That’s Appeals’ word to the owner/principal of DCSL, LLC, T. C. Sum. Op. 2025-9, filed 10/28/25. DCSL got behind with some COVID-era FICA/DUTA/ITWs, to which IRS provided failures to file and to pay add-ons at no extra charge. DCSL paid down two of the five (count ’em, five) open quarters, but Judge Kashi (My or the High”) Way gives IRS summary J for the remaining three when the bossman of DSCL won’t tell why he won’t borrow against his dwelling to fund his company’s shortfall.

I was unaware of the provisions of IRM Exhibit 5.15.1-1 (Q&A-13) (Nov. 22, 2021), which  requires that an AO must determine an officer’s ability to lend the business money to pay its tax debt. True, the IRM does not have the force of law and confers no rights on taxpayers but can nevertheless be persuasive authority. See Romano-Murphy v. Commissioner, 816 F.3d 707, 719 (11th Cir. 2016), vacating and remanding T.C. Memo. 2012-330.T. C. Sum. Op. 2025-9, at p. 6.

For the backstory on Romano-Murphy, see my blogpost “Assessment First, Determination Afterward,” 5/21/19.

Though given a chance to explain, Bossman (name omitted) never provided that information. So Appeals’ toss of DCSL’s IA offer is sustained. And though he offered at the Tax Court to provide revised information, post-CDP offers come too late.

Practice tip- If what you tender at Appeals shows large loans to officers, be prepared to have them come up with cash (here Mr. Bossman was into the firm for north of $110K). Likewise, if the SO asks an RO to do a “courtesy investigation and financial analysis,” see my previous suggestion (only more so).