The Tax Court’s determination to sustain a proposed action to collect an attorney’s unpaid taxes was upheld. Contrary to the individual’s contention that the statute of limitations on collection had expired, the limitations period was suspended when the individual timely requested a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. The individual argued that he deliberately filed his CDP hearing request one day late so that he would only be eligible for an equivalent hearing and thereby avoid tolling the limitations period. Toward that end, the individual filed his request for a CDP hearing based on the date on the levy notice. However, the date on the levy notice was two days earlier than the mailing date, and as such, the 30-day limitations period with respect to the CDP hearing request was calculated using the mailing date. Moreover, it was unnecessary to establish the exact mailing date of the levy notice given that the CDP hearing request was timely filed based on either possible dates. Therefore, the statutory limitations period had not run and the individual’s tax liability was collectable. The court concluded that the language of the governing statute was consistent with the position of the government. The undisputed evidence was that the levy notice was “sent,” i.e., mailed, no more than thirty days before the individual’s mailing of the CDP hearing request.
Affirming, per curiam, the Tax Court 147 TC —, No. 6, Dec. 60,676.
C.J. Weiss, CA-D.C.
Code Sec. 6330
CCH Reference – 2018FED ¶38,184.108
CCH Reference – 2018FED ¶38,184.62
Code Sec. 6502
CCH Reference – 2018FED ¶39,020.28
Tax Research Consultant
CCH Reference – TRC IRS: 45,202
CCH Reference – TRC IRS: 48,058.35