Surprisingly Tactic to block an Internal Revenue Service Levy

26 U.S.C. § 6330 (e) contains a provision which is slightly underutilized and celebrated by individuals facing an IRS levy on their bank account or pay. This subsection provides in relevant part: 

"(E) Suspension of collections and obsolescence 

"(1) General 

"... If a hearing is requested in subsection (a) (3) (B), the levy actions which are the subject of the requested hearing ... suspended in the period when such a hearing, and appeals therein waiting ... " 

The suspension of collection activities by the timely request a meeting Due Process Hearing (CDPH) is a very effective tactic to stop an Internal Revenue Service tax on a financial institution like a bank or credit or pay slip. I have used this provision to bring to bear an IRS (Internal Revenue Service) tax on as little as two days. I recently placed a statement in my shopping cart, even a dancing bear to put an end to an IRS levy, with a request for a CDPH hearing, as provided in 26 USC § 6330 (b) (1). 

However, a dancing bear would not be able to keep the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) collection activities on hold and probably neither would most of us. Despite all the waiting while the appeals are pending, and in spite of being able to retrieve the cash you had in the bank when the notice of Levy arrived from the IRS, and in spite of receiving full pay slips in these delays because of Obviously, end of the line comes and the IRS will proceed with collection activities as they were before the hearing was requested. At that point, it happens almost all people will be back where they started, facing collection activity by IRS (Internal Revenue Service). It is because of this unsavory reality that we put up nine, free videos, 4-10 minutes in length www.irsterminator.com talk about strategies, we have researched, to do to keep the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) activities to collect suspended indefinitely a very real prospect. 

There are two aspects to win a CDPH hearing: 1) take affirmative strategies with the goal of which is predominant in the hearing as we talk about in the videos mentioned above, 2) Do not bring up issues that would trigger you lose the hearing. Eschews losing issues are a matter of making a small study and review of the issues raised in the past that have lost. 

Rohner v. United States, 2003.NOH.0000145 (NDOhio 2003) is such that we will grab a portion of this article. Rohner lost his Collection Due Process hearing and appealed to the Federal District Court. we was able to find his case by seeking the District Court database www.versuslaw.com. we made one hour and forty minute video on how to use Versuslaw to investigate and that video will be available for you to learn how to make online legal research also   in "law study" category. 

In the part of the Court's decision entitled "Factual and Procedural Background" The Court recounted: 

"Although the claimant filed Forms 1040 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), together with copies of Forms W-2 shows his wages for the years 1996 and 1998, he reported no revenue in return and attached statements containing frivolous arguments as to why he was not liable for an income tax in two years ... As for the 1998 tax return, IRS then sent claimant a letter dated May 24, 1999, advising him that a frivolous return penalty of $ 500 under 26 USC § 6702 will be assessed in relation to him unless he informed his position within 30 days ... the defendant failed to correct Form 1040 and IRS assessed the § 6702 penalty against him September 13, 1999, regarding the 1998 Form 1040 ... The IRS also access to the Applicant a § 6702 penalty November 13, 2000, regarding the 1996 Form 1040, when he submitted a Form 1040 for fiscal year 1996 showing no income with an attached statement with frivolous arguments July 21, 2000. " 

So part of what Rohner tried to do was use the consultation to get out of paying frivolous return penalties. Rohner IRS sent a notice of intent to Levy, who briefed him on his right to a CDPH hearing, and he requested the hearing. After losing in CDPH hearing Rohner lost an appeal to the Federal District Court: 

1) Rohner reasoning that he did not receive a notice of failure to comply with § 6702 frivolous return penalty was dismissed as baseless as it is not necessary that a notice of deficiency issued with respect to these sanctions. The Court held that lack procedures do not apply to the assessment or collection of frivolous tax return penalties. 

2) Rohner reasoning that he did not get a fair hearing because the service has failed to comply with his request for records was rejected by the Court as unfounded. The Court held that § 6330 does not give permission for the production of records or other investigative requirements for a fair trial hearing sessions. 

Rohner infertile subjects broached further appeal, which will serve as a source for another article. Court ended with concluding that IRS administrative ruling would stand as agreed. Results, as this has always served me as an inspiration and not as a disappointment. At least one trial, as this gives a warning with regard to strategies to be used in the future. To provide yourself the greatest opportunity to come out victorious.