- 7 -
filing of the notice was premature; (2) under section
6323(j)(1)(B) because it was filed after an installment agreement
had been agreed to; and (3) under section 6323(j)(1)(D) because
it serves no useful purpose other than to damage petitioners’
credit rating.
The notice of Federal tax lien was not filed prematurely.
Income tax liabilities were assessed against petitioners for the
years at issue on October 20 and December 1, 2003, respectively.
A notice and demand for payment was mailed to petitioners within
60 days of each assessment date. See sec. 6303. Respondent
issued a notice of levy on November 4, 2004, to which petitioners
did not respond. A notice of Federal tax lien filing was mailed
to petitioners on March 2, 2005, and the lien was recorded on
March 7, 2005. Filing of the Federal tax lien took place after
assessment and notice and demand, and at each step petitioners
were properly notified.
Entering into an installment agreement does not preclude the
filing of a Federal tax lien, nor is the Commissioner required to
withdraw a Federal tax lien after an installment agreement has
become effective. See Ramirez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-
179; Stein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-124. Section
6323(j)(1) is permissive. The Commissioner “may” withdraw a
Federal tax lien pursuant to section 6323(j)(1), but respondent’s
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007