- 15 -
still in effect, the proposed levy is barred by section
6331(k)(2)(C). Insofar as respondent has sought or seeks to
terminate the installment agreement, there is no suggestion that
the notice procedures of section 6159(b)(5) have been met.
Consequently, on the instant record we conclude and hold that the
Appeals Office has failed to verify that the requirements of any
applicable law or administrative procedure have been met pursuant
to section 6330(c)(1).
E. Remand to Appeals Office
In appropriate circumstances, we may remand a section 6330
case to the Internal Revenue Service Appeals Office for further
investigation and consideration of the taxpayer’s arguments. See
Keene v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 8, 19 (2003); Lunsford v.
Commissioner, 117 T.C. at 189; Harrell v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-271. For the reasons discussed above, we remand this
case to the Appeals Office for an additional hearing to further
investigate and consider the effect of the installment agreement
on the proposed levy. On remand, if it is determined that the
installment agreement has not been terminated, petitioners should
be given an opportunity to continue making payments under it to
satisfy their unpaid 1992 liability and any remaining liability
with respect to the other years covered by the installment
agreement. Insofar as the interruption of petitioners’ payments
under the installment agreement may have resulted from incorrect
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