Though it cuts a wide swath in criminal cases, ineffective assistance, by counsel or otherwise, cuts no whole-grain CDP Dijon at Appeals or at US Tax Court.

Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way makes this clear to Horizon Health Services, Inc., T. C. Memo. 2025-104, filed 10/8/25. HHSI had unpaid income and employment taxes, both SND’d and unpetitioned, so their CDP excluded challenge to liability.

HHSI also was behind on current tax filings, and failed to provide Form 433-B and backups.

Judge Way: “Petitioner argues that it was negatively affected during the CDP process by ‘ineffective assistance of counsel.’ Petitioner contends that this ineffective counsel precluded AO Clark from ‘mak[ing] an effective review of Taxpayer’s offer.’ Assuming that were the case, ineffective assistance from counsel does not bear upon an AO’s review and determination as to whether an AO abused his discretion. See Rutherford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-227, 96 T.C.M. (CCH) 220, 222 (discussing the purview of an AO’s role regarding the assistance a taxpayer receives during the hearing).” T.C. Memo. 2025-104, at p. 7.

Briefly, it is not the AO’s job to decide if petitioner’s counsel is doing a good job. It is a rational presumption that any admitted attorney or USTCP is familiar with ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, and would appear only if s/he can provide “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”