Why Let the IRS Levy Your Bank Account?
There is a blog post about IRS miscues here. This is a woman who graduated from Penn State. She considers herself to be a Nittany Lioness. She says:
“…the IRS money is owed by the son-in-law. The IRS plunged and seized the entire refund to apply ti the past due taxation when the kids had their taxes done this past Spring time. But it wasn’t enough to pay the whole debt off so now, they are holding their checking accounts hostage, trying to abscond with every penny of their income for this month and next month as well in order to pay off this debt to the government.
“What I’ve read about this procedure thus far it does say that the IRS has to give a notice to individuals when they are going to do this by sending them a certified letter to let them know about their plans. However, they screwed up and never sent said certified letter -or if they did send it, it was never received, never signed for them.”
This woman is right on! When she keeps reviewing the i-net, eventually she will come to my free IRS Terminator videos that show how to release the levy on her son-in-law’s bank account. I really think the issue the Nittany Lioness raises that no notice was sent is a very good one. Here’s what the law says in 26 USC § 6330(a)(1):
“No levy may be made on any property or right to property of any person unless the Secretary has notified such person in writing of their right to a hearing under this section before such levy is made.”
When her son-in-law was not sent the notice, he missed out on knowing about the following:
“The notice required under paragraph (1) shall include in simple and nontechnical terms…
(B) the right of the person to request a hearing during the 30-day period under paragraph (2);”
If the Nittany Lioness’ son-in-law had been studying up on the necessity of the notice and the right to request a hearing, here is what he could have learned from 26 USC § 6330(e)(1) or the notice he was supposed to have been sent:
“…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 son-in-law could have the use of his bank accounts and incoming funds during the whole time the hearing was pending. IRS hearing officers are really busy because so many are taking advantage of the provisions I have mentioned here. This probably means that the time the hearing is pending could be a long, long time. The Nittany Lioness continues:
“I need to try to calm down, get some sleep (hopefully), rest my eyes so I can see to try and read more of their claptrap on line, help Mandy find some legal help to at least return some smidgen of income to the kids so they won’t get hit then with bouncing checks that were already written and in process when this notice arrived.”
What this writer should do is obtain my IRS Terminator package and learn both how to request the hearing when no notice has been sent; and, greatly increase her son-in-law’s chances at winning the hearing. If the requester doesn’t make a futile oral disagreement in the hearing, the tax will resume.
Follow me on Twitter.com/legalbear See you there. 
Internal Revenue Service Paycheck Levies Can Be Prevented
The author of a blog submission I located about an Federal tax challenge seemed to be a woman. She writes:
“I used to owe the IRS about 25,000 dollars, that’s with fees and penalties and with no hope of getting the bill down.”
This woman should ponder that we have a birthright to life and the government can’t tax constitutional rights; or our very right to exist. Most citizens don’t know this though, including IRS personell. She continued:
“First we tried monthly payments and that did not work out. Then the IRS levied our pay check from work leaving us with 400 dollars to live on.”
This could have never happened if this woman had known about my IRS Terminator package. She could have studied up on how to request and succeed at a Collection Due Process Hearing, applied what she learned, and all tax collection activity would have come to a halt; including the garnishment of her pay. The writer continued:
“At that time we had seen an ad in the paper for Harrison Grave that will help people get rid of the IRS problems. We went to see them, not knowing that this was not even their official office but a temporary leased office. They told us it would cost total of 2,000 dollars to help us. We were so scared and had no idea what to do, so we accepted and began making payments to them to help us talk to the IRS.”
In Houston, Texas on July 12, 2005, Steven T. Miller, Commissioner TE/GE gave a speech to IRS Tax Forums saying the following:
“I want to salute our partners who have been such a big help at these forums. I want to thank, in alphabetical order, the American Bar Association, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the National Association of Enrolled Agents, the National Association of Tax Professionals, the National Society of Accountants, and the National Society of Tax Professionals.”
Mr. Miller informed those attending that he sought to help them and that the help he was was assuring them of would take the shape of continuing to improve the IRS’s electronic and information services, modernizing the Service’s computers, and energetically enforcing the law against the unscrupulous few who are a threat the integrity of their/our business.
This looks like clear evidence that firms like Harrison Grave are really the IRS’s partners in collecting taxes. Maybe this is why no actions were taken by them to stop the levy. The writer continued:
“We submitted the information they needed to began the process and after nine month and still did not hear anything from the Harrison and Grave people we called them asking for an update on what was going on. Needless to say they gave us the run around. I even drove to their office in NC to see them and still no results. They took our 2,000 and did nothing for us. When I called them at that time and told them the IRS is Levy our pay check they said “We have a special team working on your case to stop the Levy’s.” That was all a lie. The IRS levied our second pay check… I knew Harrison Grave was a joke…”
Results such as this are why individuals in a situation of having overdue taxes, unfiled returns, or returns filed under what is considered by the mainstream as an abnormal theory of law such as a Cracking the Code return should plan by studying in advance how deal with a notice of levy.
Follow me on Twitter.com/legalbear See you there.
Little Know Statute for Stopping an IRS Levy
26 U.S.C. § 6330(e) contains a provision that is little recognized and underutilized by people facing off with 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 asking for a Collection Due Process Hearing (CDPH) is a very effectual way to bring to an end an IRS (Internal Revenue Service) levy on a bank account or paycheck. I’ve taken advantage of this provision to obstruct an Internal Revenue Service levy in as little as 2 days. I recently put a note in my shopping cart that even a dancing bear could stop an IRS (Internal Revenue Service) levy by a well-timed request for a CDPH hearing as made available 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 holdups 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 (Internal Revenue Service); and despite the fact of receiving complete paychecks during those delays; in due course, the end of the line will take place and the IRS will resume collection activities as they were before the hearing was asked for. When 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 published nine, no obligation videos, 4-10 minutes long at www.irsterminator.com discussing strategies I have arrived at that make keeping 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 alluded to above; 2) Avoiding bringing up issues that would trigger you losing the hearing. Sidesteping losing questions is a matter of doing a little research 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 appeal ruling that I want to focus on in part in this piece. Rohner lost hisCDP hearing and appealed to the Federal District Court. I was able to hit upon his case 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 legal research and that video tutorial is accessible for you to gain knowledge of how to go about 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 seems like Rohner may have been using an early Cracking the Code line of attack; or maybe, something taught by Irwin Schiff. He seems to be using the hearing to prevail on the hearing officer to concur with his thinking on why he had no taxable income and to get out of having to pay frivolous return penalties. The IRS sent Rohner a Notice of Intent to Levy that informed him of his right to a CDPH and he requested the hearing. After losing in the CDPH hearing, Rohner lost on appeal to the Federal District Court:
1) According to the published determination, the Court said that Rohner reasoned that he had the right to record the collection due process hearing or have a court reporter transcribe the hearing. The Court held that Rohner misstated the law and held 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) It is recounted in the published result, the Court held that Rohner argued that the hearing officer refused to give him a separate hearing with respect to the frivolous return penalties for each of the two different tax years. The Court held that collection due process hearings are comprised of more than merely theface-to-face meeting between the taxpayer and the officer. It held that written statements, phone discussions and face-to-face meetings all suffice 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.