Attorney-at-Law

ONE TAXPAYER’S ADVOCATE – EVERY TAXPAYERS’ ADVOCATE

In Uncategorized on 12/19/2019 at 16:09

When It Comes to NFTLs

It’s true, maybe, that Taxpayer Advocate Service sent a letter to IRS stating that the NFTL filed on Michael Gordon Banks, 2019 T. C. Memo. 166, filed 12/19/19, should be withdrawn. Judge Kerrigan says the SO reviewing Mike’s CDP request “…followed up with the TAS regarding the status of the NFTL withdrawal.  She attempted to contact the appropriate person with the TAS and left a message regarding the NFTL.  The settlement officer concluded that there was no new financial information in support of petitioner’s appeal of the rejection of his offer-in-compromise.  The settlement officer verified that all legal and procedural requirements had been met and the collection action taken was appropriate under the circumstances.” 2019 T. C. Memo. 166, at p. 5.

Mike never proved he had less equity than $110K, or that he owed less than $23K to IRS.

“Petitioner contends that respondent falsified information, but he never produced evidence of any criminal activity.  He asserted that his ability to pay should be considered even though he did not dispute the asset valuation, which is sufficient grounds for rejecting his $12,000 offer.  Nevertheless, the settlement officer provided petitioner with an opportunity to produce additional information to show that the COIC’s rejection was inappropriate in accordance with the procedures laid out in IRM pt. 8.23.3.3(5).  The settlement officer also provided petitioner additional time to prepare for the CDP hearing when petitioner requested an extension.

“Petitioner did not provide any new information to support his dispute of the COIC’s rejection.  The settlement officer’s offer to place petitioner’s account in CNC status and suspend collection activities demonstrates respondent’s willingness to assess reasonably and fairly petitioner’s ability to pay his tax liabilities.  Accordingly, we find that the settlement officer did not abuse her discretion in sustaining the COIC’s rejection of petitioner’s offer-in-compromise.” 2019 T. C. Memo. 166, at pp. 11-12.

Anyway, while TAS protects each taxpayer, IRS protects the rest of us.

“Section 6323(j)(1)(D) provides that an NFTL may be withdrawn if the Secretary determines that withdrawal would be in the best interests of both the taxpayer and the United States.  While the statute requires the TAS to determine whether withdrawal would be in the best interest of the taxpayer, it also explicitly requires a determination by the Secretary or his designee that withdrawal is in the best interest of the United States.  IRM pt. 5.12.9.3.4(1) (Oct. 14, 2013).  Neither the Secretary nor his designee determined that the withdrawal of the NFTL was in the best interest of the United States.” 2019 T. C. Memo. 166, at p. 14.

 

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: