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.

Failing To Update A Plan Beneficiary Designation

 

Technically it is not a tax case, but it is so tax-adjacent it might as well be.

Let’s talk about beneficiaries on a retirement account – and, more specifically, an employer-sponsored retirement account.

Carl Kleinfeldt participated in the Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees. In 2006 he designated his (then) wife – Dena Langdon – as his primary beneficiary.

Kleinfeldt and Langdon divorced in 2022. The divorce included a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is a court order authorizing distribution to the nonparticipating (ex) spouse. The PCA Benefits Center distributed to Langdon as directed.

However, even after the QDRO there is one more step: has the ex-spouse been formally removed as beneficiary?

Kleinfeldt faxed a request to the Benefits Center to remove Langdon from both his health and life insurance as well as his retirement plan. The Benefits Center updated her status on the retirement account to “ex-spouse.” Mind you, this was not the same as removing her as a beneficiary altogether.

Why not?

There were written plan procedures to follow. Kleinfeldt’s fax was a good start but was not quite enough.

You can guess that Kleinfeldt died.

You know that Langdon wanted that retirement money.

You also know the matter went to court.

And we are in legal weeds immediately.

We are talking here about an employer-sponsored plan, which (almost always) makes the plan subject to ERISA.

ERISA in turn uses a “substantial compliance” doctrine when reviewing actions required under a plan document. It is what it sounds like: if you miss a minor clerical step, the law presumes that responsible parties know what was meant and are expected to act accordingly.

The Kleinfeldt Estate argued the substantial compliance doctrine with a white-knuckle grip.

The Court observed that substantial compliance has two steps:

1.  Was there intent to make the change?
2.  Was the attempt to make the change similar (in all material aspects) to the proper procedures required by the plan?

There was no argument about the first test: the fax was clear evidence that Kleinfeldt intended to remove Langdon as a beneficiary.

On to the second test.

The plan documents wanted Kleinfeldt to either (1) call the Benefits Center or (2) update his beneficiary designation online.

The plan documents nowhere stated that he could update beneficiaries by fax.

The Court did not consider this a minor clerical step.

Kleinfeldt did not follow the rules.

Meaning that Langdon won.

And fair had nothing to do with it.

Our case this time was Packaging Corporation of America Thrift Plan v Langdon, No 25-1859 (7^th Cir. Feb. 2, 2026)

No Tax On Social Security

 

Is not. 

For decades, social security benefits were not taxable at all. 

This changed with the Social Security Amendment of 1983, with the intent to shore up the social security trust fund. Beginning in 1984, if one’s income exceeded certain stairsteps ($25,000 for singles and $32,000 for marrieds), then benefits could be up to 50% taxable. 

Flip the calendar and The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 raised the taxable portion up to 85% and added two more stairsteps ($34,000 for singles and $44,000 for marrieds). 

COMMENT: The taxation of social security is Congressional pratfall. There are two separate calculations here. The first calculation starts taxing benefits at $25,000 (for singles; $32,000 for marrieds) up to 50 percent. If your income keeps going, then you hit the second stairstep ($34,000 for singles; $44,000 for marrieds) up to 85%. Fall in between these two phaseout zones and you may want to use software to prepare your return. 

COMMENT: BTW, Congress has never inflation-adjusted those 1984 or 1993 dollars. 

No tax on social security became a political slogan during the presidential election. I have heard the phrase repeated since then, but it is not accurate. 

It would be more accurate to describe it as an age-based deduction. 

Take a look at the tax provision in its feral state:

 

SEC. 70103. TERMINATION OF DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL EXEMPTIONS OTHER THAN TEMPORARY SENIOR DEDUCTION

 

(a)(3)(C) Deduction for seniors

 

(i)                   In general.—In the case of a taxable year beginning before January 1, 2029, there shall be allowed a deduction in an amount equal to $6,000 for each qualified individual with respect to the taxpayer.

(ii)                Qualified individual.—For purposes of clause (i), the term ‘qualified individual’ means—

(I)                  the taxpayer, if the taxpayer has attained age 65 before the close of the taxable year, and

(II)                in the case of a joint return, the taxpayer’s spouse, if such spouse has attained age 65 before the close of the taxable year.

(iii)               Limitation based on modified adjusted gross income.

(I)                  In general.—In the case of any taxpayer for any taxable year, the $6,000 amount in clause (i) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by 6 percent of so much of the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income as exceeds $75,000 ($150,000 in the case of a joint return).

(II)                (II) Modified adjusted gross income.—For purposes of this clause, the term ‘modified adjusted gross income’ means the adjusted gross income of the taxpayer for the taxable year increased by any amount excluded from gross income under section 911, 931, or 933.

(iv)               Social security number required.

(I)                  In general.—Clause (i) shall not apply with respect to a qualified individual unless the taxpayer includes such qualified individual’s social security number on the return of tax for the taxable year.

(II)                Social security number.—For purposes of subclause (I), the term ‘social security number’ has the meaning given such term in section 24(h)(7).

(v)                 Married individuals.—If the taxpayer is a married individual (within the meaning of section 139, this subparagraph shall apply only if the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s spouse file a joint return for the taxable year.”

What do I see? 

•  There is no mention of social security benefits.
•  There is no mention, in fact, of retirement income at all.
•  You do have to be at least age 65 to qualify.
•  The deduction is (up to) $6,000 per qualifying individual.
•   Make too much money ($75,000 for singles and $150,000 for marrieds) and you start losing the deduction. The deduction phases-out completely at $150,000 (singles) and $250,000 (marrieds).
•  If you are married, you must file jointly. Married filing separately will not work here.
• The only mention of social security is that one must include one’s social security number on the tax return, otherwise the IRS will consider it a math error and send you a bill for taxes due.

What do I not see?

• No tax on social security.

I get it: for many if not most people, social security benefits would not have been taxable anyway because of the stairsteps, the increased standard deduction and the additional standard deduction for taxpayers age 65 and over. I would prefer that we use the English language with more precision, but such is not our fate. 

We didn’t even mention the insolvency of the social security system itself. 

Take advantage if you can, as the deduction has a shelf life of only four years. Granted, a future Congress can extend (and re-extend) this deduction ad infinitum, but I suspect that will not happen here.

 

Repaying a COVID-Related Distribution

Do you remember a tax break in 2020 that allowed you to take (up to) $100,000 from your IRA or your employer retirement plan? These were called “coronavirus-related distributions,” or CRDs in the lingo. In and of itself, the provision was not remarkable. What was remarkable is that one was allowed three years to return some, all, or none of the money to the IRA or employer plan, as one wished.

I was thinking recently that I do not remember seeing 2021 individual returns where someone returned the money.

Granted, we have a flotilla of returns on extension here at Galactic Command. I may yet see this beast in its natural state.

Let’s go over how this provision works.

To make it easy, let’s say that you took $100,000 from your 401(k) in 2020 for qualifying COVID-related reasons.

You had an immediate binary decision:

·      Report the entire $100,000 as income in 2020 and pay the taxes immediately.

·      Spread the reporting of the $100 grand over three years – 2020, 2021 and 2022 - and pay taxes over three years.

There was no early-distribution penalty on this distribution, which was good.

You might wonder how paying the tax immediately could be preferable to paying over three years. It could happen. How? Say that you had a business and it got decimated by COVID lockdowns. Your 2020 income might be very low – heck, you might even have an overall tax loss. If that were the case, reporting the income and paying the tax in 2020 might make sense, especially if you expected your subsequent years’ income to return to normal levels.

What was a COVID-related reason for a distribution?

The easy ones are:

·      You, a spouse or dependent were diagnosed (and possibly quarantined) with COVID;

·      You had childcare issues because of COVID;

·      You were furloughed, laid-off or had work hours reduced because of COVID.

Makes sense. There is one more:

·      You experienced other “adverse financial consequences” because of COVID.

That last one has an open-gate feel to me. I’ll give you an example:

·      You own rental cabins in Aspen. No one was renting your cabins in 2020. Did you experience “adverse financial consequences” triggering this tax provision?

You have – should you choose to do so – three years to put the money back. The three-year period starts with the date of distribution, so it does not automatically mean (in fact, it is unlikely to be) December 31^st three years later.

The money doesn’t have to return to the same IRA or employer plan. Any qualifying IRA or employer plan will work. Makes sense, as there is a more-than-incidental chance that someone no longer works for the same employer.

 Let’s say that you decide to return $50 grand of the $100 grand.

The tax reporting depends on how you reported the $100 grand in 2020.

Remember that there were two ways to go:

·      Report all of it in 2020

This is easy.

You reported $100 grand in 2020.

When you return $50 grand you … amend 2020 and reduce income by $50 grand.

What if you return $50 grand over two payments – one in 2021 and again in 2022?

Easy: you amend 2020 for the 2021 and amend 2020 again for the 2022.

Question: can you keep amending like that – that is, amending an amended?

Answer: you bet.

·       Report the $100 grand over three years.

This is not so easy.

The reporting depends on how much of the $100 grand you have left to report.

Let’s say that you are in the second year of the three-year spread and repay $30,000 to your IRA or employer plan.

The test here is: did you repay the includable amount (or less) for that year?

If yes, just subtract the repayment from the includable amount and report the difference on that year’s return.

In our example, the math would be $33,333 - 30,000 = $3,333. You would report $3,333 for the second year of the spread.

If no, then it gets ugly.

Let’s revise our example to say that you repaid $40,000 rather than $30,000.

First step: You would offset the current-year includable amount entirely. There is nothing to report the second year, and you still have $6,667 ($40,000 – 33,333) remaining.

You have a decision.

You have a year left on the three-year spread. You could elect to carryforward the $6,667 to that year. You would report $26,666 ($33,333 – 6,667) in income for that third and final year.

You could alternatively choose to amend a prior year for the $6,667. For example, you already reported $33,333 in 2020, so you could amend 2020, reduce income by $6,666 and get an immediate tax refund.

Which is better? Neither is inherently better, at least to my thinking. It depends on your situation.

There is a specific tax form to use with spreads and repayments of CRDs. I will spare us the details for this discussion.

There you have it: the ropes to repaying a coronavirus-related distribution (CRD).

If you reflect, do you see the complexity Congress added to the tax Code? Multiply this provision by however many times Congress alters the Code every year, and you can see how we have gotten to the point where an average person is probably unable to prepare his/her own tax return.