theirstaxblog.com

26 U.S.C. § 6330(e) contains a provision that is little acknowledged and underutilized by folks dealing with an IRS levy of their bank account or paycheck. That subsection provides in pertinent part:

"(e)  Suspension of collections and statute of limitations
"(1) In general
"… if a hearing is requested under subsection (a)(3)(B), the levy actions which are the subject of the requested hearing…shall be suspended for the period during which such hearing, and appeals therein, are pending…"

The suspension of collection activities by timely making a request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (CDPH) is a very efficient way to end an IRS levy on a financial institution such as a bank or credit union or paycheck. I have drawn on this provision to end an IRS  levy in as little as 2 days. I recently put a remark in my shopping cart that even a dancing bear could bring to an end an Internal Revenue Service  levy by a timely request for a CDPH hearing as Congress provided in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(b)(1).

Then again, a dancing bear would not be able to keep IRS (Internal Revenue Service) collection activity put off and most likely neither would most of us. In spite of all the waits while appeals are pending; and in spite of being able to retrieve any cash you had in the bank when the Notice of Levy showed up from the IRS (Internal Revenue Service); and in spite of receiving complete paychecks during those delays; in the long run, the end of the line will come and the  IRS (Internal Revenue Service) will move forward with collection activities as they were before the hearing was requested. At the point this happens most people will be right back where they started off; looking at a levy by the Internal Revenue Service. It is because of this unsavory reality that I posted nine, no-cost videos, 4-10 minutes in length at www.irsterminator.com discussing strategies I have come up with that make keeping Internal Revenue Service collection activities suspended indefinitely a very real possibility.

There are two aspects to winning a CDPH hearing: 1) Taking affirmative strategic action with the goal of prevailing in the hearing as I talk about in the videos talked about above; 2) Avoiding bringing up issues that would bring about the loss of the hearing. Avoiding losing matters is a matter of doing a little study and reviewing what issues have been raised in the past that lost.

Rohner v. U.S., 2003.NOH.0000145 (N.D.Ohio 2003) is the case that I will address in part in this article. Rohner lost his Collection Due Process hearing and appealed to the Federal District Court. I was able to find his case by searching the District Court data base at www.versuslaw.com. I made an hour and forty minute video about how to use Versuslaw to do research and that video is available for you to learn to do online legal research too at www.bearscart.com in the "law study" category.

In the section of the Court's decision entitled "Factual and Procedural Background" the Court recounted:

"Although Plaintiff submitted Forms 1040 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) along with copies of Forms W-2 indicating his wage income for the years 1996 and 1998, he reported no income on the returns and attached statements containing frivolous arguments as to why he was not liable for an income tax for those two years…With regards to the 1998 tax return, the IRS then sent Plaintiff a letter dated May 24, 1999, advising him that a frivolous return penalty of $500 under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 would be assessed against him unless he corrected his position within 30 days…Plaintiff failed to correct the Form 1040 and the IRS assessed § 6702 penalty against him on September 13, 1999, with respect to the 1998 Form 1040…The IRS also accessed Plaintiff a § 6702 penalty on November 13, 2000, with respect to the 1996 Form 1040, because he submitted a Form 1040 for tax year 1996 showing no income with an attached statement containing frivolous arguments on July 21, 2000."

So, part of what Rohner was trying to do was use the hearing to get out of paying frivolous return penalties. The IRS sent Rohner a Notice of Intent to Levy that informed him of his right to a CDPH hearing and he requested the hearing. After losing in the CDPH hearing, Rohner lost on appeal to the Federal District Court:

1) Rohner's dispute  that he did not get  a notice of deficiency with respect to the § 6702 frivolous return penalty was declined as being unsubstantiated as there is no condition that a notice of deficiency issue with respect to these penalties. The Court held that deficiency procedures do not apply to the assessment or collection of frivolous tax return penalties.

2) Rohner's argument that he did not get a fair-minded hearing because the the Service failed to comply with his demands for records was refused by the Court as unfounded. The Court held that Section 6330 did not provide authorization for production of records or other exploratory demands in association with a CDP hearing.

Rohner brought up further unfruitful issues on appeal which will serve as the basis of an additional article. The Court ended up holding that the IRS's (Internal Revenue Service) administrative decision did not need to be changed. Determinations such as this one have always served me as an inspiration and not as a disappointment. At least a case like this provides a forewarning with regard to strategies to be used in the future. To give yourself the best likelihood of coming out victorious check out the nine video recordings at www.irsterminator.com.

Follow me on Twitter.com/legalbear See you there.

Tags: block, Due Process Hearing, frivolous return penalties, garnishment, Internal Revenue Service, IRS Collection, IRS levy, levies, stop