- 14 -
6166 installment treatment is questionable, the Service
should rely on the operative provisions of section 6166
to deny the election in the first instance. Memorandum
from Chief, Branch 1 (General Litigation) to Ohio
District Counsel, dated October 24, 1997.
IRS General Litigation Bulletin No. 447 (Dec. 1997).
The IRS reversed itself for the third time in 2000:
The Service may require a bond under I.R.C. § 6165, but
not the special lien under I.R.C. § 6324A, as a
prerequisite of granting a section 6166 election.
* * * * * * *
There are no statutory or regulatory provisions under
section 6166 covering the issue of the timing of the
Service's request for security nor is there any case
law. Since the law in this area is not well settled,
we recommend that the Service take a conservative
approach and establish standards for determining
whether a bond should be a condition to granting the
extension.
Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) 200027046 (Apr. 26, 2000) (emphasis
added).
Ultimately, the Commissioner did not adhere to the position
he took in 2000. In 2002, the Commissioner modified the Internal
Revenue Manual to announce his current position, which, unlike
any previous position, adopted a bright-line bond requirement:
The Service requires estates to furnish
a surety bond as a prerequisite for granting
the installment payment election. Instead of
furnishing a surety bond, the estate may
choose to elect the special lien provided for
in IRC 6324A that requires the estate to have
a lien placed on a specific property. This
property must have a value equal to the total
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007