October 1 to the date of the hearing, when she spent an hour preparing beforehand.

At the hearing the SO pressed on the following:

·      They had not filed their 2017 individual tax return.

·      They had not provided proof of their expenses.

·      They were not making 2018 estimated tax payments.

·      They had not filed payroll returns for the law practice.   

The CPA chimed in:

·      They had filed their 2017 tax return and provided proof of electronic acceptance by the IRS.

·      They had provided bank statements and documentation for the vast majority of their expenses.

·      They would be current with their 2018 estimated taxes as soon as the following month.

·      They had file some of the payroll returns the SO was considering unfiled.

The SO said she would recommend filing the NFTL.

Mr Hamilton requested additional time to provide the missing information.

The SO said: no chance.

The IRS sustained the filing of the NFTL for 2016 and also rejected their request for an installment agreement.

Sheesshh. That CDP hearing blew up.

And so we get to Tax Court.

Let’s set up the issue:

·      There was a proposed lien

·      To which taxpayers requested a CDP hearing

·      And got turned down for not complying with the SO’s documentation requests

You can take one of these to Tax Court, but it is very tough to win. In short, you must show that the IRS was capricious and abused its discretion. 

The Court went through the file:

1. The Hamiltons sent an 11-page fax on November 9. The fax included one of the payroll tax returns the SO considered missing.

    The SO had included the fax cover sheet in her record.

    But not the other 10 pages.

    One wonders how accurate the SO’s records were.

    Human error, one supposes.

2. They had filed their 2017 individual tax return and had faxed the SO a copy. They had also informed her of this filing at the hearing.

    But the SO had included the non-filing as a reason for her bounce.

    Odd.

3. Between November 2 and the November 15 hearing date, they had sent at least five faxes, totaling hundreds of pages of financial documentation

    But the SO said they had not provided documentation.

    Here is the Court:

The failure of the administrative record to capture some documents makes us question the completeness of the administrative record that the settlement officer considered and that we are reviewing.

    And here the case turned.

    The third strike.

The Court pointed out that the Hamiltons made efforts to keep the SO apprised – of the bookkeeper debacle, of the request for copies of documents and bank statements. They asked the SO to apprise them of any questions or issues while they could still react.

Then the Court emphasized that the SO had not even looked at the file until the day of the hearing.

The hearing where she nonetheless chastised the Hamiltons for not having provided all the paperwork.

Here is the Court:

She did not take them up on that offer; her doing so would have allowed the Hamiltons to address any issues before the November 15, 2018 hearing.”

The Court continued:

… the settlement officer made up her mind after a cursory one-hour review of the Hamiltons’ materials and failed to give proper consideration to the issues they raised …”

The cumulative effect of the settlement officer’s conduct in this case was to deprive the Hamiltons of fair consideration of their issues and concerns. The Hamilton’s conduct was by no means perfect, but it reflected consistent cooperation and good-faith effort throughout the CDP process.”

The SO’s decision was found arbitrary and lacking sound basis in fact or law.

The case was returned to IRS Appeals for another hearing.

The SO had gotten the case off her desk.

But she had not done her job.

And there you have a rare taxpayer win in the CDP arena.

Our case this time was Hamilton v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-21.

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.