In Uncategorized on 03/22/2016 at 15:31

We get a short-and-sweet reprise of Rick Astley’s 1988 hit from Judge Foley, and it really helps Paul W. Grauer, 2016 T. C. Memo. 52, filed 3/22/16.

The issue, for you collection specialists, is the waiver of SOL, Form 900, fetchingly and tautologically entitled Tax Collection Waiver. IRS has one, and Paul is claiming SOL against an NITL thirteen years after Paul W. filed a return showing a balance due, which Paul didn’t pay.

Paul W. filed the Form 12153, and at the face-to-face CDP “…contended that a typographical error (i.e., the waiver’s ‘May 8, 20015’ expiration date) renders the waiver invalid; the waiver was not agreed to in connection with an installment agreement; and the period of limitation for collection relating to 1998 had expired before respondent issued the February 11, 2013, notice of intent to levy.” 2016 T. C. Memo. 52, at p. 3. I include the dates, because they’re relevant here.

Appeals gives Paul W. a NOD affirming the NITL, and Paul W. petitions.

IRS’ case rapidly becomes unglued.

IRS first claims this is a second NITL, and the only-one-swing-at-the-baseball rule applies. But then IRS concedes the account transcript, based upon which the first NITL is asserted, is wrong. So there is jurisdiction, and Judge Foley goes to it.

Paul W. claims he never entered into an IA, and Section 6502(a) links the Form 900 SOL waiver to an IA. Obviously, if there’s an IA, the clock is ticking while the taxpayer forks over the installments; if the taxpayer stops forking at any time, IRS has to be able to grab whatever wasn’t forked.

IRS forks over the Form 990 at the trial, but the IA to which it is referenced is nowhere to be found.

Judge Foley: “In fact, respondent’s [IRS’] only evidence that such an agreement exists is an account transcript that he concedes is inaccurate and an indecipherable and unconvincingly explained collection of numerical codes. Accordingly, we find that an installment agreement was not agreed to in connection with the waiver, and the 10-year period of limitation for collection has expired.” Order, at p. 5.

Paul W., time for a Section 7430 motion?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: