26 U.S.C. § 6330(e) contains a provision that is little celebrated and underutilized by individuals facing off with an Internal Revenue Service 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 making a request for a Collection Due Process Hearing (CDPH) is a very effective method to end an IRS levy on a financial institution such as a bank or credit union or paycheck. I have taken advantage of this provision to bring to an end an Internal Revenue Service  levy in as little as 2 days. A short time ago I put a comment in my shopping cart that even a dancing bear could end an Internal Revenue Service  levy by a well-timed request for a CDPH hearing as Congress provided in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(b)(1).

Conversely, a dancing bear would not be able to keep IRS collection activity shelved and most likely neither would most of us. In spite of all the lulls while appeals are pending; and in spite of being able to retrieve whatever funds you had in the bank when the Notice of Levy showed up from the IRS; and despite the fact of receiving complete paychecks during those delays; in due course, the end of the line will happen and the  IRS (Internal Revenue Service) will proceed with collection activities as they were before the hearing was requested. At the point this happens most people will be right back where they started off; dealing with collection activity by the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). It is because of this unsavory actuality that I published nine, free videos, 4-10 minutes in length at www.irsterminator.com discussing strategies I have researched out that make keeping IRS (Internal Revenue Service) collection activities suspended indefinitely a very real likelihood.

There are two aspects to winning a CDPH hearing: 1) Taking positive strategies with the end being to prevail in the hearing as I talk about in the videos talked about above; 2) Avoiding bringing up issues that would serve as grounds for you losing the hearing. Shunning losing issues is a matter of doing a little investigation 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 desire to take up in part in this article. Rohner lost hisCDP (Collection Due Process) hearing and appealed to the Federal District Court. I was able to find his issues 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 tutorial is available for you to understand 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.”

Thus, it appears like Rohner may have been using an early Cracking the Code approach; or perhaps, something taught by Irwin Schiff. He seems to be using the hearing to get the hearing officer to concur with  his stand on why he had no taxable income and to get out of paying frivolous return penalties. The IRS sent Rohner a Notice of Intent to Levy that informed him of his entitlement to a CDP Hearing 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 claimed that he had the right to make a recording of 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) According to the published ruling, the Court said that Rohner maintained that the hearing officer refused to give  him a independent hearing with respect to the frivolous return penalties for each of the two different tax years. The Court held that collection due process hearings consist of more than simply theface-to-face meeting between the taxpayer and the officer. The judge held that written letters, telephone dialogues and face-to-face meetings all suffice for an satisfactory 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.