- 8 -
hearing, provided that the IRS would both waive all penalties1
associated with the account withdrawal, and compromise any
liability stemming from petitioner’s 2005 taxable year on the
amounts withdrawn on the account for $1.00. The Appeals Office
rejected both the original OIC and the newly proposed OIC on the
grounds that they were unacceptable and not viable collection
alternatives. The Appeals Office also stated that the proposed
levy would not deplete petitioner’s remaining IRA account, and
that petitioner had neither alleged nor proven that he was
disabled or unable to work.
On July 27, 2005, respondent mailed to petitioner a Notice
of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section
6320 and/or 6330 in which respondent’s Appeals Office sustained
respondent’s proposed levy action.
The petition alleges that respondent’s Appeals Office abused
its discretion in denying petitioner’s OIC because it did not
appreciate the effect that the recapture penalty under section
72(t)(4)(A) would have on petitioner as a result of a levy on
petitioner’s Bank of America account. The petition also lists as
grounds for relief that the proposed levy is more intrusive than
necessary, and that petitioner has shown special hardship
circumstances which demand a settlement of a lesser amount than
that of the full assessment.
1Namely, the recapture penalty under sec. 72(t)(4)(A).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008