{"id":62991,"date":"2019-07-15t11:00:39","date_gmt":"2019-07-15t15:00:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/48e130086c.nxcli.net\/?p=62991"},"modified":"2019-07-19t11:58:01","modified_gmt":"2019-07-19t15:58:01","slug":"protections-the-irs-should-adopt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/2019\/07\/15\/protections-the-irs-should-adopt\/","title":{"rendered":"4 ways to fix irs collections"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>home foreclosure? put on the brakes.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

by 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 research<\/em><\/p>\n

tax assessment and collection \u2013 this is the juncture where taxpayers really get to know their favorite federal agency … or, if not favorite, the only one that touches virtually every working american.<\/p>\n

more:<\/b> 3 ways to improve irs levies<\/a> | how the irs abuses \u2018math errors\u2019<\/a>
\n\"goprocpa.com\"exclusively for pro members. <\/span><\/strong>log in here<\/a> or 2022世界杯足球排名 today<\/a>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

it can be a heavy touch to a tender area, the one in the vicinity of the wallet. so it\u2019s a touch that can always use improvement.<\/p>\n

fortunately for taxpayers, the tax advocacy service \u00a0suggests 16 ways congress could make the assessment and collection touch a touch softer.
\n<\/p>\n

1. ease up on the requirement that the office of chief counsel review certain offers in compromise.<\/strong><\/p>\n

irc \u00a7 7122 authorizes the secretary of the treasury (through the irs) to settle tax liabilities for less than the full amount owed, as long as the case has not gone to court. the irs can offer such a partial abatement in cases where there is doubt as to the liability or its collectibility, or to promote effective tax administration. the settlement is called an \u201coffer in compromise\u201d (oic).<\/p>\n

but crooks and big taxpayers beware! your cases are a little more complicated. for criminal cases and cases where the unpaid taxes (and penalties, interest, etc.) exceed $50,000, the treasury department\u2019s general counsel must review the case through the irs office of chief counsel.<\/p>\n

and that\u2019s where things get gummed up. criminal cases, of course, merit the legal attention, but in tens of thousands of civil cases, the chief counsel review may be an unnecessary complication and delay.<\/p>\n

in that these cases are legal issues, the office of the chief counsel can\u2019t just rubber-stamp oic approvals. legal staff has to look into the facts behind the cases and write supporting opinions. the process consumes irs time and resources. meanwhile, the poor taxpayer is in financial limbo. she may be impeded from making financial decisions, and the delay could even jeopardize her ability to pay the amount offered.<\/p>\n

the tas believes that treasury could ease up on the chief counsel review requirement in at least some cases.<\/p>\n

tas recommendation: <\/strong>amend irc \u00a7 7122(b) to repeal the requirement for all oics in civil cases and replace it with language authorizing the treasury to require counsel review only in cases determined to present significant legal issues.<\/p>\n

2. require irs to mail notices at least quarterly to taxpayers with delinquent tax liabilities.<\/strong><\/p>\n

irc \u00a7 7524 requires the irs to send out delinquency notices \u201cnot less often than annually.\u201d the notices must state the amount of the tax delinquency and the date of the notice.<\/p>\n

just once a year? really?<\/p>\n

maybe the irs should take a lesson from credit card companies, retailers, banks and other private sector debt collectors. almost all of them send out monthly notices. apparently the stamps and processing are a cost-effective expenditure. bottom line, reminders generate revenues.<\/p>\n

a good number of taxpayers would be glad to avoid penalties and interest. all they need is a few reminders. and the longer the penalties and interest pile up, the less likely the liability will be paid.<\/p>\n

tas <\/strong>recommendation: <\/strong>amend irc \u00a7 7524 to mail out delinquent tax notices at least once per quarter.<\/p>\n

3. strengthen taxpayer protections in the filing of federal tax liens.<\/strong><\/p>\n

under irc \u00a7 6323, the irs is authorized to slap a notice of federal tax lien (nftl) on taxpayers who owe past-due taxes.<\/p>\n

it\u2019s actually a slap on the assets. an nftl protects the government\u2019s interest in property that might otherwise be claimed by judgment lien creditors. it can be a crippling slap if the taxpayer wants to sell those assets or use them to borrow money to stay solvent or even to pay off the tax debt.<\/p>\n

in other words, the nftl may be preventing that which it is trying to accomplish.<\/p>\n

unlike creditors, the irs does not need a court\u00a0 judgment to file an nftl. under irc \u00a7 6320, the taxpayer has a right to a collection due process (cdp), but get this<\/strong> \u2013 the due process can begin only after the nftl has been filed.<\/p>\n

it\u2019s an ironic catch-22: just as the taxpayer needs an asset, the irs renders it unusable.<\/p>\n

the irs restructuring and reform act of 1998 tried to avoid this problem by requiring an irs employee to get approval from a supervisor, \u201cwhere appropriate,\u201d before filing an nftl.<\/p>\n

where appropriate? what\u2019s that supposed to mean? apparently the irs doesn\u2019t think it means much. the service takes a rather narrow interpretation of the term. in a majority of cases, employees seek no supervisor approval. worse still, employees don\u2019t even have to personally contact the taxpayer beforehand to discuss financial conditions or collection alternatives.<\/p>\n

several tas studies have found that nftls can undermine government interests. by complicating a taxpayer\u2019s financial condition, a lien makes it harder for the taxpayer to remain or become compliant. furthermore, an nftl can increase the taxpayer\u2019s living expenses, perhaps even render him or her unemployed. the government may end up unfurling the safety net of unemployment benefits, food stamps and so on, increasing the tax burden on others.<\/p>\n

the tas says there\u2019s a better way.<\/p>\n

tas recommendations: <\/strong><\/p>\n