IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998
Conference Report page3

E.
Protections for Taxpayers Subject to Audit or
Collection Activities
a. Due Process i. Due process in
IRS
collection actions (sec. 3401 of the bill and new
secs. 6320 and 6330 of the Code)
Present
Law
Levy is the
IRS
's administrative authority to seize a taxpayer's
property to pay the taxpayer's tax liability. The
IRS
is entitled to seize a taxpayer's property by levy
if the Federal tax lien has attached to such
property. The Federal tax lien arises automatically
where (1) a tax assessment has been made; (2) the
taxpayer has been given notice of the assessment
stating the amount and demanding payment; and (3)
the taxpayer has failed to pay the amount assessed
within ten days after the notice and demand.
The
IRS
may collect taxes by levy upon a taxpayer's property
or rights to property (including accrued salary and
wages) if the taxpayer neglects or refuses to pay
the tax within 10 days after notice and demand that
the tax be paid. Notice of the
IRS
's intent to collect taxes by levy must be given no
less than 30 days (90 days in the case of a life
insurance contract) before the day of the levy. The
notice of levy must describe the procedures that
will be used, the administrative appeals available
to the taxpayer and the procedures relating to such
appeals, the alternatives available to the taxpayer
that could prevent levy, and the procedures for
redemption of property and release of liens.
The effect of a levy on salary or wages payable to
or received by a taxpayer is continuous from the
date the levy is first made until it is released.
If the
IRS
district director finds that the collection of any
tax is in jeopardy, collection by levy may be made
without regard to either notice period. A similar
rule applies in the case of termination assessments.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that taxpayers are entitled
to protections in dealing with the
IRS
that are similar to those they would have in dealing
with any other creditor. Accordingly, the Committee
believes that the
IRS
should afford taxpayers adequate notice of
collection activity and a meaningful hearing before
the
IRS
deprives them of their property. When collection of
tax is in jeopardy, the Committee believes it is
appropriate to provide notice and a hearing promptly
after the deprivation of property. The Committee
believes that following procedures designed to
afford taxpayers due process in collections will
increase fairness to taxpayers.
Explanation
of Provision
The provision establishes formal procedures designed
to insure due process where the
IRS
seeks to collect taxes by levy (including by
seizure). The due process procedures also apply
after the Federal tax lien attaches, but before the
notice of the Federal tax lien has been given to the
taxpayer.
As under present law, notice of the intent to levy
must be given at least 30 days (90 days in the case
of a life insurance contract) before property can be
seized or salary and wages garnished. During the
30-day (90-day) notice period, the taxpayer may
demand a hearing to take place before an appeals
officer who has had no prior involvement in the
taxpayer's case. If the taxpayer demands a hearing
within that period, the proposed collection action
may not proceed until the hearing has concluded and
the appeals officer has issued his or her
determination.
During the hearing, the
IRS
is required to verify that all statutory,
regulatory, and administrative requirements for the
proposed collection action have been met.
IRS
verifications are expected to include (but not be
limited to) showings that:
(1) the revenue officer recommending the collection
action has verified the taxpayer's liability;
(2) the estimated expenses of levy and sale will not
exceed the value of the property to be seized;
(3) the revenue officer has determined that there is
sufficient equity in the property to be seized to
yield net proceeds from sale to apply to the unpaid
tax liabilities; and
(4) with respect to the seizure of the assets of a
going business, the revenue officer recommending the
collection action has thoroughly considered the
facts of the case, including the availability of
alternative collection methods, before recommending
the collection action.
The taxpayer (or affected third party) is allowed to
raise any relevant issue at the hearing. Issues
eligible to be raised include (but are not limited
to):
(1) challenges to the underlying liability as to
existence or amount;
(2) appropriate spousal defenses;
(3) challenges to the appropriateness of collection
actions; and
(4) collection alternatives, which could include the
posting of a bond, substitution of other assets, an
installment agreement or an offer-in-compromise.
Once the taxpayer has had a hearing with respect to
an issue, the taxpayer would not be permitted to
raise the same issue in another hearing.
The determination of the appeals officer is to
address whether the proposed collection action
balances the need for the efficient collection of
taxes with the legitimate concern of the taxpayer
that the collection action be no more intrusive than
necessary. A proposed collection action should not
be approved solely because the
IRS
shows that it has followed appropriate procedures.
The taxpayer may contest the determination of the
appellate officer in Tax Court by filing a petition
within 30 days of the date of the determination. The
Tax Court is expected to review the appellate
officer's determination for abuse of discretion and
also may consider procedural issues, as under
present law. The
IRS
may not take any collection action pursuant to the
determination during such 30 day period or while the
taxpayer's contest is pending in Tax Court.
IRS
Appeals would retain jurisdiction over its
determinations.
IRS
Appeals could enter an order requiring the
IRS
collection division to adhere to the original
determination. In addition, the taxpayer would be
allowed to return to
IRS
Appeals to seek a modification of the original
determination based on any change of circumstances.
In the case of a continuous levy, the due process
procedures would apply to the original imposition of
the levy. Except in jeopardy and termination cases,
continuous levy would not be allowed to begin
without notice and an opportunity for a hearing. A
determination allowing the continuous levy to
proceed that is entered at the conclusion of a
hearing would be subject to post-determination
adjustment on application by the taxpayer. Thus,
taxpayers would have the right to have
IRS
Appeals review any continuous levy and take any
changes in circumstances into account.
This provision does not apply in the case of
jeopardy and termination assessments. Jeopardy and
termination assessments would be subject to
post-seizure review as part of the Appeals
determination hearing as well as through any
existing judicial procedure. A jeopardy or
termination assessment must be approved by the
IRS
District Counsel responsible for the case. Failure
to obtain District Counsel approval would render the
jeopardy or termination assessment void.
Effective
Date
The due process procedures apply to collection
actions initiated more than six months after the
date of enactment.
b.
Examination Activities
i.
Uniform application of confidentiality privilege to
taxpayer communications with federally authorized
practitioners (sec. 3411 of the bill and new sec.
7525 of the Code)
Present
Law
A common law privilege of confidentiality exists for
communications between an attorney and client with
respect to the legal advice the attorney gives the
client. Communications protected by the
attorney-client privilege must be based on facts of
which the attorney is informed by the taxpayer,
without the presence of strangers, for the purpose
of securing the advice of the attorney. The
privilege may not be claimed where the purpose of
the communication is the commission of a crime or
tort. The taxpayer must either be a client of the
attorney or be seeking to become a client of the
attorney.
The privilege of confidentiality applies only where
the attorney is advising the client on legal
matters. It does not apply in situations where the
attorney is acting in other capacities. Thus, a
taxpayer may not claim the benefits of the
attorney-client privilege simply by hiring an
attorney to perform some other function. For
example, if an attorney is retained to prepare a tax
return, the attorney-client privilege will not
automatically apply to communications and documents
generated in the course of preparing the return.
The privilege of confidentiality also does not apply
where an attorney that is licensed to practice
another profession is performing such other
profession. For example, if a taxpayer retains an
attorney who is also licensed as a certified public
accountant (CPA), the taxpayer may not assert the
attorney-client privilege with regard to
communications made and documents prepared by the
attorney in his role as a CPA.
The attorney-client privilege is limited to
communications between taxpayers and attorneys. No
equivalent privilege is provided for communications
between taxpayers and other professionals authorized
to practice before the Internal Revenue Service,
such as accountants or enrolled agents.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that a right to privileged
communications between a taxpayer and his or her
advisor should be available in noncriminal
proceedings before the
IRS
and in noncriminal proceedings in Federal courts
with respect to such matters where the
IRS
is a party, so long as the advisor is authorized to
practice before the
IRS
. A right to privileged communications in such
situations should not depend upon whether the
advisor is also licensed to practice law.
COM-
RPT
-
HIST
, SRepNo 105-174, Senate Finance Committee
Explanation of the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring and Reform Act (HR 2676), as
Adopted by the Senate Finance Committee,
(April 22, 1998), Part 02 of 03
|
This document is divided into multiple parts. To reach other
parts, please use READ. You have reached Part 02
Explanation
of Provision
The provision extends the present law
attorney-client privilege of confidentiality to tax
advice that is furnished to a client-taxpayer (or
potential client-taxpayer) by any individual who is
authorized under Federal law to practice before the
IRS
if such practice is subject to regulation under
section 330 of Title 31, United States Code.
Individuals subject to regulation under section 330
of Title 31, United States Code include attorneys,
certified public accountants, enrolled agents and
enrolled actuaries. Tax advice means advice that is
within the scope of authority for such individual's
practice with respect to matters under Title 26 (the
Internal Revenue Code). The privilege of
confidentiality may be asserted in any noncriminal
tax proceeding before the
IRS
, as well as in noncriminal tax proceedings in the
Federal Courts where the
IRS
is a party to the proceeding.
The provision allows taxpayers to consult with other
qualified tax advisors in the same manner they
currently may consult with tax advisors that are
licensed to practice law. The provision does not
modify the attorney-client privilege of
confidentiality, other than to extend it to other
authorized practitioners. The privilege established
by the provision applies only to the extent that
communications would be privileged if they were
between a taxpayer and an attorney. Accordingly, the
privilege does not apply to any communication
between a certified public accountant, enrolled
agent, or enrolled actuary and such individual's
client (or prospective client) if the communication
would not have been privileged between an attorney
and the attorney's client or prospective client. For
example, information disclosed to an attorney for
the purpose of preparing a tax return is not
privileged under present law. Such information would
not be privileged under the provision whether it was
disclosed to an attorney, certified public
accountant, enrolled agent or enrolled actuary.
The privilege granted by the provision may only be
asserted in noncriminal tax proceedings before the
IRS
and in the Federal Courts with regard to such
noncriminal tax matters in proceedings where the
IRS
is a party. The privilege may not be asserted to
prevent the disclosure of information to any
regulatory body other than the
IRS
. The ability of any other regulatory body,
including the Securities and Exchange Commission (
SEC
), to gain or compel information is unchanged by the
provision. No privilege may be asserted under this
provision by a taxpayer in dealings with such other
regulatory bodies in an administrative or court
proceeding.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective with regard to
communications made on or after the date of
enactment.
ii.
Limitation on financial status audit techniques
(sec. 3412 of the bill and sec. 7602 of the Code)
Present
Law
The Secretary is authorized and required to make the
inquiries and determinations necessary to insure the
assessment of Federal income taxes. For this
purpose, any reasonable method may be used to
determine the amount of Federal income tax owed. The
courts have upheld the use of financial status and
economic reality examination techniques to determine
the existence of unreported income in appropriate
circumstances.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that financial status audit
techniques are intrusive, and that their use should
be limited to situations where the
IRS
already has indications of unreported income.
Explanation
of Provision
The provision prohibits the
IRS
from using financial status or economic reality
examination techniques to determine the existence of
unreported income of any taxpayer unless the
IRS
has a reasonable indication that there is a
likelihood of unreported income.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective on the date of enactment.
iii.
Software trade secrets protection (sec. 3413 of the
bill and new sec. 7612 of the Code)
Present
Law
The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to
examine any books, papers, records, or other data
that may be relevant or material to an inquiry into
the correctness of any Federal tax return. The
Secretary may issue and serve summonses necessary to
obtain such data, including summonses on certain
third-party record keepers. There are no specific
statutory restrictions on the ability of the
Secretary to demand the production of computer
records, programs, code or similar materials.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that the intellectual
property rights of the developers and owners of
computer programs should be respected. The Committee
is concerned that the examination of computer
programs and source code by the
IRS
could lead to the diminution of those rights through
the inadvertent disclosure of trade secrets and
believes that special protection against such
inadvertent disclosure should be established.
The Committee also believes that the indiscriminate
examination of computer source code by the
IRS
is inappropriate. Accordingly, the Committee
believes that a summons for the production of
certain computer source code should only be issued
where the
IRS
is not otherwise able to ascertain through
reasonable efforts the manner in which a taxpayer
has arrived at an item on a return, identifies with
specificity the portion of the computer source code
it seeks to examine, and determines that the need to
see the source code outweighs the risk of
unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets.
Explanation
of Provision
Discovery
of computer source code
The provision generally prohibits the Secretary from
issuing a summons in a Federal tax matter for any
portion of computer source code. Exceptions to the
general rule are provided for inquiries into any
criminal offense connected with the administration
or enforcement of the internal revenue laws and for
computer software source code that was developed by
the taxpayer or a related person for internal use by
the taxpayer or related person. Computer software
source code is considered to have been developed for
internal use by the taxpayer or a related person if
the software is primarily used in the taxpayer or
related person's trade or business, as opposed to
being held for sale or license to others. Software
is considered to be used in a trade or business if
it is used in the provision of services to others.
It is anticipated that software that was originally
developed for internal use by the taxpayer or a
related person will continue to be subject to the
exception, even if the software is later transferred
to another. For example, software may have
originally been developed by the taxpayer to
administer the taxpayer's employee benefits system.
If that function and the software necessary to
perform it is later transferred to an unrelated
third party, the software would continue to be
subject to the exception.
In addition, the prohibition of the general rule
would not apply, and the Secretary would be allowed
to summons computer source code if the Secretary:
(1) is unable to otherwise reasonably ascertain the
correctness of an item on a return from the
taxpayer's books and records, or the computer
software program and any associated data; (2)
identifies with reasonable specificity the portion
of the computer source code to be used to verify the
correctness of the item; and (3) determines that the
need for the source code outweighs the risks of
disclosure of the computer source code. No inference
is intended as to whether software is included in
the definition of a taxpayer's books and records.
It is expected that the Secretary will make a good
faith and significant effort to ascertain the
correctness of an item prior to seeking computer
source code. The portion of the computer source code
to be used would be considered identified with
reasonable specificity where, for example, the
Secretary requests the portion of the code that is
used to determine a particular item on the return,
that otherwise is necessary to the determination of
an item on the return, or that implements an
accounting or other method.
The Committee is aware that the refusal of the
taxpayer or the owner of the software to cooperate
could, in certain situations, prevent the Secretary
from establishing the factors necessary to support
the summons of computer source code. Accordingly,
the requirement that the Secretary be unable to
otherwise reasonably ascertain the correctness of an
item on a return from the taxpayer's books and
records, or from the computer software program and
any associated data, and the requirement that the
Secretary have identified with reasonable
specificity the portion of the computer source code
requested, will be deemed to be satisfied where (1)
the Secretary makes a good faith determination that
it is not feasible to determine the correctness of
the return item in question without access to the
computer software program and associated data, (2)
the Secretary makes a formal request for such
program and any data from the taxpayer and requests
such program from the owner of the source code after
reaching such determination, and (3) the Secretary
has not received such program and data within 180
days of making the formal request. In the case of
requests to the taxpayer, the Committee expects that
a formal request will take the form of an
Information Document Request (
IDR
), summons, or similar document. The Committee
intends that the Secretary actively pursue the
recovery of such program and any data from the
taxpayer before seeking to have the normal
requirements deemed satisfied under this rule.
Additional
protections against disclosure of computer software
and source code
The provision establishes a number of protections
against the disclosure and improper use of trade
secrets and confidential information incident to the
examination by the Secretary of any computer
software program or source code that comes into the
possession or control of the Secretary in the course
of any examination with respect to any taxpayer.
These protections include the following:
(1) Such software or source code may be examined
only in connection with the examination of the
taxpayer's return with regard to which it was
received. It is expected that the taxpayer will be
informed of any alternative data or settings to be
used in the examination of the software. However,
the Committee does not intend to provide the
taxpayer with the right to monitor the examination
of the software by the
IRS
on a key stroke by key stroke or similar basis.
(2) Such software or source code must be maintained
in a secure area.
(3) Such source code may not be removed from the
owner's place of business without the owner's
consent unless such removal is pursuant to a court
order. If the owner does not consent to the removal
of source code from its place of business, the owner
must make available the necessary equipment to
review the source code. The owner shall have the
right to require the use of equipment that is
configured to prevent electronic communication
outside the owner's place of business.
(4) Such software or source code may not be
decompiled or disassembled.
(5) Such software or source code may only be copied
as necessary to perform the specific examination.
The owner of the software must be informed of any
copies that are made, such copies must be numbered,
and at the conclusion of the examination and any
related court proceedings, all such copies must be
accounted for and returned to the owner, permanently
deleted, or destroyed. The Secretary must provide
the owner of such software or source code with the
names of any individuals who will have access to
such software or source code. Source code may be
copied (by the use of a scanner or otherwise) from
written to machine readable form. However, any such
machine readable copies shall be treated as separate
copies and must be numbered, accounted for and
returned or destroyed at the conclusion of the
examination.
(6) If an individual who is not an officer or
employee of the U.S. Government will examine the
software or source code, such individual must enter
into a written agreement with the Secretary that
such individual will not disclose such software or
source code to any person other than authorized
employees or agents of the Secretary at any time,
and that such individual will not participate in the
development of software that is intended for a
similar purpose as the summoned software for a
period of two years.
Computer source code is the code written by a
programmer using a programming language that is
comprehensible to an appropriately trained person,
is not machine readable, and is not capable of
directly being used to give instructions to a
computer. Computer source code also includes any
related programmer's notes, design documents,
memoranda and similar documentation and customer
communications regarding the operation of the
program (other than communications with the taxpayer
or any person related to the taxpayer).
The Secretary's determination may be contested in
any proceeding to enforce the summons, by any person
to whom the summons is addressed. In any such
proceeding, the court may issue any order that is
necessary to prevent the disclosure of confidential
information, including (but not limited to) the
enforcement of the protections established by this
provision.
Criminal penalties are provided where any person
willfully divulges or makes known software that was
obtained (whether or not by summons) for the purpose
of examining a taxpayer's return in violation of
this provision.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective for summons issued and
software acquired after the date of enactment. In
addition, 90 days after the date of enactment, the
protections against the disclosure and improper use
of trade secrets and confidential information added
by the provision (except for the requirement that
the Secretary provide a written agreement from non-U.S.
government officers and employees) apply to software
and source code acquired on or before the date of
enactment.
iv.
Threat of audit prohibited to coerce tip reporting
alternative commitment agreements (sec. 3414 of the
bill)
Present
Law
Restaurants may enter into Tip Reporting Alternative
Commitment (
TRAC
) agreements. A restaurant entering into a
TRAC
agreement is obligated to educate its employees on
their tip reporting obligations, to institute formal
tip reporting procedures, to fulfill all filing and
record keeping requirements, and to pay and deposit
taxes. In return, the
IRS
agrees to base the restaurant's liability for
employment taxes solely on reported tips and any
unreported tips discovered during an
IRS
audit of an employee.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that it is inappropriate for
the Secretary to use the threat of an
IRS
audit to induce participation in voluntary programs.
Explanation
of Provision
The provision requires the
IRS
to instruct its employees that they may not threaten
to audit any taxpayer in an attempt to coerce the
taxpayer to enter into a
TRAC
agreement.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective on the date of enactment.
v.
Taxpayers allowed motion to quash all third-party
summonses (sec. 3415 of the bill and sec. 7609(a) of
the Code)
Present
Law
When the
IRS
issues a summons to a "third-party recordkeeper"
relating to the business transactions or affairs of
a taxpayer, Code section 7609 requires that notice
of the summons be given to the taxpayer within three
days by certified or registered mail. The taxpayer
is thereafter given up to 23 days to begin a court
proceeding to quash the summons. If the taxpayer
does so, third-party recordkeepers are prohibited
from complying with the summons until the court
rules on the taxpayer's petition or motion to quash,
but the statute of limitations for assessment and
collection with respect to the taxpayer is stayed
during the pendency of such a proceeding.
Third-party recordkeepers are generally persons who
hold financial information about the taxpayer, such
as banks, brokers, attorneys, and accountants.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that a taxpayer should have
notice when the
IRS
uses its summons power to gather information in an
effort to determine the taxpayer's liability.
Expanding notice requirement to cover all third
party summonses will ensure that taxpayer will
receive notice and an opportunity to contest any
summons issued to a third party in connection with
the determination of their liability.
Explanation
of Provision
The provision generally expands the current
"third-party recordkeeper" procedures to
apply to summonses issued to persons other than the
taxpayer. Thus, the taxpayer whose liability is
being investigated receives notice of the summons
and is entitled to bring an action in the
appropriate U.S. District Court to quash the
summons. As under the current third-party
recordkeeper provision, the statute of limitations
on assessment and collection is stayed during the
litigation, and certain kinds of summonses specified
under current law are not subject to these
requirements. No inference is intended with respect
to the applicability of present law to summonses to
the taxpayer or the scope of the authority to
summons testimony, books, papers, or other records.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective for summonses served
after the date of enactment.
vi.
Service of summonses to third-party recordkeepers
permitted by mail (sec. 3416 of the bill and sec.
7603 of the Code)
Present
Law
Code section 7603 requires that a summons shall be
served "by an attested copy delivered in hand
to the person to whom it is directed or left at his
last and usual place of abode." By contrast, if
a third-party recordkeeper summons is served,
section 7609 permits the
IRS
to give the taxpayer notice of the summons via
certified or registered mail. Moreover, Rule 4 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits service
of process by mail even in summons enforcement
proceedings.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee is concerned that, in certain cases,
the personal appearance of an
IRS
official at a place of business for the purpose of
serving a summons may be unnecessarily disruptive.
The Committee believes that it is appropriate to
permit service of summons, as well as notice of
summons, by mail.
Explanation
of Provision
The provision allows the
IRS
the option of serving any summons either in person
or by mail.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective for summonses served
after the date of enactment.
vii.
Prohibition on
IRS
contact of third parties without taxpayer
pre-notification (sec. 3417 of the bill and sec.
7602 of the Code)
Present
Law
Third parties may be contacted by the
IRS
in connection with the examination of a taxpayer or
the collection of the tax liability of the taxpayer.
The
IRS
has the right to summon third-party recordkeepers
under Code section 7609. In general, the taxpayer
must be notified of the service of summons on a
third party within three days of the date of service
(sec. 7609(a)). The
IRS
also has the right to seize property of the taxpayer
that is held in the hands of third parties (sec.
6331(a)). Except in jeopardy situations, the
Internal Revenue Manual provides that
IRS
will personally contact the taxpayer and inform the
taxpayer that seizure of the asset is planned.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that taxpayers should be
notified before the
IRS
contacts third parties regarding examination or
collection activities with respect to the taxpayer.
Such contacts may have a chilling effect on the
taxpayer's business and could damage the taxpayer's
reputation in the community. Accordingly, the
Committee believes that taxpayers should have the
opportunity to resolve issues and volunteer
information before the
IRS
contacts third parties.
Explanation
of Provision
The provision requires the
IRS
to notify the taxpayer before contacting third
parties regarding examination or collection
activities (including summonses) with respect to the
taxpayer. Contacts with government officials
relating to matters such as the location of assets
or the taxpayer's current address are not restricted
by this provision. The provision does not apply to
criminal tax matters, if the collection of the tax
liability is in jeopardy, or if the taxpayer
authorized the contact.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective for contacts made after
180 days after the date of enactment.
c.
Collection Activities
i.
Approval process for liens, levies, and seizures
(sec. 3421 of the bill)
Present
Law
Supervisory approval of liens, levies or seizures is
only required under certain circumstances. For
example, a levy on a taxpayer's principal residence
is only permitted upon the written approval of the
District Director or Assistant District Director
(sec. 6334(e)).
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that the imposition of liens,
levies, and seizures may impose significant
hardships on taxpayers. Accordingly, the Committee
believes that extra protection in the form of an
administrative approval process is appropriate.
Explanation
of Provision
The provision requires the
IRS
to implement an approval process under which any
lien, levy or seizure would be approved by a
supervisor, who would review the taxpayer's
information, verify that a balance is due, and
affirm that a lien, levy or seizure is appropriate
under the circumstances. Circumstances to be
considered include the amount due and the value of
the asset. Failure to follow such procedures should
result in disciplinary action against the supervisor
and/or revenue officer.
In addition, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration is required to collect information on
the approval process and annually report to the
tax-writing committees.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective for collection actions
commenced after date of enactment.
ii.
Modifications to certain levy exemption amounts
(sec. 3431 of the bill and sec. 6334 of the Code)
Present
Law
The Code authorizes the
IRS
to levy on all non-exempt property of the taxpayer.
Property exempt from levy is described in section
6334. Section 6334(a)(2) exempts from levy up to
$2,500 in value of fuel, provisions, furniture, and
personal effects in the taxpayer's household.
Section 6334(a)(3) exempts from levy up to $1,250 in
value of books and tools necessary for the trade,
business or profession of the taxpayer.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that a minimum amount of
household items and equipment for taxpayer's
business should be exempt from levy. To ensure that
such exemption is meaningful, the amounts should be
indexed for inflation.
Explanation
of Provision
The provision increases the value of personal
effects exempt from levy to $10,000 and the value of
books and tools exempt from levy to $5,000. These
amounts are indexed for inflation.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective for collection actions
taken after the date of enactment.
iii.
Release of levy upon agreement that amount is
uncollectible (sec. 3432 of the bill and sec. 6343
of the Code)
Present
Law
Some have contended that the
IRS
does not release a wage levy immediately upon
receipt of proof that the taxpayer is unable to pay
the tax, but instead, the
IRS
levies on one period's wage payment before releasing
the levy.
Reasons
for Change
Congress believes that taxpayers should not have
collection activity taken against them once the
IRS
has determined that the amounts are uncollectible.
Explanation
of Provision
The
IRS
is required to immediately release a wage levy upon
agreement with the taxpayer that the tax is not
collectible.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective for levies imposed after
date of enactment.
iv.
Levy prohibited during pendency of refund
proceedings (sec. 3433 of the bill and sec. 6331 of
the Code)
Present
Law
The
IRS
is prohibited from making a tax assessment (and thus
prohibited from collecting payment) with respect to
a tax liability while it is being contested in Tax
Court. However, the
IRS
is permitted to assess and collect tax liabilities
during the pendency of a refund suit relating to
such tax liabilities, under the circumstances
described below.
Generally, full payment of the tax at issue is a
prerequisite to a refund suit. However, if the tax
is divisible (such as employment taxes or the trust
fund penalty under Code section 6672), the taxpayer
need only pay the tax for the applicable period
before filing a refund claim. Most divisible taxes
are not within the Tax Court's jurisdiction;
accordingly, the taxpayer has no pre-payment forum
for contesting such taxes. In the case of divisible
taxes, it is possible that the taxpayer could be
properly under the refund jurisdiction of the
District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
and still be subject to collection by levy with
respect to the entire amount of the tax at issue.
The
IRS
's policy is generally to exercise forbearance with
respect to collection while the refund suit is
pending, so long as the interests of the Government
are adequately protected (e.g., by the filing of a
notice of Federal tax lien) and collection is not in
jeopardy. Any refunds due the taxpayer may be
credited to the unpaid portion of the liability
pending the outcome of the suit.
Reasons
for Change
The Committee believes that taxpayers who are
litigating a refund action over divisible taxes
should be protected from collection of the full
assessed amount, because the court considering the
refund suit may ultimately determine that the
taxpayer is not liable.
Explanation
of Provision
The provision requires the
IRS
to withhold collection by levy of liabilities that
are the subject of a refund suit during the pendency
of the litigation. This will only apply when refund
suits can be brought without the full payment of the
tax, i.e., in the case of divisible taxes.
Collection by levy would be withheld unless jeopardy
exists or the taxpayer waives the suspension of
collection in writing (because collection will stop
the running of interest and penalties on the tax
liability). This provision will not affect the
IRS
's ability to collect other assessments that are not
the subject of the refund suit, to offset refunds,
to counterclaim in a refund suit or related
proceeding, or to file a notice of Federal tax lien.
The statute of limitations on collection is stayed
for the period during which the
IRS
is prohibited from collecting by levy.
Effective
Date
The provision is effective for refund suits brought
with respect to tax years beginning after
December 31, 1998
.
|