- 26 -
Respondent would not have been required to withdraw the NFTL
even if petitioner had entered into an installment agreement to
satisfy the liability for which the lien was imposed. See sec.
6323(j)(1); sec. 301.6323(j)-1(c), Proced. & Admin. Regs. IRS
Publication 594, What You Should Know About the IRS Collection
Process, cited by petitioner, specifically states that the
Commissioner may file a tax lien even if an installment agreement
is in effect. IRS Publication 594 at 6; see, e.g., Beery v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 184, 189-190 (2004) (section 6015(e)(1)(B)
does not preclude the Commissioner from filing a Federal tax lien
against an individual making an election under section 6015).9
We hold respondent was not precluded from filing the NFTL against
petitioner’s property.
Conclusion
Respondent’s Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion in
upholding respondent’s filing of a Federal tax lien against
petitioner’s property to collect outstanding income tax
liabilities for petitioner’s 1992 through 1994 tax years. As
required by section 6330(c)(1), the Appeals officer verified that
the requirements of applicable laws and administrative procedures
9In his petition and during trial, petitioner conflated the
lien and levy issues. We do not have jurisdiction to consider
any of petitioner’s arguments with respect to respondent’s
proposed levy including petitioner’s argument that his appeal of
the rejection of his installment agreement request would preclude
respondent’s proposed levy. See supra p. 16.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011