Since the proceeds were apparently applied to an SFR liability for 2000 (a year in which I earned $35000 since I only worked for 4 months and spent the rest of the year caring for my dying mother) of $160,000 the reduction in this amount has basically already been negated by the continuing interest and the additional taxes assessed for 2006 due to my "income" from the levied IRA which I have no way to pay. I now owe more than I did before the IRA was levied plus have 4 more NOFTLs filed and a new "Final Notice of Intent to Levy" just 3 weeks ago to which yet another CDPH had to be requested. If there is a levy on my husband's job we will be a few months away from homeless. I would hardly call this the "best thing" and the fact that the levy occurred when I was in extreme economic hardship is relevant to the facts of the situation.
Plus, the funds already levied ARE being used by the IRS to determine my "reasonable collection potential" since the amounts were included in the financial statement since the levy occurred after the OIC was submitted. Additionally, only 70% of the funds were available to me and rightly included in the OIC. I assume that if and when the OIC is rejected this issues will need to be addressed on appeal.
Just received notification yesterday that the returns submitted in June that eliminate the millions of dollars in liability for a couple of the years (the stock trading ones) have been sent to "audit reconsideration" --whatever that is. They have now been assigned to the Dallas office which will contact us within 60 days.
OK, now I'm really confused...
-
- Further Moderator
- Posts: 7559
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
- Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith
What you are failing to take into account is if the IRA funds had not been levied and applied to your account, you would owe even more than you do now. Perhaps the fact that the amounts in question appear astronomical to you makes little difference, but the fact is that you owe less now than you would have had the levy not taken place. So it is the best thing that could have happened in terms of resolving your liability. The worst thing that could have happened would have been you using the funds for something other than paying the taxes you owed, then expecting other taxpayers to cover the amount you and your husband have failed to pay.gottago wrote:Since the proceeds were apparently applied to an SFR liability for 2000 (a year in which I earned $35000 since I only worked for 4 months and spent the rest of the year caring for my dying mother) of $160,000 the reduction in this amount has basically already been negated by the continuing interest and the additional taxes assessed for 2006 due to my "income" from the levied IRA which I have no way to pay. I now owe more than I did before the IRA was levied plus have 4 more NOFTLs filed and a new "Final Notice of Intent to Levy" just 3 weeks ago to which yet another CDPH had to be requested. If there is a levy on my husband's job we will be a few months away from homeless. I would hardly call this the "best thing" and the fact that the levy occurred when I was in extreme economic hardship is relevant to the facts of the situation.
You certainly should raise that issue regarding the calculation of the offer amount. I am surprised that your representative has not raised this earlier and you shouldn't have to wait until the offer is rejected to get it corrected in Appeals. Why hasn't your attorney (or you, if you have discharged him/her) contacted the manager of the offer specialist to address this issue now? Of course it may be a moot point to you if you are disputing the rest of the offer calculation as being unrealistic as well. But I have already pointed out to you that the IRS can and will consider your ability to earn income as part of the acceptable offer amount, contrary to your claims that you cannot obtain employment.Plus, the funds already levied ARE being used by the IRS to determine my "reasonable collection potential" since the amounts were included in the financial statement since the levy occurred after the OIC was submitted. Additionally, only 70% of the funds were available to me and rightly included in the OIC. I assume that if and when the OIC is rejected this issues will need to be addressed on appeal.
Well, that is a good sign in terms of the fact that the IRS is actually got your returns assigned to somewhere where they will be looked at and adjusted. The 60 day time frame seems to be the average time before they resolve the differences and confirm that adjustments need to be made based on the additional information you provided by filing the appropriate schedules.Just received notification yesterday that the returns submitted in June that eliminate the millions of dollars in liability for a couple of the years (the stock trading ones) have been sent to "audit reconsideration" --whatever that is. They have now been assigned to the Dallas office which will contact us within 60 days.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
-
- Victim of Incarcerated Criminal
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:57 am
Since the IRA only paid a portion of the liablity the interest has continued to add up and with the additional liability due to the levy the total amount I owe is more now than it was when I submitted the OIC.What you are failing to take into account is if the IRA funds had not been levied and applied to your account, you would owe even more than you do now. Perhaps the fact that the amounts in question appear astronomical to you makes little difference, but the fact is that you owe less now than you would have had the levy not taken place. So it is the best thing that could have happened in terms of resolving your liability. The worst thing that could have happened would have been you using the funds for something other than paying the taxes you owed, then expecting other taxpayers to cover the amount you and your husband have failed to pay.
Considering that we have already paid about $110,000 for the years in question I really don't think anyone is or has been covering for me.
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.You certainly should raise that issue regarding the calculation of the offer amount. I am surprised that your representative has not raised this earlier and you shouldn't have to wait until the offer is rejected to get it corrected in Appeals. Why hasn't your attorney (or you, if you have discharged him/her) contacted the manager of the offer specialist to address this issue now? Of course it may be a moot point to you if you are disputing the rest of the offer calculation as being unrealistic as well. But I have already pointed out to you that the IRS can and will consider your ability to earn income as part of the acceptable offer amount, contrary to your claims that you cannot obtain employment
The errors have been addressed and corrected by the attorney but since the Appeals only made the termination related to the liens/levies the OIC is still out there somewhere waiting for the returns to be processed that are now assigned to audit reconsideration. No communication from an "offer specialist"--just the Appeals Officer and the RO. Being homeless without a car does not seem "reasonable" to me.
They can consider whatever they want--that still does not give me any money to give them. I did not voluntarily become unemployed and, hard as it is to believe, I can not find a job. I know another person here (no IRS issues that I know of) that was fired by the Army 10 months ago and she is still unemployed. She is actually more marketable than me because she does family practice but has no prospects here. There are jobs elsewhere in the state but I am not exactly in the position to move.
-
- Further Moderator
- Posts: 7559
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
- Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith
Yes, but that had nothing to do with the IRA funds being levied. An unpaid balance is still going accrue interest and penalties (until the penalty maximum is reached). But I assure you that whatever balance you owe today would have been far more if the IRA funds were still in your control. That is just the mathematical reality.gottago wrote:Since the IRA only paid a portion of the liablity the interest has continued to add up and with the additional liability due to the levy the total amount I owe is more now than it was when I submitted the OIC.
Yes, the compliant taxpayers have to cover for whatever you still owe in the form of government borrowing. And consider that if all taxpayers were compliant we would be able to push for lower tax rates.Considering that we have already paid about $110,000 for the years in question I really don't think anyone is or has been covering for me.
The errors have been addressed and corrected by the attorney but since the Appeals only made the termination related to the liens/levies the OIC is still out there somewhere waiting for the returns to be processed that are now assigned to audit reconsideration. No communication from an "offer specialist"--just the Appeals Officer and the RO.
Earlier you had made the point that someone had come up with a "reasonable collection potential" which suggested that someone in the IRS had looked at your financial statements and OIC and had made a determination. Now you seem to be saying that no one has contacted you about your OIC. Which is it?
Have you submitted a copy of the original OIC to the Appeals Officer? He or she has the authority to make a determination of the offer's merits and propose acceptance as part of Appeals's responsibility to resolve your tax situation fully.
I doubt it will come to that - unless you have equity in your residence that the IRS could seize and sell to apply to the tax liability. If that were to happen, you and your husband would be able to move into an apartment or a smaller affordable home that you rent. Given your tendency to exaggerate the circumstances facing you, I think that you are intimidating yourself into not resolving your tax situation. You gave us a number of arguments about how impossible it was to reconstruct the trading records and to file amended returns. The minute you stopped listening to yourself and started listening to the advice given here, you quickly saw some hope and daylight on that front. Yes, you had to do some hard work to make that a reality but still you were able to do *something* to turn that issue around. I am suggesting that you do something similar on the employment front.Being homeless without a car does not seem "reasonable" to me.
And they will, not because they "want" but because financial reality dictates that you can be employed - not merely on your terms.They can consider whatever they want--that still does not give me any money to give them.
Which has nothing to do with the situation - it is your voluntary decision to not seek employment outside your immediate geographic area.I did not voluntarily become unemployed
and, hard as it is to believe, I can not find a job.
It is not hard to believe, given that you are only seeking employment under a narrow set of criteria. I could be unemployed also if I set the bar as high as you have.
Again, not unbelievable. But not 100% unemployable.I know another person here (no IRS issues that I know of) that was fired by the Army 10 months ago and she is still unemployed. She is actually more marketable than me because she does family practice but has no prospects here.
Again, per your decision and the criteria you have set. But it is good to see that you are acknowledging that you could get employment if you really set your mind to it.There are jobs elsewhere in the state but I am not exactly in the position to move.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
-
- Victim of Incarcerated Criminal
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:57 am
I have never said I was 100% unemployable, I said that I can not find a job within a reasonable distance from where I live now. I do not feel that spending 3-4 hours daily on the road and spending $200+ per week for gas is reasonable. The collection standards allow about $165 per month total for car ownership (insurance, maintenance, gas).
I have done the same job for the past 17 years and it is what I do. This is not a "narrow criteria"--what would you suggest I do to earn a comparable salary to what I was making? Do you honestly think that if I take a job at Burger King the IRS will be satisfied with that? I would still have no "disposable income" and still have no ability to make payments. I am by far not the only person on the planet who is unemployed due to circumstances beyond my control.
In terms of moving into an apartment or rent house, where would you suggest I get the money to do that? Additionally, the numerous NOFTLs here would make it unlikely that I could rent anything other than a by the week motel room. Of course, I would be expected to continue to make house payments until the house is sold which could take a long time so moving would do nothing but increase my monthly expenses at this point.
I really feel this ongoing argument is pointless. You have no idea of my situation and cling to the delusion that "if I really wanted to" I could resolve it. The reality is that the IRS has me cornered in a trap and no matter what they do I can not pay even a fraction of what I owe. Since I came on this thread strictly for advice about the wrongful levies, I see no reason to continue posting here. Think what you want, you know what they say about opinions. They are like a%%holes because everybody's got one.
I have done the same job for the past 17 years and it is what I do. This is not a "narrow criteria"--what would you suggest I do to earn a comparable salary to what I was making? Do you honestly think that if I take a job at Burger King the IRS will be satisfied with that? I would still have no "disposable income" and still have no ability to make payments. I am by far not the only person on the planet who is unemployed due to circumstances beyond my control.
In terms of moving into an apartment or rent house, where would you suggest I get the money to do that? Additionally, the numerous NOFTLs here would make it unlikely that I could rent anything other than a by the week motel room. Of course, I would be expected to continue to make house payments until the house is sold which could take a long time so moving would do nothing but increase my monthly expenses at this point.
I really feel this ongoing argument is pointless. You have no idea of my situation and cling to the delusion that "if I really wanted to" I could resolve it. The reality is that the IRS has me cornered in a trap and no matter what they do I can not pay even a fraction of what I owe. Since I came on this thread strictly for advice about the wrongful levies, I see no reason to continue posting here. Think what you want, you know what they say about opinions. They are like a%%holes because everybody's got one.
Looks like youre confused. Come back when you figure it out. Good luck.gottago wrote:I have never said I was 100% unemployable, I said that I can not find a job within a reasonable distance from where I live now. I do not feel that spending 3-4 hours daily on the road and spending $200+ per week for gas is reasonable. The collection standards allow about $165 per month total for car ownership (insurance, maintenance, gas).
I really feel this ongoing argument is pointless. You have no idea of my situation and cling to the delusion that "if I really wanted to" I could resolve it. The reality is that the IRS has me cornered in a trap and no matter what they do I can not pay even a fraction of what I owe. Since I came on this thread strictly for advice about the wrongful levies, I see no reason to continue posting here. Think what you want, you know what they say about opinions. They are like a%%holes because everybody's got one.
-
- J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Southern California