I.R.C. Section 6320
Federal Tax liens may remain in place where a taxpayer’s liability during her installment agreement period is above the amount the IRS requires in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), the U.S. Tax Court ruled in Jill Beth Savedoff v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, filed August 31, 2020 at Docket No. 4346-18L. The taxpayer created liabilities from self-employment on two different tax periods. She established a payment agreement, but defaulted. The IRS filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL). The taxpayer filed a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing request on the basis that her installment agreement was wrongfully terminated and the lien notice was not properly served. Apparently, the taxpayer moved and did not receive a notice of the filing of the lien. The Court ruled that the taxpayer did not provide the IRS with a clear and concise notification of a different address. As for the lien withdrawal, the Court reviewed the guidelines allowing for the withdrawal of a NFTL. The taxpayer essentially argues that the lien should have been withdrawn if a second installment agreement was established. Both the Tax Court and Treasury Regulations provide that nothing requires the IRS to withdraw the NFTL because of the establishment of an installment agreement. While there are provisions to withdraw the NFTL if the balance is less than $25,000 and the taxpayer establishes a direct debit installment agreement, the taxpayer in this situation simply owed more and when offered to establish a direct debit installment agreement, passed on that option.
I.R.C. Section 7122
The United States Tax Court in Swanberg v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue handed down an opinion on August 25, 2020, as docket No. 10266-19L, in which it ruled that the IRS had properly included taxpayer’s Veterans Affairs benefit and excluded his life insurance premium in calculating an ability to pay for Offer in Compromise purposes. This matter was started in a Collection Due Process hearing filed as a result of the issuance of a Final Notice of Intent to Levy. The taxpayer submitted a collection information statement reflecting monthly income of $6,352 and expenses of $6,854. On review, the Settlement Officer noted that the taxpayer’s bank statements reflected a disability benefit from the VA. The Officer increased his income by the amount of this benefit. Further, she disallowed a $600 per month expense for whole life insurance. The Taxpayer argued that his VA benefit should not be included since it was not taxable. The Court ruled that the Settlement Officer had abided by the provisions of the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) regarding these issues. The IRM provides that all household income will be used to determine taxpayer’s ability to pay. Income is included even if not subjected to taxation. Furthermore, the IRM supports disallowance of the whole life insurance expense. No abuse of discretion was found by the Court.
The United States Tax Court in Martin Washington Brown v. Comm’r, Docket No. 8999-17L, filed December 9, 2019, held that the IRS Appeals Settlement Officers had not abused their discretion in declining to withdraw a Notice of Federal Tax Lien (NFTL), and sustained the collection action in this matter. Taxpayer owed multiple years of 1040 income tax liabilities that totaled $35,436. In September 2016, the IRS established a Partial Payment Installment Agreement (PPIA) for the sum of $300 per month. The IRS determined that the filing of an NFTL was necessary because the unpaid balances exceeded $10,000. Taxpayer timely sought a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing after the filing of the NFTL. He alleged that he would lose his job if the NFTL was not withdrawn. The settlement officer advised that the taxpayer could meet the standards for lien withdrawal if he converted the PPIA to a Direct Debit Installment Agreement (DDIA) paying the debt in less than 60 months. He would then have to apply for lien withdrawal on Form 12277 after three months of successful auto debits. The taxpayer would not alter the terms of his PPIA to comply and so Appeals sustained the NFTL filing. The taxpayer filed a Petition in Tax Court for review. The Tax Court remanded to a new Settlement Officer to address whether a lump sum payment made to bring down the balance had been accounted for in the initial conference. The Settlement Officer found that the payments calculated by the first Settlement Officer were correct and requested documentation that his employment was in jeopardy. The taxpayer declined and decided to continue in Court. Ultimately, the Taxpayer failed to substantiate any information regarding possible loss of employment. The Court ruled that the Settlement Officer had not abused his discretion in sustaining the lien. Furthermore, even if the taxpayer had established the DDIA, the Officer would not have abused his discretion by refusing to withdraw the lien as there is no requirement under the law to withdraw the lien because of an installment agreement. This is a voluntary procedure of the Service, not a mandatory one. Taxpayer again presented no evidence in Court regarding possibly loss of employment. The Court entered judgment for the government.
Offset of refund
In Murphy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-72, Filed June 11, 2019, the Tax Court ruled that a Settlement Officer did not abuse discretion in failing to consider a credit from a tax year not in question, to offset a liability from the year at issue. This was a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing that was triggered by the filing of a final notice of intent to levy issued by the IRS relating to a balance due on 2015. The taxpayers argued that the liability could be resolved if the Settlement Officer would address a failed claim for refund on their 2011 tax period. For the 2011 period, the IRS has filed a Substitute for Return. Ultimately, the taxpayers filed a return on May 7, 2016 which the IRS treated as a claim for refund and denied. During the CDP hearing, the Officer explained that the 2011 tax period was not subject to a levy notice and therefore she lacked jurisdiction to address the refund claim. The Tax Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the 2011 claim for refund. Additionally, the Tax Court ruled the Settlement Officer had not abused her discretion in handling the matter.
Collection Due Process Hearing
In Richard H. Levin and Linda D. Levin v. Comm’r,
T.C. Memo 2018-172, Filed October 15, 2018, the Tax Court ruled that
IRS Appeals had acted appropriately in denying taxpayers’ proposal for
an installment agreement and sustaining IRS Collections proposed levy
action. Taxpayers created a liability for tax year 2010 of $468,696,
prior to assessment of penalties and interest. Taxpayers’ representative
proposed a payment agreement to the IRS wherein taxpayers would pay
their liability within four months. During that time, taxpayers made a
$50,000 payment. The IRS issued a final notice of intent to levy, at
which point the taxpayers requested a Collection Due Process hearing
with IRS Appeals. There is a lengthy narrative in this case regarding
the details of financial information. During this time, the Appeals
office indicated that the taxpayers must remain compliant with their
current tax liabilities in order to qualify for a payment agreement.
Taxpayers also requested a face to face meeting with IRS Appeals. IRS
ultimately agreed to the face to face meeting – which caused a lengthy
delay of over a year. Rather than take advantage of the time to
liquidate assets and pay down the tax debt, taxpayers liquidated one of
their four homes and paid off other creditors in an amount in excess of
the IRS debt – approximately $575,000. These creditors included State
taxing authorities and credit cards. They additionally capitalized
taxpayer husband’s new law firm in the amount of $281,000. Persistently
during negotiations with the IRS, the taxpayers’ representative argued
that the filing of a tax lien would have a detrimental effect on
taxpayer husband’s ability to earn income in his law firm. The Court
ruled that the taxpayers “have repeatedly chosen not to prioritize
payment of their 2010 outstanding Federal income tax liability. Indeed
their failure to use net proceeds of $843,293 from the sale of their Los
Angeles, California home to pay their 2010 liability was particularly
brazen.” The Tax Court confirmed the reasonableness of the Appeals’
Settlement Officer to file a notice of Federal Tax Lien and to reject
the taxpayers’ proposed installment agreement.