theirstaxblog.com

26 U.S.C. § 6330(e) contains a provision that is little known and underutilized by persons facing an Federal tax levy of their bank account or pay. 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 requesting a Collection Due Process Hearing (CDPH) is a highly effective approach to bring to an end an IRS levy on a financial institution such as a bank or credit union or paycheck. I have drawn on this provision to bring to a halt an IRS  levy in as little as 2 days. I recently put a note in my shopping cart that even a dancing bear could block an Internal Revenue Service  levy by a well-timed request for a CDPH hearing as provided in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(b)(1).

However, a dancing bear would not be able to keep Internal Revenue Service collection activity put off and most likely neither would most of us. In spite of all the delays while appeals are pending; and in spite of being able to retrieve whatever capital you had in the bank when the Notice of Levy showed up from the IRS; and despite the fact of receiving full paychecks during those delays; in the end, the end of the line will occur and the  IRS will resume collection activities as they were before the hearing was applied for. At the point this happens the majority of people will be right back where they started off; looking at a garnishment by the IRS. It is because of this unsavory actuality that I placed nine, no obligation videos, 4-10 minutes in length at www.irsterminator.com discussing strategies I have come up with that make keeping IRS (Internal Revenue Service) collection activities suspended indefinitely a very real likelihood.

There are two aspects to winning a CDPH hearing: 1) Taking positive strategies with the goal of prevailing in the hearing as I discuss in the videos referred to above; 2) Avoiding bringing up issues that would serve as grounds for you losing the hearing. Avoiding losing issues is a matter of doing a little research and reviewing what issues have been raised in the past that lost.

Rohner v. U.S., 91 A.F.T.R.2d 2003-2425 (N.D.Ohio 2003) is the decision that I will deal with in part in this piece. Rohner lost hisCDP (Collection Due Process) hearing and appealed to the Federal District Court. I was able to unearth his case by using the search feature at 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 tutorial is offered for you to become skilled at 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."

Thus, it seems like Rohner may have been using an early Cracking the Code stratagem; or maybe, something taught by Irwin Schiff. He seems to be using the hearing to prevail on the hearing officer to be in agreement with  his stand on why he had no taxable income and to get out of having to pay frivolous return penalties. The IRS sent Rohner a Notice of Intent to Levy that informed him of his entitlement to a CDPH and he requested the hearing. After losing in the CDPH hearing, Rohner lost on appeal to the Federal District Court:

1) It is recounted in the published result, the Court held that Rohner made a case that he had the right to record the collection due process hearing or have a court reporter transcribe the hearing. The Court held that Rohner misstated the law and ruled that he did not have the right to have the collection due process hearing recorded or to have a court reporter transcribe the hearing.

2) It is recounted in the published determination, the Court said that Rohner claimed that the hearing officer would not give  him a distinct hearing with respect to the frivolous return penalties for each of the two different tax years. The Court held that collection due process hearings are comprised of more than simply the face to face meeting between the taxpayer and the officer. The judge held that written interactions, telephone dialogues and face-to-face meetings all are sufficient for an satisfactory hearing.

The Court ended up holding that the Internal Revenue Service's administrative determination was to be upheld. In the videos at www.irsterminator.com I discuss how to use Rohner’s losing issues above to your own advantage. Check them out.

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

Tags: 26 USC § 6702, Cracking the Code, Due Process Hearing, Final Notice, frivolous return penalty, IRS collections, IRS levy, Notice of Levy, online legal research, penalties