T.C. Mem o. 2 01 5- 10 5

UNITED STAT ES TAX COURT
BAHIG F. BISHAY, Pet it io ne r v. COMM ISSI ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Resp on de nt

Doc ke t No . 75 37 -1 4L. Fi le d J un e 4 , 20 15
.
P was th e p res id en t, s ol e sh areh ol de r, an d treas ur er o f Co m pa ny (C). In 2 00 2 C fil edforba nkrupt cy an d P was re m ov ed an d re pl acedby a ban krup tc y tru st ee. C fai le d t o p ay

ov er t o R em pl oym en t wi th ho ld in g t ax es forit s emplo y ees fortwo qu art ers in 20 02 . R sen t P aLett er 1 15 3 p ro po si ng to ass es s I.R .C. se c. 66 72 pe na lt ie s ag ai ns t P a s a r es po ns ib le pe rs on for C. P fil edanap pe al reque stan d s ub se qu en tl y di sp ut edth e und erl y in g l iabi li ti es ina co nf eren ce wi th th e Offi ce o f App eal s (Ap pe al s) inNov em be r 20 06
. App eal s re

jecte d P ’s app eal , det erm in edth atP was ares po ns ib le pe rs onforC, an d a ss es se d I.R .C. se c. 66 72 pe na lt ie s ag ai ns t h im
. R fi le d ano ti ce o f Fed eral tax li en(NFTL) an d P ti m el y reque st eda co ll ect io n due pro ces s (C DP) h eari ng inSep te m be r 20 13
. At the CDP h eari ng , P att em pt edto di sp ut e h is un de rlyin g l iabi li ty for th e p en al ti es . R’ s s et tl em en t o ffi cer r eject edP’s ch al le ng e aft er de te rm in in g tha t P h adha d apri or op po rtu ni ty to ch al le ng e th e li ab il ity at t he Nov em

be r 20 06 App eal s co nf

eren ce. R’s s et tl em en t of fic er an d P di sc us se d c ol le ct io n a lt ern at iv es ; an d a fte r P v eri fie d h is-2
-

[* 2] li m it edin co m e, App eal s i ss ue d ano ti ce o f de te rm in at io n su st ai ni ng th e fi li ng of t he NFTL bu t p la ci ng P’s acco un t i n c urren tl y no t co ll ect ib le st atus . P ti m el y fil eda pe ti ti on inth is Co urt fo r rev ie w of Ap pe al s’ de te rm in at io n. R fi le d am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d P fil ed anop po si ti on . Held : Ap pe al s af

fo rd edP anop po rtu ni ty to d is pu te hi s un de rlyin g l iabi li ty for the ass es se d I.R .C. se c. 66 72 pe na lt ie s i n t he Lett er 1 15 3 Ap pe al s co nf eren ce, the reb y

pre cl ud in g h im

un de r I.R.C. se c. 63 30 (c)( 2) (B) fr om

lat er d is pu ti ng th atli ab il ity at the CDP he ari ng . Held , furth er, R h adno ob li ga ti onto fir stco ll ectunpa idtru st fundtax es fro m

ba nkruptC be fo re as se ss in g I.R .C. se c. 66 72 pe na lt ie s ag ai ns t P andatt em pt in g t o c ol le ctth e p en al ti es fro m hi m . Held , furth er, Ap pe al s d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de te rm in in g t o s us ta in th e NFTL.

Bah ig F. Bis ha y , for

hi m se lf. R. Je ffre y Kni gh t, fo r res po nd en t.-3
-

[* 3] MEMORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Ju dg e: Thi s i s a “ co ll ect io n due pro ces s” (“ CDP”) ap pe al pu rs ua ntto sec ti on 63 30 (d ), inwhi chpe ti ti on er, Bah ig Bis ha y , ask s u s t o re vi ew 1 th e d et erm in at io n b y

th e Offi ce o f App eal s (“ App eal s” ) of th e In te rn al Rev enue Serv ic e (“ IRS” ) to su st ai n the fil in g o f a n ot ic e o f Fed eral tax li en(“ NFTL”) to
co ll ectsec ti on66 72 tru stfun d re co ve ry pe na lt ie s as se ss edag ai ns t h im forfai li ng to co ll ectan d p ay

ov er em pl oym en t t ax es of C omm on weal th Aut om ob il e Co
. (“ Co m m on weal th ”), fo r qu art erl y pe rio ds en di ng Marc h 3 1 a ndJu ne 30 , 20 02
. The cas e is be fo re the Co urt o n am ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t fi le d b y res po nd en t, the Co m

m is si on er o f th e IRS . The i ss ue s fo r de ci si on are: (1 ) whe th er Mr . Bis ha y

m ay ch al le ng e th e ex is te nc e o r am ountof h is li ab il ity for th e p en al ti es an d (2 ) whe th er Ap pe al s ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d et erm in in g t o su st ai n the fil in g o f anNFTL to faci li ta te th e co ll ect io n o f th e p en al ti es fro m Mr. Bi sh ay . The Co m

m is si on er m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t, an d M r. Bi sh ay fil ed
anop po si ti on . W e h ol d tha t the re i s n o g enui ne di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al facton 2 Unl es s o th erwi se in di cat ed , all sec ti on refe ren ces are t o t he Int ern al 1 Rev enue Co de (“ th e Co de ”) an d a ll Ru le refe ren ces are t o t he Tax C ou rt Rul es of Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e. All am ou nt s ar e ro un de d t o t he ne ares t d ol lar. Mr. Bi sh ay ’s op po si ti on als o i nc lu de d acro ss -m ot io n fo r su m m ary 2 (co nt in ue d...)-4
-

[* 4] th e is su e o f whe th er Ap pe al s ab us edit s d is cret io n i n m ak in g i ts de te rm in at io n. We will th eref or e g ran t the Co m

m is si on er’s m ot io n. Bac kg ro un d Fo r pu rp os es of t he Co m m is si on er’s m ot io n, we as su m e co rrec t the fact s as se rte d b y

Mr. Bi sh ay

th atare s up po rte d b y

hi s fi li ng s, as well as t he fact s de m on st rat edby the Co m m is si on er tha t M r. Bi sh ay di d n otdi sp ut e. See i nf

ra pa rt I .A. Mr. Bi sh ay

was the pre si de ntan d s ol e sh areh ol de r of Co m m on weal th . He al so serve d a s an off

ic er an d the tre as ur er o f Co m m on weal th . In 2 00 2 Co m m on weal th fil edinth e U.S. Ban krup tc y Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof Mas sa ch us et ts a pe ti ti on un de r th e Ban kr up tc y Co de , 11 U.S.C. sec s. 1 01 -1 33 0 (2 00 0)
. In J un e 2 00 2 M r. Bi sh ay was re m ov edan d re pl acedby a chap te r 7 3 ba nkrupt cy

tru st ee wh o a ss um edco nt ro l o f Co m m on weal th ’s fin an ci al affa irs
. Fo r th e ta x p eri od s en di ng on Marc h 3 1 andJu ne 30 , 20 02 , Comm on weal th fai le d to pa y ov er the Fed eral in co m e an d S oc ia l Se cu rit y tax es withh el d fr om

it s (...co nt inue d) 2 jud gm en t. The Co urt d en ie d tha t cr os s- m ot io n b y anord er d at edOcto be r 29 , 20 14
. The cas e was fil edun de r ch ap te r 11 of t he Ban krup tc y Co de bu t was 3 co nv ert edto a ch ap te r 7 b an krup tc y on Ju ne 3, 2 00 2.-5
-

[* 5] em pl oyees. InSep te m

be r 20 02 th e IRS fil eda pr oo f of cla im inth e Co m m on weal th bankrupt cy

pro ceed in g. 4 Fo r pu rp os es of t he Co m m is si on er’s m ot io n, we as su m e, as Mr. Bi sh ay se em s t o i m

pl y , th atif the IRS h adbe enm or e ag gr es si ve inth e b an krup tc y pr oc eed in g, i t m ig htha ve be enab le to ob ta in pa ym en t o f so m e o r al l o f Co m m on weal th ’s unpa idtru stfun d t ax es , whi chwou ldth enha ve reduc edth e ne edto co ll ectth e tr

us t fundreco ve ry

pe na lt ie s fr om

Mr. Bi sh ay . On M ay 9, 2 00 5, IR S rev enue off ic er Ch ris to ph er Tig he m ai le d t o M r. Bi sh ay a Lett er 1 15 3, wh ic h p ro po se d t o a ss es s s ect io n 6 67 2 t ru stfun d re co ve ry pe na lt ie s ag ai ns t h im

as ares po ns ib le pe rs on who ha d fa il edto co ll ectan d p ay ov er em pl oym en t t ax es with re sp ectto em pl oyees o f Co m

m on weal th . (Trus t fu nd ta xe s an d the sec ti on 66 72 pe na lt ie s ar e d is cu ss edinpa rt I .B be lo w.) In re sp on se , on Ju ly 7, 20 05 , Mr. Bi sh ay fil edanap pe al reque st . On Nov em be r 8, 2 00 6, App eal s h el d ahe ari ng at wh ic h M r. Bi sh ay di sp ut edth e li ab il it ie s. He arg ue d th ataft er Co m

m on weal th ’s ban krup tc y

fil in g a ndth e ap po in tm en t o f a tru st ee, h e
Mr. Bi sh ay

co nt en ds th atth e Co m

m is si on er fa il edto fil e a p ro of of c la im 4 in Co m m on weal th ’s ban krup tc y

pro ceed in g. Th is co nt en ti on is co nt rad ic te d b y th e adm in is tra ti ve reco rdde ve lo pe d b efo re Ap pe al s. Th e reque stfora CDP he ari ng th atMr. Bi sh ay

subm it te d t o Ap pe al s ap pe ars inou r rec or d a s Ex hi bi t C; an d a tt ach edto th atreque st(as Exh ib itL th eret o) is th e cl ai m s re gi st er s ho win g th e fi li ng of t he IRS’s p ro of of c la im inth e to ta l am ou ntof $ 11 5,3 02
.-6
-

[* 6] was n o l on ge r ab le to co nt ro l Co m m on weal th ’s fin an ci al affa irs an d was th eref or e n otres po ns ib le forpa y in g o ve r Co m m on weal th ’s em

pl oym en t t ax es . Inad di ti on , Mr. Bi sh ay

arg ue d t o Ap pe al s tha t the IRS was ba rredfro m pr oc eed in g a ga in sthi m

forth e trus t fu ndreco ve ry pe na lt ie s b ecau se th e IRS ha d fai le d t o fi le a pr oo f of

cla im forth e trus t fu ndtax es inCo m m on weal th ’s ba nkrupt cy

cas e. On Feb ru ary 5, 2 00 7, the IRS re jecte d M r. Bi sh ay ’s app eal , 5 de te rm in edth athe was ares po ns ib le pe rs onforCo m m on weal th , andass es se d
se ct io n 6 67 2 p en al ti es ag ai ns t h im inam ou nt s t ot al in g m or e th an$4 1,0 00
. 6 On Se pt em

be r 10 , 20 13 , th e IRS is su edto Mr. Bi sh ay a “Not ic e o f Fed eral Tax LienFil in g andYou r Ri gh t t o aHeari ng Und er I.R.C . 63 20 ”. Mr. Bi sh ay
Befo re Ap pe al s an d i n h is pe ti ti on inth is Co urt, Mr . Bis ha y als o a rg ue d 5 th atth e IRS ha d fa il edto fil e a n ot ic e o f cl ai m inth e rec ei ve rs hi p p ro ceed in g st y le d B el l At l. Yel lo w Pag es Co . v. U.S. Aut o Ex ch . Grp., Ltd ., (In r e Bah ig F. Bi sh ay ), No. 2 00 0- 01 83 8 (M as s. Sup. Ct . Sep t. 2 8, 2 00 1) (or de r ap po in ti ng rece iv er), i n wh ic h, h e al le ge d, the co urt o rd eredhi m to turnov er al l o f hi s as se ts , in cl ud in g m on ey , to a co urt-app oi nt edrece iv er. Howe ve r, Mr. Bi sh ay di d n ot supp ort o r ev enrai se any su chco nt en ti on inhi s o pp os it io n t o t he IRS’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d we d eem th atth e co nt en ti onha s b eenab an do ne d. Mo reo ve r, whi le th e p en de nc y of arece iv ers hi p p ro ceed in g m ig htaffe ctth e pr op rie ty of th e IRS ’s pro ceed in g wi th a le vy, see 2 6 C .F.R. se cs . 30 1.6 33 1- 1( a)(3 ), 30 1.6 87 1( a)-2 (a), Pr oc ed . & Adm in . Reg s., thi s ca se in vo lv es on ly the IRS’s fi li ng of ano ti ce o f li en , wher e th os e res tri ct io ns do no t ap pl y , see App le to n v . Comm is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 01 0- 22 5. The IRS as se ss ed$2 2,1 19 for th e ta x p eri oden di ng Marc h 3 1 a nd$1 9,4 93 6 fo r th e ta x p eri oden di ng Ju ne 30 , 20 02
.-7
-

[* 7] fil ed , onSep te m

be r 26 , 20 13 , a ti m el y

reque stfor

a CDP h eari ng be fo re App eal s. OnNov em

be r 27 , 20 13 , an Ap pe al s s et tl em en t o ffi cer ( “ SO”) d is cu ss ed th e is su es inth e cas e wit h M r. Bi sh ay . The SO i nf orm edhi m

th athe ha d h ada pr io r op po rtu ni ty to d is pu te th e li ab il ity an d t ha t h e co ul d o bt ai n a n i n- pe rs on m eet in g o nl y

if h e subm it te d the reque stinwrit in g a ndif h e subm it te d c om pl et e fin an ci al in fo rm at io n s o tha t the y co ul d d is cu ss co ll ect io n a lt ern at iv es . At a s ub se qu en t t el ep ho ne co nf eren ce o n J anua ry

6, 2 01 4, the SO ag ai n ex pl ai ne d t o M r. Bi sh ay

th atsi nc e h e h adalr eady ha d an o pp ortu ni ty to d is pu te th e li ab il ity , th ey

co ul d d is cu ss on ly col le ct io n a lt ern at iv es du rin g t he CDP he ari ng . Mr. Bi sh ay

st at edth athe di d n otha ve an y earn edin co m e, th athe
rece iv edon ly Soci al Secu rity be ne fit s, an d t ha t h e rel ie d o n fi na nc ia l as si st an ce fro m hi s fa m il y . Add it io na ll y , Mr. Bi sh ay st at edth athe was i n l it ig at io n o ve r fund s tha t a c ou rt- ap po in te d re cei ve r ha d e m be zzl ed . At th e SO’s reque st , Mr. Bi sh ay pro vi de d h er wi th do cu m en ts ve rif y in g t hi s i nf

orm at io n. The reaf te r, on Marc h 1 8, 2 01 4, Ap pe al s i ss ue d M r. Bi sh ay a Not ic e o f Dete rm in at io n c on cern in g C ol le ct io n Act io n( s) Und er 6 32 0 a nd/o r 63 30 . The
no ti ce o f de te rm in at io n e xp la in edApp eal s’ con cl us io ns as c omm un ic at eddu rin g th e Ja nu ary 6, 2 01 4, t el ep ho ne CDP h eari ng --i .e., th atMr. Bi sh ay was p recl ud ed fro m ch al le ng in g h is un de rlyin g l iabi li ty becau se he ha d h ada pr io r op po rtu ni ty to-8
-

[* 8] do so at t he Nov em

be r 20 06 App eal s co nf

eren ce; an d t ha t the IRS h adfil eda pr oo f of cla im inCo m m on weal th ’s ban krup tc y

pro ceed in g. Th e SO al so no te d th atMr. Bi sh ay

ha d n otoff

eredan y co ll ect io n a lt ern at iv es . As a res ul t, Ap pe al s de te rm in edto su st ai n the NFTL fil in g b utals o d et erm in edto pl ace M r. Bi sh ay ’s
acco un ts incurren tl y

no t co ll ect ib le st atus . Mr. Bi sh ay

ti m el y fil edhi s p et it io n i n t hi s C ou rt a rg ui ng th athe is no t l iabl e fo r th e trus t fu ndreco ve ry pe na lt ie s b ecau se of t he ba nkrupt cy co urt’s ap po in tm en t o f a tru st ee i n J un e 2 00 2, an d tha t co ll ect io n s ho ul d n otpro ceed ag ai ns t h im

be cau se th e IRS fai le d t o p ur su e th e trus t fu ndtax es fro m Co m m on weal th ’s ban krup tc y

est at e. Mr. Bi sh ay

res id edinMas sa ch us et ts at t he ti m e h e 7 fil edhi s p et it io n.

The pe ti ti on als o app ears to arg ue th atth e li ab il ity is owedno t b y 7 Mr. Bi sh ay

bu t b y Co m m on weal th . Mr. Bi sh ay

do es no t re pe atth is co nt en ti on in hi s o pp os it io n, an d we a ss um e h e h as ab an do ne d i t-- an d fo r go odreas on : Itis tru e th atCo m m on weal th (an d n otMr. Bi sh ay ) owe s the tru stfun d t ax es inth e fi rs t in st an ce as th e wit hh ol di ng em pl oyer; b utwhatMr. Bi sh ay owes , as a “ res po ns ib le pe rs on ”, is th e rel at edbu t d is ti nc t l iabi li ty for the sec ti on 66 72 pe na lt ie s. An ot he r arg um en t m ad e b y Mr. Bi sh ay

at t he CDP h eari ng , bu t n ot rep eat edhe re i n h is pe ti ti onno r in hi s o pp os it io n t o t he m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, i s tha t the st atut e o f li m it at io ns ba rredth e p en al ty ass es sm en ts at i ss ue he re. The re i s n o s up po rt i n the reco rdforth is arg um en t, an d we i nf er tha t Mr. Bi sh ay

ha s ab an do ne d i t as well
.-9
-

[* 9] Dis cu ss io n I. Gen eral leg al pri nc ip le s A. Su m

m ary jud gm en t Und er Ru le 12 1 (t he Tax C ourt’s ana lo g t o R ul e 5 6 o f th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e), the Co urt m ay gra ntsu m

m ary jud gm en t wh ere the re i s n o ge nu in e d is pu te as t o a ny m at eri al factan d ade ci si on m ay be ren de redas am at te r of law. Th e m ov in g p arty

(he re, the Co m

m is si on er) b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atno ge nu in e d is pu te of m at eri al factex is ts , andth e Co urt wi ll vi ew an y factua l
m at eri al an d i nf

eren ces inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty . Dah ls tro m

v. Co m m is si on er, 8 5 T.C. 8 12 , 82 1 (1 98 5) ; cf . And ers on v. Lib erty Lob by, Inc., 4 77 U.S. 24 2, 2 55 (19 86 ) (s am e st an da rdun de r Fed . R. Civ . P. 56 ).

“ The op po si ng pa rty is t o b e aff or de d t he be ne fitof a ll reas on ab le do ub t, an d a ny in fere nc e to be dra wn fr om th e und erl y in g fa ct s co nt ai ne d i n t he reco rdm us t b e vi ewedina li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p arty op po si ng th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.” Es pi no za v . Comm is si on er, 7 8 T.C. 4 12 , 41 6 (1 98 2) . To res ol ve th e Co m m is si on er’s m ot io n, we as su m e th e fac ts as s ho wn b y Mr. Bi sh ay , th e n on m ov in g p arty , or a s s ho wn b y th e Co m m is si on er an d n otdi sp ut edby Mr. Bis ha y .-1 0-

[* 10 ] B. “ Res po ns ib le pe rs on ” p en al ty An em pl oyer (he re, Co m

m on weal th ) is requi redto withh ol d fr om an em pl oyee’s wage s an d the n p ay ov er t o t he IRS b ot h i nc om e ta x, s ee s ec. 3 40 2,
an d the em

pl oyee’s sh are o f So ci al Secu rit y an d M ed ic are t ax (i.e ., Fed eral In su ran ce Co nt rib ut io ns Act t ax ), se e se c. 31 02 . Und er s ect io n 7 50 1( a), “ th e am ountof t ax so co ll ect edor wi th he ldsh al l b e h el d t o b e a s pe ci al fun d i n t ru stfor th e Uni te d S ta te s” ; co ns eque nt ly, th es e wit hh el d t ax es are re ferr edto as “ tru st fundtax es ”. One o f th e m ean s C on gr es s h as en act edto en su re tha t the se tru st fundtax es are p ai d o ve r to th e Gov ern m en t i s s ect io n 6 67 2, u nd er wh ic h “ th e of fic ers or e m

pl oyees o f th e em

pl oyer res po ns ib le foreffe ctua ti ng th e co ll ect io n an d p aym en t o f trus t-f

un d t ax es who wil lfu ll y

fai l t o d o s o a re m ad e p ers on al ly li ab le to a ‘pen al ty’ equa l t o the am ou ntof t he de li nque nttax es .” Slo do v v . Uni te d S tate s, 4 36 U.S. 23 8, 2 44 -2 45 (19 78 ). Sect io n 6 67 2( a) p ro vi de s:

SEC. 6 67 2( a). Gen eral Ru le .--An y pe rs on requi redto co ll ect , tru th fu ll y acco un t fo r, an d p ay

ov er an y tax im po se d b y th is ti tl e who wil lfu ll y fai ls to co ll ectsu chtax , or tru th fu ll y acco un t fo r an d p ay ov er s uc h t ax , or wi ll fu ll y att em pt s i n a ny m anne r to ev ad e o r de feat an y su chtax or t he pa ym en t the reo f, sh al l, i n a dd it io n t o o th er pe na lt ie s p ro vi de d b y

law, b e li ab le to a pe na lty equa l t o t he to ta l am ou ntof t he tax ev ad ed , or n otco ll ect ed , or n otacco un te d fo r an d pa idov er. * * *-1 1-

[* 11 ] The l iabi li ty at is su e h ere i s thi s p en al ty im po se d b y sec ti on 66 72 , whi chth e IRS a ss es se d a ga in stMr. Bi sh ay to reco ve r Co m

m on weal th ’s unpa idtru stfun d ta xe s. Befo re the IRS m ay ass es s a s ect io n 6 67 2 p en al ty, itm us t m ai l a pr el im in ary no ti ce (h ere, the Lett er 1 15 3) “ to anad dr es s as de te rm in edun de r se ct io n 6 21 2( b) ”, i.e., t o the res po ns ib le pe rs on ’s las t kno wn ad dr es s (o r itm ay de li ve r th e n ot ic e inpe rs on ) advi si ng of t he pro po se d a ss es sm en t o f a s ect io n 6 67 2 pe na lty . Sec. 6 67 2( b) (1 ); B landv. Co m m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 01 2- 84
. 8 Not ifi cat io n b y

m ai l (o r de li ve ry

inpe rs on ) is th e o nl y

pre requi si te ne ces sa ry

to
es tabl is h the IRS’s ri gh t t o a ss es s the pe na lty . See Ma so n v . Comm is si on er, 13 2 T.C. 3 01 , 32 2- 32 3 (2 00 9) . “ The Co m m is si on er m ay

is su e n ot ic e an d d em an d fo r an d a ss es s the pe na lty 60 da y s af

te r no ti fic at io n u nd er s ect io n 6 67 2( b) (1 ), du rin g wh ic h p eri odth e ta xp ay er m ay ap pe al th e p ro po se d a ss es sm en t an d re qu es t
anApp eal s co nf

eren ce.” Bl an d v . Comm is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 01 2- 84 , sl ip op . at 14 (ci ti ng sec ti on 66 72 (b )(2 )). If the tax pa y er ap pe al s an d the App eal s o ffi cer
A Lett er 1 15 3 c on st itut es th e n ot ic e o f pr op os edass es sm en t o f a 8 se ct io n 6 67 2 re sp on si bl e p ers onpe na lty requi redby sec. 6 67 2( b) as apre requi si te to th e IRS ’s im

po si ti on of t he pe na lty . See Re v. Pr oc . 20 05 -3 4, s ec. 4 .01 , 20 05 -1 C.B. 1 23 3, 1 23 4 (s et ti ng forth th e p ro cedur es form ai li ng th atlet te r an d fo r th e ta xp ay er’s ex erci se of h is rig htto eithe r ag ree t o o r di sp ut e th e p ro po se d as se ss m en t wi th in 60 da y s o f th e d at e o n t he let te r).-1 2-

[* 12 ] de te rm in es th atth e ta xp ay er i s l iabl e fo r th e p en al ty as a res po ns ib le pe rs on , th e m at te r is returne d t o the Co m m is si on er fo r as se ss m en t an d c ol le ct io n. Th e Co m m is si on er i ni ti at es th is co ll ect io n p ro ces s b y is su in g ano ti ce an d d em an d fo r pa ym en t p ur su an t t o s ect io n 6 30 3. C. Co ll ect io n re vi ew pr oc edur e If a t ax pa y er fa il s t o p ay

an y Fed eral tax li ab il ity

aft er n ot ic e an d d em an d,
se ct io n 6 33 1( a) au th or iz es th e IRS to co ll ectth e ta x b y lev y on th e ta xp ay er’s pr op erty ; an d s ect io n 6 32 3( f) au th or iz es th e IRS to fil e anNFTL to pro te ctth e Gov ern m en t’s i nt eres ts . Howev er, Co ng res s h as ad de d t o c hapt er 6 4 o f th e Co de cert ai n p ro vi si on s (i n s ub ch ap te r C, p artI, an d i n s ub ch ap te r D, part I) en ti tl ed

“ Due Pro ces s fo r Lien s” an d “ Due Pro ces s fo r Co ll ect io ns ”, an d tho se pro vi si on s m us t b e co m

pl ie d wi thbe fo re the IRS ca n p ro ceedwith alev y or s us ta in th e fi li ng of anNFTL: The I RS m

us t fi rs t i ss ue a fi na l n ot ic e o f in te ntto lev y an d/ ora no ti ce o f fi li ng anNFTL andm us t n ot ify the tax pa y er o f th e ri gh t t o a n adm in is tra ti ve he ari ng . Secs . 63 20 (a) an d (b ), 63 30 (a) and(b) (1 ). Afterrece iv in g su cha no ti ce, the tax pa y er m ay reque stth atadm in is tra ti ve he ari ng , sec s. 63 20 (a)( 3) (B), (b )(1 ), 63 30 (a)( 3) (B), (b )(1 ), whi chis cal le d a“ CDP h eari ng ” an d ta ke s p la ce b efo re Ap pe al s, s ecs . 63 20 (b )(1 ), 63 30 (b )(1 ). If th e ta xp ay er i s-1 3-

[* 13 ] di ss at is fie d wi th th e o ut co m e th ere, h e can ap pe al th atde te rm in at io n t o the Tax Co urt, s ecs . 63 20 (c), 6 33 0( d) (1 ), as Mr. Bi sh ay ha s d on e. At the ag en cy -le ve l CDP he ari ng , th e App eal s o ffi cer m us t d et erm in e whe th er the pro po se d c ol le ct io n a ct io n m ay pro ceed . In the cas e o f a n ot ic e o f in te ntto lev y , th e p ro cedur es forth e ag en cy -le ve l CDP he ari ng be fo re Ap pe al s ar e se t fo rth insec ti on 63 30 (c). Th e p ro cedur es forth e ag en cy -le ve l h eari ng reg ard in g a n NFTL are th e sa m e as th os e se t fo rth insec ti on 63 30 (c) fo r a n ot ic e of in te ntto lev y . Sec. 6 32 0( c). The App eal s o ffi cer i s re qu ire d t o t ak e in to
co ns id erat io n s ev eral th in gs : Fi rs t, the App eal s o ffi cer m us t v eri fy th atth e requi rem en ts of a ny app li cab le law o r admin is tra ti ve pro cedur e h av e b eenm etby IRS p ers on ne l. Sec . 63 30 (c)( 3) (A). The a tt ach m en t t o t he no ti ce o f de te rm in at io n su m m ari zedth e App eal s o ffi cer’s co m pl ianc e wit h the se requi rem en ts . Seco nd , th e ta xp ay er m ay “ rai se at t he he ari ng any rel ev an t i ss ue rel at in g t o th e unp ai d t ax or t he * * * [c ol le ct io n a ct io n], in cl ud in g” ch al le ng es to th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of the co ll ect io n a ct io n a ndoff ers of c ol le ct io n a lt ern at iv es . Sec. 63 30 (c)( 2) (A). One of M r. Bi sh ay ’s con te nt io ns pe rta in s t o t he ap pr op ria te ne ss of th e co ll ect io n a ct io n, wh ic h we d is cu ss be lo w inpa rt I I.B. Add it io na ll y , th e ta xp ay er m ay co nt es t the ex is te nc e an d a m ou ntof t he
un de rlyin g t ax li ab il ity , bu t o nl y if h e d idno t re cei ve a no ti ce o f de fic ie nc y or-1 4-

[* 14 ] othe rwis e h av e anop po rtu ni ty to d is pu te th e ta x l iabi li ty. Sec. 63 30 (c)( 2) (B). Mr . Bis ha y att em pt edto ch al le ng e h is un de rlyin g t ax li ab il ity an d
co nt in ue s tha t at te m

ptinth is cas e. W e wil l ad dr es s thi s co nt en ti on be lo w inpa rt II.A. Fi na ll y , th e App eal s o ffi cer m us t d et erm in e “ whe th er an y pro po se d
co ll ect io n a ct io n b al an ces th e n eedforth e eff ic ie ntco ll ect io n o f ta xe s wi thth e le gi ti m at e co nc ernof t he pe rs on th atan y co ll ect io n a ct io n b e n o m or e in tru si ve th anne ces sa ry .” Sec. 6 33 0( c)(3 )(C) . W e al te rn at iv el y co ns tru e Mr. Bi sh ay ’s
co ll ect io n c on te nt io ns as a n i nt ru si ve ne ss arg um en t, wh ic h we d is cu ss be lo w in pa rt I I.B. D. Tax Co urt re vi ew Whe n Ap pe al s i ss ue s i ts de te rm in at io n, the tax pa y er m ay “ ap pe al su ch de te rm in at io n t o the Tax C ourt” , pu rs ua ntto sec ti on 63 30 (d )(1 ), as Mr. Bi sh ay ha s do ne . W he re the un de rlyin g t ax li ab il ity is pro pe rly at is su e, th e ta xp ay er i s en ti tl edto de no vo rev ie w. Goza v . Comm is si on er, 1 14 T.C. 17 6, 1 81 -1 82 (20 00 ). As t o i ss ue s o th er tha n the un de rlyin g l iabi li ty, we rev ie w th e d et erm in at io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Id . at 1 82 . Thatis , we dec id e whe th er the de te rm in at io n was arb itrary, capri ci ou s, o r witho utso un d b as is infactor l aw. See M ur ph y v. Co m m is si on er, 1 25 T.C. 30 1, 3 20 (20 05 ), aff’d, 4 69 F.3d27 (1s t Ci r. 20 06 ). As-1 5-

[* 15 ] we wil l d is cu ss furth er, b ecau se th e und erl y in g l iabi li ty is n otpro pe rly at is su e, we rev ie w App eal s’ det erm in at io n t o s us ta in th e fi li ng of ano ti ce o f Fed eral ta x l ie n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. II. Ana lysis Mr. Bi sh ay

m ak es two rel at edbu t d is ti nc t ar gu m en ts th atApp eal s’ de te rm in at io n was erro ne ou s. Th e two arg um en ts in vo lv e d iff eren t l eg al th eo rie s th atrequi re s ep arat e an al y se s u nd er s ect io n 6 33 0( c). Fi rs t, i n M r. Bi sh ay ’s op po si ti on he ch al le ng es hi s u nd erl y in g l iabi li ty for the sec ti on 66 72 pe na lt ie s. Seco nd , Mr. Bi sh ay

ch al le ng es th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of c ol le ct io n. Fo r th e rea so ns we di sc us s b el ow, n ei th er ar gu m en t ca n b e su st ai ne d. A. Mr. Bi sh ay ’s un de rlyin g l iabi li ty for the sec ti on 66 72 pe na lt ie s Inad di ti on to two li ab il ity arg um en ts th athe m ad e b efo re Ap pe al s b utha s si nc e ab an do ne d, s ee s up ra n ot e 7 , Mr. Bi sh ay arg ue d b efo re Ap pe al s an d h as arg ue d h ere t ha t h e is no t l iabl e fo r th e se ct io n 6 67 2 p en al ti es be cau se he was di sabl edfro m

pa y in g C omm on weal th ’s em pl oym en t t ax li ab il ity

inJune 20 02 (an d the refo re ce as edto be a “ res po ns ib le pe rs on ” fo r pu rp os es of s ect io n 6 67 2) whe n h e was rem ov edan d re pl acedby a chap te r 7 b an krup tc y tru st ee wh o as su m edco nt ro l o f Co m

m on weal th ’s fin an ci al affa irs . ButMr. Bi sh ay can no t
m ak e su cha ch al le ng e to hi s u nd erl y in g l iabi li ty if he ha d apri or“ op po rtu ni ty to-1 6-

[* 16 ] di sp ut e su chtax li ab il ity ” und er s ect io n 6 33 0( c)(2 )(B) . For p ur po se s o f
se ct io n 6 33 0( c)(2 )(B) , a pr io r co nf eren ce wi th App eal s, o ffer edbe fo re o r aft er as se ss m en t, i s an “ op po rtu ni ty” to di sp ut e th e und erl y in g l iabi li ty. See 2 6 C .F.R.
se c. 30 1.6 32 0- 1( e)(3 ), Q&A-E2 , Pro ced . & Adm in . Reg s. (apri orop po rtu ni ty to di sp ut e li ab il ity

“ in cl ud es a pr io r op po rtu ni ty for a co nf eren ce wi th App eal s” ). Inth e sp eci fic co nt ex t o f CDP ca se s i nv ol vi ng tru stfun d re co ve ry pe na lt ie s, th is Co urt h as he ldth ata ta xp ay er h as an“ op po rtu ni ty” to di sp ut e h is li ab il ity for a trus t fu ndreco ve ry

pe na lty when he rece iv es a Lett er 1 15 3. Se e Ma so n v . Co m m is si on er, 1 32 T.C. at 3 17 -3 18 . Thu s, i f th e ta xp ay er re cei ve s a Let te r 11 53
an d c ha ll en ge s the un de rlyin g t ax li ab il ity at t he App eal s co nf

eren ce (o r if

he
rece iv es a Lett er 1 15 3 b utfai ls to do so ), th enth e ta xp ay er i s p recl ud edby
se ct io n 6 33 0( c)(2 )(B) fro m ch al le ng in g t he un de rlyin g t ax li ab il ity ina subs eque nt-1 7-

[* 17 ] CDP h eari ng . In tha t ca se , th e p rimary pu rp os e o f th e CDP h eari ng is for 9 th e ta xp ay er an d the set tl em en t o ffi cer t o d is cu ss co ll ect io n a lt ern at iv es . As we p rev io us ly dis cu ss ed , Mr. Bi sh ay rece iv eda Lett er 1 15 3 a nd
un su cces sf

ul ly rais edanun de rlyin g l iabi li ty chal le ng e atth e Nov em be r 20 06 App eal s co nf

eren ce. At tha t co nf

eren ce M r. Bi sh ay

m ad e th e sa m e li ab il ity arg um en t tha t h e n ow at te m pt s t o m ak e, i.e., tha t af

te r th e b an krup tc y

fil in g h e was no t re sp on si bl e fo r Co m

m on weal th ’s fin an ci al affa irs . Mr. Bi sh ay ’s recei ptof Lett er 1 15 3 a ndhi s s ub se qu en t Ap pe al s co nf eren ce was , forpurp os es of
se ct io n 6 33 0( c)(2 )(B) , a pr io r “ op po rtu ni ty to d is pu te ” h is li ab il ity forth e trus t fundreco ve ry

pe na lt ie s. Th eref

or e, App eal s d idno t err by prec lu di ng Mr. Bi sh ay fro m re-ra is in g tha t ar gu m en t athi s C DP he ari ng . 1 0 The lac k o f op po rtu ni ty for jud ic ia l re vi ew aft er the Lett er 1 15 3 p ro ceed in g 9 do es no t s ev erel y

pre jud ic e th e ta xp ay er b ecau se , as we h av e p rev io us ly not ed , “ th e se ct io n 6 67 2 p en al ty is d iv is ib le , so th ata ta xp ay er m ay li ti ga te th e p en al ty aft er h av in g p ai d a n a m ountco rres po nd in g t o t he tax withh el d fr om a si ng le em pl oyee”. See Webe r v. C omm is si on er, 1 38 T.C. 34 8, 3 63 n.1 2 (2 01 2) (ci ti ng Dav is v. Un it edSta te s, 9 61 F.2d86 7, 8 70 n.2 (9th C ir. 1 99 2) , andBla ndv. Co m m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 01 2- 84 ). Thu s, the tax pay er wh os e li ab il ity is up he ldinth e Let te r 11 53 pro ceed in g c anm ak e a s m al l “ to ke n” pa ym en t t owa rd s th e se ct io n 6 67 2 p en al ty, fil e a ref un d c la im with t he IRS, an d, i f th e ref un d c la im is de ni ed , fil e a ref

un d s ui t i n F ed eral Dis tri ctCo urt o r th e Co urt o f Fed eral Cl ai m s. The m eri ts of t hi s ar gu m en t, wh ic h we d o n otreac h, ar e p ro bl em at ic , si nc e

1 0 th e ta x p eri od s atis su e are th e qua rte rs th aten de d M arch 31 an d J un e 3 0, 2 00 2, (co nt in ue d...)-1 8-

[* 18 ] B. The IRS’s co ll ect io n o f th e se ct io n 6 67 2 p en al ti es fro m Mr. Bi sh ay Seco nd , Mr. Bi sh ay

arg ue s tha t the Co m

m is si on er s ho ul d n otbe all owe d t o co ll ectth e se ct io n 6 67 2 p en al ti es fro m hi m be cau se th e Co m

m is si on er “ fai le d t o se ekpa ym en t i n the Uni te d S ta te s B an krup tc y Co urt, an d i s n ow b arre d fr om pu rs ui ng Pet it io ne r ba se d o n i ts gra ve fai lure.” Mr . Bis ha y co nt en ds th at“ itwas in cu m be ntup on Res po nd en t t o g etpa idth ro ug h t he Uni te d S ta te s B an krup tc y Co urt fo r th e ta x p eri odinqu es ti on .” Im pl ic itinMr. Bi sh ay ’s col le ct io n a rg um en t is th atif the Co m

mis si on er h adm or e ag gr es si ve ly pur su edco ll ect io n i n Co m m on weal th ’s ban krup tc y

pro ceed in g, the Co m

m is si on er wo ul d h av e b een ab le to ob ta in so m e o r al l o f th e unp ai d t ru stfun d t ax es , th ereb y reduc in g o r el im in at in g M r. Bi sh ay ’s li ab il ity forth e co rres po nd in g p en al ti es . W e in te rp ret th is arg um en t as a ch al le ng e to th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of the co ll ect io n a ct io n u nd er se ct io n 6 33 0( c)(2 )(A)(i i) o r, al te rn at iv el y , as an a ss ert io n t ha t the co ll ect io n a ct io n is m or e in tru si ve th anne ces sa ry un de r se ct io n 6 33 0( c)(3 )(C)
.
(...co nt in ue d) 1 0 an d M r. Bi sh ay

was n otrem ov edun ti l J un e 2 00 2, the las t m on thof t he sec on d o f th os e qua rte rs . See Ho wardv. Un it edSta te s, 7 11 F.2d72 9, 7 37 (5t h C ir. 1 98 3) (co rp or at e o ffi cer l iabl e fo r se c. 66 72 pe na lt ie s ev enth ou gh he was n otem pl oyed by em pl oyer onth e d at e th e ta xe s fo r th e qua rte r were due ); Ka lb v. Un it edSta te s, 50 5 F .2d50 6, 5 09 (2dCir . 19 74 ) (“ res po ns ib le pe rs on ” li ab le un de r se c. 66 72 (a) ev enth ou gh co m

pa ny wentba nkruptbe fo re the en d o f th e fi rs t qua rte r).-1 9-

[* 19 ] 1. App ro pr ia te ne ss of c ol le ct io n Prel im in ari ly, we no te th atth e rec or d d ev el op edbe fo re Ap pe al s co nt rad ic ts Mr. Bi sh ay ’s con te nt io n tha t the Co m m is si on er fa il edto fol lo w ban kr up tc y pr oc edur e fo r fi li ng a pr oo f of cla im . Befo re an d dur in g t he CDP h eari ng , Mr. Bi sh ay co nt en de d tha t the Co m

m is si on er fa il edto fil e a p ro of of c la im in Co m m on weal th ’s ban krup tc y

cas e. He rep eat edth atco nt en ti on inth e p et it io n h e fil edinth is Co urt; an d i n h is op po si ti on to th e Co m m is si on er’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, h e “ di sp ut ed ”, witho utelabo rat io n o r co rro bo rat io n, the IRS’s fil in g o f a p ro of

of c la im . Howev er, Mr . Bis ha y ’s ownsubm is si on s t o Ap pe al s sh ow tha t the IRS d idfil e a p ro of of c la im inth e b an kr

up tc y cas e o n S ep te m

be r 26 , 20 02 (refl ect edon Co m m on weal th ’s cla im s re gi st er as Cla im nu m be r 7)
. Thi s b el ie s M r. Bi sh ay ’s im pl ic itco nt en ti onth atth e Co m m is si on er was di la to ry inpu rs ui ng co ll ect io n o f th e trus t fundtax es inth e b an krup tc y cas e. Bu t
ev enif we a ss um e, fo r pu rp os es of t he Co m m is si on er’s m ot io n, tha t m or e ag gr es si ve effo rts by the IRS i n t he ba nkrupt cy pro ceed in g c ou ldha ve ledto a subs tant ia l co ll ect io n, tha t fa ctwou ldno t u nd erm in e th e IRS ’s rig htto co ll ectth e se ct io n 6 67 2 p en al ti es fro m Mr. Bi sh ay , si nc e h is arg um en t fa il s fo r a m or e fund am en ta l re as on :-2 0-

[* 20 ] The IRS h as no ob li ga ti on to fir stco ll ectem pl oym en t t ax es fro m

th e em pl oyer be fo re as se ss in g a ndco ll ect in g t he co rres po nd in g t ru stfun d re co ve ry pe na lty fro m a res po ns ib le pe rs on un de r se ct io n 6 67 2. Se e Howa rdv. Un it ed St at es , 71 1 F .2d72 9, 7 36 (5t h C ir. 1 98 3) ; Dat lo f v. Un it edSta te s, 3 70 F.2d65 5, 65 6 (3 d C ir. 1 96 6) (“ The Serv ic e n eedno t h av e at te m pt edto co ll ectfro m

th e em pl oyer be fo re as se ss in g ares po ns ib le pe rs on un de r § 6 67 2” ); M or ga n v . Co m m is si on er, T.C. Mem o. 2 01 1- 29 0, s li p o p. at7 (s ect io n 6 67 2 “ ‘doe s n ot in cl ud e an y

requi rem en t tha t the go ve rn m en t ex erci se “ du e d il ig en ce” i n i ts
co ll ect io n e ffo rts ag ai ns t the em pl oyer co rp or at io n’” (quo ti ng Co op er v . Uni te d St at es , 53 9 F . Sup p. 1 17 , 12 1 (E.D. Va. 19 82 ), aff’d, 7 05 F.2d44 2 (4 th Cir
. 19 83 ))); Jen ki ns v. Un it edSta te s, 1 01 Fed . Cl. 1 22 , 13 8 n .29 (20 11 ), aff’d, 4 84 Fed . App x. 5 11 (Fed . Cir . 20 12 ); F arri ng to n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 9 20 F. Sup p. 1 2, 1 4 (D.N.H. 19 96 ) (“ [A] taxp ay er m ay no t en joi n c ol le ct io n a tt em

pt s m ad e und er 2 6 U.S.C. § 6 67 2 o n the gro un d tha t co ll ect io n s ho ul d fi rs t b e h adfro m th e co rp or at e em pl oyer.”). Si m il arl y , th e IRS is no t o bl ig at edto co ll ecttax es fro m anem pl oyer’s
co rp or at e as se ts or f

ro m it s b an krup tc y

est at e b efo re co ll ect in g atru stfun d
reco ve ry pe na lty fro m th e res po ns ib le pe rs on . See Fra nkv. D’Am br os i, 4 F.3d 13 78 , 13 86 (6t h C ir. 1 99 3) (“ The IRS i s n otrequi redto co ll ectde li nque nt-2 1-

[* 21 ] em pl oym en t t ax es fro m

co rp or at e as se ts be fo re p ro ceed in g a ga in stco rp or at e of fic ia ls ”). A pe rs on with re sp on si bi li ty to p ay ov er t ax es im

pr es se d wi th a trus t in fav orof t he Uni te d S ta te s i s n oten ti tl edto sp en d t ho se fun ds in st eadan d t he n ob li ge th e IRS to try to ch as e d own th e m on ey fro m ot he r so ur ces . A resp on si bl e pe rs on who fai ls to pa y

ov er wi th he ldtax es oft endo es so with aba nkrupt cy lo om in g, an d b an krup tc y pro ceed in gs oft enpe ndfor y ears . The s ect io n 6 67 2 pe na lty wou ldlo se it s i nt en de d fo rce i f th e em pl oyer’s fil in g o f a b an krup tc y cas e co ul d e ffec ti ve ly im

m un iz e th e res po ns ib le pe rs on fro m pe na lty li ab il ity . Mr. Bi sh ay ’s arg um en t tha t the IRS h adto co ll ectth e unp ai d t ru stfun d ta xe s fr om

Co m m on weal th ’s ban krup tc y

est at e was pro pe rly rejecte d i n t he CDP he ari ng . App eal s d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y reject in g M r. Bi sh ay ’s cha ll en ge to th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of t he IRS’s co ll ect io n m etho d o f fi li ng anNFTL to pro te ct th e in te res ts of t he publ ic fis c.

2. In tru si ve ne ss Sect io n 6 33 0( c)(3 )(C) pro vi de s tha t “ [t]he de te rm in at io n b y anap pe al s of fic er und er thi s s ub se ct io n s ha ll tak e in to co ns id erat io n * * * whethe r an y pr op os edco ll ect io n a ct io n b al an ces th e n eedforth e eff ic ie ntco ll ect io n o f ta xe s with the leg it im at e co nc ernof t he pe rs onth atany co ll ect io n a ct io n b e n o m or e in tru si ve th anne ces sa ry .” W e in fer tha t M r. Bi sh ay m ay in te ndto in vo ke th is-2 2-

[* 22 ] pr in ci pl e an d t o c on te ndth at , whi le th e IRS m ay co ll ectfro m

hi m , itsh ou ld
no t, b ecau se co ll ect io n o f th e trus t fu ndtax es fro m Co m m on weal th ’s ban krup tc y es ta te wou ldbe les s i nt ru si ve . If so , th is co nt en ti on si mil arl y fai ls
. As we h av e d is cu ss ed , th e IRS is no t o bl ig at edto actas ares po ns ib le pe rs on ’s col le ct io n a ge ntan d i s n otrequi redto fir stco ll ectth e em pl oym en t t ax es fro m th e em pl oyer, or the em

pl oyer’s ban krup tc y

est at e, be fo re co ll ect in g atru st fundreco ve ry

pe na lty fro m a res po ns ib le pe rs on . It wil l al way s b e true th atth e IRS’s co ll ect io n o f th e trus t fu nd s fr om th e em pl oyer, fro m

a ba nkruptest at e, fro m an ot he r res po ns ib le pe rs on , or fr om so m e o th er s ou rce wi ll be m uc h l es s i nt ru si ve fo r th e co m

pl ai ni ng res po ns ib le pe rs on --b uthe co ul d n otav oi d c ol le ct io n m erel y by affirm in g thi s tru is m

ina CDP h eari ng . Mr. Bi sh ay do es no t p oi ntto an y sp eci fic co ll ect io n p ro sp ectth atth e IRS co ul d e as il y pu rs ue to reco ve r th e trus t fund s. He s im

pl y pre fers th atth e IRS pu rs ue hypo th et ic al pro sp ect s b efo re pu rs ui ng hi m . This do es no t am ou ntto a sh owi ng of any fail ur e b y App eal s t o

“ba lanc e th e n eedfor

th e eff ic ie ntco ll ect io n o f ta xe s wi th ” Mr. Bi sh ay ’s con cern s ab ou t i nt ru si ve ne ss . Mo reo ve r, th e act io n s us ta in edby App eal s’ det erm in at io n- -i.e ., th e fi li ng of
anNFTL, rath er tha n i ss ui ng a no ti ce o f in te ntto lev y --was am on g the les s in tru si ve co ll ect io n m etho ds av ai labl e to th e IRS . By fil in g t he NFTL andals o-2 3-

[* 23 ] pl aci ng Mr. Bi sh ay ’s acco un t i n c urren tl y no t co ll ect ib le st atus --m ean in g th atfurth er co ll ect io n e ffo rts by the IRS wo ul d c eas e unl es s an d unt il Mr. Bi sh ay ’s ci rcu m st an ces ch an ge d- -th e IRS was o nl y pre se rv in g i ts pl ace i n M r. Bi sh ay ’s li ne of cred it or s. Th e IRS ch os e th e le as t i nt ru si ve co ll ect io n m etho d a ndcert ai nl y di d
no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d oi ng so . Insh ort, Ap pe al s’ det erm in at io n t o s us ta in th e NFTL fil in g was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. We will th eref or e g ran t the Co m

m is si on er’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d t o tha t en d-
- An ap pr op ria te ord er an d d eci si on wil l b e en te red
.