The IRS did not abuse its discretion in sustaining levy

• Published in: Journal of Accountancy 2024-11, Vol.235 (11), p.1-3
• Main Authors: McKinley, John, Geiszler, Matthew, Chasen, Isaac
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Jurisdiction; Liability; Supervisors; Tax courts; Taxes; Taxpayers
• ISSN: 0021-8448; 1945-0729

Furthermore, since there was no conflicting evidence to the contrary, the Tax Court found that the IRS account transcripts were sufficient evidence to establish that the $7,141 in payments were not applied against White's 2019 tax liability. [...]the court only reviewed whether the Appeals SO had abused his discretion in handling White's case. In determining whether an SO abused their discretion, the Tax Court considers whether the SO: (1) properly verified that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure were met; (2) considered any relevant issues the taxpayer raised; and (3) looked at "whether any proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of [the taxpayer] that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary" (Sec. 6330(c)(3)). The Tax Court noted, however, that it has repeatedly held that Sec. 6330 does not require a face-to-face hearing. [...]the court found that a face-to-face meeting was unjustified once White showed no interest in a collection alternative for 2019, since no financial information was submitted to the SO. The court noted that White was still free to submit an OIC or installment agreement at any time if supported by the appropriate financial information and that such an offer could cover her liabilities for multiple tax years. ■ White, T.C. Memo. 2024-53 - John McKinley, CPA, CGMA, J.D., LL.M., is a professor of the practice in accounting and taxation in the SC Johnson College of Business; Matthew Geiszler, Ph.D., is a lecturer in accounting in the Brooks School of Public Policy; and Isaac Chasen is a J.D. candidate at Cornell Law School,