- 8 -
withdrawal will facilitate collection; or (4) with the taxpayer’s
consent the lien’s withdrawal “would be in the best interests of
the taxpayer * * * and the United States.”
Petitioners contend that respondent’s Appeals officer abused
his discretion when he refused to withdraw the NFTL because: (1)
The NFTL’s filing was premature; (2) an installment agreement was
subsequently agreed to; and (3) it would be in petitioners’ and
the United States’ best interests to remove the NFTL due to the
damage it would cause to petitioners’ credit rating.
The NFTL was not filed prematurely. Petitioners’ tax
liability was assessed, and notice and demand for payment was
mailed to petitioners within 60 days of the assessment. The IRS
issued a Notice 504, Balance Due-Urgent; a Letter 1058, Final
Notice of Intent to Levy; as well as A Notice of Federal Tax Lien
and Your Right to a Hearing under IRC 6320. The lien’s filing
occurred after assessment and notice and demand; at each step,
petitioners were properly notified.
Entering into an installment agreement does not preclude the
filing of an NFTL, nor is the IRS required to withdraw an NFTL
after an installment agreement has become effective. Sec.
6323(j)(1); see also Ramirez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2005-179; Stein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-124. Section
6323(j)(1) is permissive: the IRS “may” withdraw an NFTL, but
failure to do so is not an abuse of discretion. Sec. 6323(j)(1);
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008