26 U.S.C. § 6330(e) includes a provision that is little celebrated and underutilized by individuals facing an IRS 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 efficient tactic to bring to a halt an Internal Revenue Service levy on a financial institution such as a bank or credit union or paycheck. I have applied this provision to bring to a standstill an IRS (Internal Revenue Service)  levy in as little as two days. I recently put a statement in my shopping cart that even a dancing bear could bring to an end an IRS  levy by a timely request for a CDPH hearing as made available in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(b)(1).

However, a dancing bear would not be able to keep IRS (Internal Revenue Service) collection activity put on hold 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 any cash you had in the bank when the Notice of Levy arrived from the IRS; and despite the fact of receiving complete paychecks during those delays; in due course, the end of the line will come and the  IRS will proceed with collection activities as they were before the hearing was asked for. At the point this happens almost all the people will be right back where they started; facing collection activity by the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). It is because of this distasteful actuality that I put up nine, free videos, 4-10 minutes in length at www.irsterminator.com talking about strategies I have researched out that make keeping IRS (Internal Revenue Service) collection activities suspended indefinitely a very real prospect.

There are two aspects to winning a CDPH hearing: 1) Taking affirmative strategies with the goal of prevailing in the hearing as I talk about in the videos referred to above; 2) Avoiding bringing up issues that would trigger you losing 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 get  a notice of deficiency respecting the § 6702 frivolous return penalty was declined as being baseless since there is no necessity that a notice of deficiency be issued 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 line of reasoning that he did not obtain a just hearing because the the Service failed to comply with his requests for records was rejected by the Court as groundless. The Court held that Section 6330 did not bestow permission for production of records or other investigative demands in connection with a collections due process hearing.

Rohner broached further unfruitful topics on appeal which will serve as the source of another article. The Court ended up holding that the IRS’s administrative determination would stand as decided. Results such as this one have continuously served me as an inspiration and not as a disappointment. At least a court case like this provides a warning with regard to strategies to be used in the future. To furnish yourself the greatest opportunity of coming out victorious look at the 9 videos at www.irsterminator.com.

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