Source: https://www.districtofcolumbiataxattorney.com/blog/2020/01/tax-court-preserves-levy-protection-because-irs-fails-to-show-good-cause.shtml
Timestamp: 2020-03-30 10:50:06
Document Index: 126098057

Matched Legal Cases: ['§6330', '§6330', '§6330', '§6330', '§6320', '§6330']

Tax Court Preserves Levy Protection Because IRS Fails to Show Good Cause | Frost & Associates, Attorneys at Law
On behalf of Frost & Associates, LLC posted in Tax Topics on Tuesday, January 21, 2020.
On January 3, 2020, the Tax Court issued an order refusing to remove an Internal Revenue Code (IRC) §6330(e)(1) suspension of levy, finding that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) failed to establish good cause for such removal.[1] In this case, the taxpayer, as an attorney admitted to practice in Tax Court, was able to competently deflect what was essentially an IRS argument that his efforts to enforce his rights were frivolous. Other taxpayers should carefully consider this case as a particularly compelling example of why one is well-advised to hire competent counsel in IRS tax controversies.
Per IRC §6330(e)(1), a taxpayer's timely CDP request suspends IRS levy action until Appeals issues a determination. As the Tax Court noted, this suspension:
While no definition of "good cause" may be found in IRC §6330, the Tax Court has held that the IRS may show good cause where taxpayer used the collection review procedure to present frivolous arguments and needlessly delay collection.[3]
In July of 2019, taxpayer suspended IRS collection activity by filing a Collection Due Process hearing (CDP) request under IRC §6330(e)(1). Taxpayer filed a petition to challenge the IRS's subsequent Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Actions under IRC §6320 or §6330 (NOD), which sustained a notice of intent to levy in lieu of the IRS's determination that taxpayer (1) failed to provide information to consider a collection alternative, and (2) was not compliant with making estimated tax payments.
The Tax Court noted that the IRS's support for its contention that taxpayer was using his CDP rights as a mechanism to exploit the collection review process and delay collections consisted of the following:
2. The outcomes of two of the taxpayer's prior cases, along with the taxpayer's failure to make estimated payments for tax year 2018.
The Court has generally considered a motion to permit levy at the same time as a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is usually filed with a declaration of the settlement officer [emphasis added] and includes documents that support the arguments made in the motion for summary judgment, including whether petitioner challenged the underlying liability in a CDP hearing.[4]
Here, the Tax Court found it significant that the IRS didn't even provide a settlement officer's declaration supporting the IRS's motion.
If you are facing an IRS tax controversy, call the experienced legal team of Frost & Associates, LLC at 410-497-5947.
[1]Percy Squire v. Commissioner, Docket No. 013308-19L.
[2]Id. at 1, citing Burke v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 189 (2005).
[3] Id. at 2, citing Burke v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 196-197 (2005).