PMI Mortgage Center

26 U.S.C. § 6330(e) contains a provision that is little known and underutilized by persons facing off with an Federal tax levy of their bank account or pay. 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 very successful method to end an IRS (Internal Revenue Service) levy on a bank account or paycheck. I have applied this provision to prevent an IRS  levy in as little as 2 days. A short time ago I put a note in my shopping cart that even a dancing bear could end an IRS (Internal Revenue Service)  levy by a timely request for a CDPH hearing as Congress provided in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(b)(1).

Nevertheless, a dancing bear would not be able to keep IRS collection activity postponed and most likely neither would most of us. In spite of all the waits 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 IRS; and in spite of receiving full paychecks during those delays; in the long run, the end of the line will happen 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; staring down a garnishment by the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). It is because of this harsh actuality that I placed nine, no-cost videos, 4-10 minutes long at www.irsterminator.com talking about strategies I have researched out that make keeping IRS collection activities suspended indefinitely a very real possibility.

There are two aspects to winning a CDPH hearing: 1) Taking affirmative strategies with the purpose of prevailing in the hearing as I discuss in the videos talked about above; 2) Avoiding raising issues that would cause you to lose the hearing. Sidesteping losing matters is a matter of doing a little investigation and reviewing what issues have been raised in the past that lost.

Rohner v. U.S., 91 A.F.T.R.2d 2003-2425 (N.D.Ohio 2003) is the Collection Due Process appeal ruling that I want to deal with in part in this commentary. Rohner lost hisCollection Due Process hearing and appealed to the Federal District Court. I was able to retrieved his issues by searching through the District Court data base at www.versuslaw.com. I made an hour and forty minute video about how to use Versuslaw to do online legal research and that video tutorial 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.”

Hence, it appears like Rohner may have been using an early Cracking the Code plan; or perhaps, something taught by Irwin Schiff. He appears to be using the hearing to persuade the hearing officer to be in agreement with  his stance on why he had no taxable income and to get out of paying frivolous return penalties. The IRS sent Rohner a Notice of Intent to Levy that informed him of his entitlement to a CDPH and he asked for the hearing. After losing in the CDPH hearing, Rohner lost on appeal to the Federal District Court:

1) It is recounted in the published decision, the Court held that Rohner reasoned that he had the right to make a recording of the collection due process hearing or have a court reporter transcribe the hearing. The Court held that Rohner misstated the law and ruled that he did not have the right to have the collection due process hearing recorded or to have a court reporter transcribe the hearing.

2) According to the published decision, the Court said that Rohner contended that the hearing officer wouldn’t give  him a independent hearing with respect to the frivolous return penalties for each of the two separate tax years. The Court held that collection due process hearings are comprised of more than simply theface-to-face meeting between the taxpayer and the officer. It held that written letters, telephone conversations and face-to-face meetings all are sufficient for an acceptable hearing.

The Court ended up holding that the Internal Revenue Service’s administrative determination was to be upheld. In the videos at www.irsterminator.com I discuss how to use Rohner’s losing issues above to your own advantage. Check them out.

Follow me on Twitter.com/legalbear See you there.