IRC 6320

Crawford v. Comm’r filed January 7, 2026 by the U.S. Tax Court at T.C. Memo 2026-3 illustrates the opportunity provided to seek Collection Due Process hearing rights after a Notice of Federal Tax Lien has been issued. In this case, the taxpayer had been assessed a Trust Fund Recovery Penalty for non-payment of employment taxes. Ultimately, the IRS issued Letter 3172 Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing and Your Right to a Hearing Under IRC 6320. In this case, the taxpayer’s representative filed a Request for Collection Due Process hearing within the 30 day timeline provided in the Lien notice. By preserving these rights, the taxpayer obtained the ability to review collection alternatives with IRS Appeals. These would include Currently Not Collectible, regular Installment Agreement, Partial Payment Installment Agreement, or an Offer In Compromise. Many times reviewing collection alternatives with IRS Appeals is more advantageous than with IRS collections. Most commonly, taxpayers will receive CDP rights at the time a Final Notice of Intent to Levy is issued. Once 30 days passes from the issuance of the Final Notice of Intent to Levy, the taxpayer misses the opportunity to have a CDP hearing. However, it has been this practitioner’s experience that the IRS could issue the Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing either before or after the Final Notice of Intent to Levy. Therefore, there could be another opportunity for a CDP hearing if the hearing opportunity has been missed because a Final Notice of Intent to Levy has been issued at some point in the past. Or this opportunity could present itself before the taxpayer is issued a Final Notice of Intent to Levy. In the instant case, the taxpayer was attempting to use the CDP hearing to attack the validity of the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty assessment itself. Fundamentally, a taxpayer must file an Appeal of the Letter 1153 proposed assessment of Trust Fund Recovery Penalty at the time of issuance of that proposal, rather than appealing the assessment after the fact in a CDP hearing. Regardless, the IRS could entertain collection alternatives in this setting.

IRC 6320 & 6330

The United States Tax Court in J.E. Ryckman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 750-21L, filed August 1, 2024 held that it lacked jurisdiction because a Canadian citizen whose Canadian tax liability had been accepted by the IRS as a tax assessment, lacked Collection Due Process hearing rights. This is a case of first impression. This case is more relevant than it may first appear given the fact that approximately a million Canadian citizens permanently reside in the United States. The taxpayer owed the Canadian Revenue Agency about $200,000. In an effort to collect, Canada sent the IRS a mutual collection assistance request pursuant to the Canada-US Income Tax Treaty. Upon receipt, the IRS filed a notice of federal tax lien. The Treaty requires the IRS to collect an accepted Canadian revenue claim as it would a U.S. Tax assessment for which the taxpayer’s right to a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing has lapsed. At submission of the lien to the taxpayer, the IRS notified the taxpayer that is had no right to a CDP hearing. In this case, the taxpayer filed the request anyway. The Tax Court reviewed the treaty and concluded that its provisions foreclosed the administrative and judicial protections of the CDP statutes in the case of Canadian revenue claims. While arguments were made that the CDP statute should override the Treaty because Congress adopted the CDP statues later, the Court found that argument unpersuasive. The Treaty simply dictates rights of Canadian citizens and the US statutes do not expand those rights. The Court also commented that it would be “untenable for the IRS to grant a collection alternative, such as an installment payment arrangement or an offer-in-compromise,” on behalf of the Canadian Revenue Agency. In fact, the face of the lien in this matter indicated that payments should be made to the “Receiver General of Canada, not the IRS.” The practical conclusion of the above is that clients in this situation should seek a collection alternative with their home government.