Little Know Statute for Bocking an IRS Levy
26 U.S.C. § 6330(e) contains a provision that is little known and underutilized by folks facing an Federal tax levy of their bank account or paycheck. That subsection provides in pertinent part:
“(e) Suspension of collections and statute of limitations
“(1) In general
“… if a hearing is requested under subsection (a)(3)(B), the levy actions which are the subject of the requested hearing…shall be suspended for the period during which such hearing, and appeals therein, are pending…”
The suspension of collection activities by timely requesting a Collection Due Process Hearing (CDPH) is a highly successful approach to bring to an end an Internal Revenue Service levy on a bank account or paycheck. I have availed myself of this provision to stop an IRS levy in as little as two days. I recently put a remark in my shopping cart that even a dancing bear could bring to a halt an IRS levy by a timely request for a CDPH hearing as Congress provided in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(b)(1).
Conversely, a dancing bear would not be able to keep Internal Revenue Service collection activity postponed and most likely neither would most of us. In spite of all the lulls while appeals are pending; and in spite of being able to retrieve whatever cash you had in the bank when the Notice of Levy arrived from the Internal Revenue Service; and in spite of receiving full paychecks during those delays; sooner or later, the end of the line will occur and the IRS will proceed with collection activities as they were before the hearing was requested. At the point this happens almost all the people will be right back where they started; dealing with a garnishment by the Internal Revenue Service. It is because of this distasteful reality that I placed nine, no obligation videos, 4-10 minutes long at www.irsterminator.com discussing strategies I have researched out that make keeping Internal Revenue Service collection activities suspended indefinitely a very real likelihood.
There are two aspects to winning a CDPH hearing: 1) Taking positive strategies with the end being to prevail in the hearing as I discuss in the videos referred to above; 2) Avoiding bringing up issues that would cause you to lose the hearing. Shunning losing topics is a matter of doing a little investigation and reviewing what issues have been raised in the past that lost.
Rohner v. U.S., 2003.NOH.0000145 (N.D.Ohio 2003) is the case that I will address in part in this article. Rohner lost his Collection Due Process hearing and appealed to the Federal District Court. I was able to find his case by searching the District Court data base at www.versuslaw.com. I made an hour and forty minute video about how to use Versuslaw to do research and that video is available for you to learn to do online legal research too at www.bearscart.com in the “law study” category.
In the section of the Court’s decision entitled “Factual and Procedural Background” the Court recounted:
“Although Plaintiff submitted Forms 1040 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) along with copies of Forms W-2 indicating his wage income for the years 1996 and 1998, he reported no income on the returns and attached statements containing frivolous arguments as to why he was not liable for an income tax for those two years…With regards to the 1998 tax return, the IRS then sent Plaintiff a letter dated May 24, 1999, advising him that a frivolous return penalty of $500 under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 would be assessed against him unless he corrected his position within 30 days…Plaintiff failed to correct the Form 1040 and the IRS assessed § 6702 penalty against him on September 13, 1999, with respect to the 1998 Form 1040…The IRS also accessed Plaintiff a § 6702 penalty on November 13, 2000, with respect to the 1996 Form 1040, because he submitted a Form 1040 for tax year 1996 showing no income with an attached statement containing frivolous arguments on July 21, 2000.”
So, part of what Rohner was trying to do was use the hearing to get out of paying frivolous return penalties. The IRS sent Rohner a Notice of Intent to Levy that informed him of his right to a CDPH hearing and he requested the hearing. After losing in the CDPH hearing, Rohner lost on appeal to the Federal District Court:
1) Rohner’s line of reasoning that he did not receive a notice of deficiency respecting the § 6702 frivolous return penalty was declined as being without merit as there is no requirement that a notice of deficiency issue with respect to these penalties. The Court held that deficiency procedures do not apply to the assessment or collection of frivolous tax return penalties.
2) Rohner’s argument that he did not obtain a fair-minded hearing because the the Service neglected to comply with his demands for records was refused by the Court as unfounded. The Court held that Section 6330 did not grant permission for production of documents or other exploratory demands in connection with a CDPH (Colletions Due Process Hearing).
Rohner brought up further unfruitful matters on appeal which will serve as the basis of an additional article. The Court ended up holding that the IRS’s (Internal Revenue Service) administrative decision was to be upheld. Judgments such as this one have continuously served me as an motivation and not as a impediment. At least a set of circumstances like this aids as a forewarning with regard to strategies to be used in the future. To provide yourself the greatest occasion of triumphing examine the 9 videos at www.irsterminator.com.
Follow me on Twitter.com/legalbear See you there. 
Auto Insurance Quotes | Cheap Auto Insurance Rates | Auto Insurance Estimate | Free Auto Insurance Quotes | Low Cost Auto Insurance | Georgia Auto Insurance | Auto Insurance Comparisons | Low Auto Insurance Quotes | Auto Car Insurance Quotes | Auto Free Insurance Quote | Best Auto Insurance Rates | Auto Insurance Quote
Filed under: Finance