Lucas Calhoun, Docket No. 4554-25L, filed 4/17/26, should have been at least considered for a referral to a LITC by Appeals. When Lucas claimed he was disabled and would need help either from his father or his son, sending a couple 2848s (hi, Judge Holmes) really doesn’t answer the problem. 

Of course, the IRM contains no such instruction; IRM 8.6.1.5.3.2 (09-25-2019) places the burden on the taxpayer to request representation and to select and qualify the representative. So I’m not saying the SO did anything wrong; he followed the book, and so did STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden in affirming the SO sustentation of the NITL.

But when a petitioner claims “I Lucas Calhoun was in a car accident in 2018. I was a passenger in a Honda Accord that struck another vehicle head on at 50 mph. We have had a supervisor from the IRS tell us I am not collectible. Also I have a voicemail from Biran at the IRS stating that he spoke to his supervisor and we would not be held liable. To not worry. That was on 6/14/24. Please do not levy the property my dad has my son & I staying at. Please send forms for forgiveness”, Order, at p. 2, maybe so might could be that a nonlawyer nonpractitioner might not be enough.

No one shows up for Lucas, so STJ Di gives IRS summary J.

Maybe so might could be referral to a LITC could save the day. But the SO shouldn’t have to judge this without some cover from high command. Maybe a revision to the IRM? Gives no rights to taxpayers greater than they would otherwise have.