- 14 -
ultimately determined that this circumstance had no relevance in
this collection proceeding because the installment agreement
could not limit petitioners’ 1992 tax liability to $1,455.
Consequently, the Appeals Office sustained the proposed levy.
Pursuant to section 6331(k)(2)(C), however, no levy may be
made with respect to any unpaid tax during the period that an
installment agreement is in effect for payment of the tax.
Consequently, Settlement Officer Stefanski (and we) having
concluded that the installment agreement covered petitioners’
1992 tax year, the proposed levy action is inappropriate if the
installment agreement is still in effect. There is no evidence
in the record to suggest that it is not. By statute, respondent
is required to give petitioners at least 30 days’ notice before
terminating the installment agreement. See sec. 6159(b)(5)(A).
There is no suggestion in the record that respondent ever gave
petitioners any such notice. Mr. Haws’s unrefuted testimony is
that he stopped making installment payments on the advice of
Appeals Officer Baker, to await further deliberations by the
Appeals Office and not because the installment agreement was
terminated.
In these circumstances, we cannot agree that the Appeals
Office properly verified that the requirements of applicable law
or administrative procedure were met with respect to petitioners’
1992 tax liability. Insofar as the installment agreement is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011