CtCer About to Get Fired

[webhick]

According to this post at LH, someone's about to get fired (my emphasis).

Well..

My private sector company has stolen (unlawfully converted) my property and give it over because of a notice of levy. I had informed them that a NoL did not apply to me or my earnings. I provided them with numerous Supreme Court rulings and a signed statement that I did not owe anything yet they clearly ignored my written objection.

I will give them a statement of billing today for the amount taken. I will show up to work and be in my work area BUT I will NOT do a damm thing!

I don't work for free, they don't pay me.. they don't get any work from me and I am not going to quit either. They have to fire me so that I can collect unemployment!

I can almost bet that what they did was they "called someone" and that person over the phone told em "it's a valid levy".. I also think they will tell me "you have to talk to the irs... " BUT they don't friggin pay me!!

According to the regulations, I am entitled to a CDPH BEFORE a NoL is issued, in a letter I wrote in March I asked for a due process hearing!

Due process rights have been violated...

[cynicalflyer]

According to this post at LH, someone's about to get fired (my emphasis).

I will give them a statement of billing today for the amount taken. I will show up to work and be in my work area BUT I will NOT do a damm thing!
...
They have to fire me so that I can collect unemployment!

Termination for cause (like, "not doin[ing] a damn thing!") voids unemployment benefits.

Not that I know this first hand mind you....

[Judge Roy Bean]

Termination for cause (like, "not doin[ing] a damn thing!") voids unemployment benefits.

Not that I know this first hand mind you....

Shhhhhh....train wrecks can be fun in a warped sort of way.

[The Observer]

According to the regulations, I am entitled to a CDPH BEFORE a NoL is issued, in a letter I wrote in March I asked for a due process hearing!

No, you are supposed to be advised of your right to file for a CDPH before a Notice of Levy is issued (unless the IRS has determined that collection of the taxes is in jeopardy - but we will assume that isn't the case here). You are not entitled to an automatic hearing. So the first question is: did you file for the hearing in a timely manner? Merely sending a letter to some unknown in the IRS demanding a hearing prior to the issuance of the Final Notice doesn't get you a hearing. And if you did receive a Final Notice, did you respond within the 30 days requesting your appeal? If you didn't, guess what? The IRS levy machine gets to kick in and at that point it is up to the IRS as to whether the levy will be released prior to your CDP hearing.

And of course the courts have ruled that if you are filing for CDPH based on frivolous arguments and nothing else, then the IRS doesn't have to grant you a hearing. I know you probably missed out on that little issue that the primary purpose of a CDP is to discuss the resolution of the liability and your proposed alternatives to the IRS collection plan. I know Stevesy may decide to jump in here and insist that the CDP can address the validity of the assessment itself, but we all know that you failed to respond to the original NoD, right? So need to go there.

[Quixote]

And of course the courts have ruled that if you are filing for CDPH based on frivolous arguments and nothing else, then the IRS doesn't have to grant you a hearing.

But the determination that the taxpayer's arguments are frivolous is made by Appeals and only after Appeals has contacted the taxpayer for a clarification of the CDP issues.

Merely sending a letter to some unknown in the IRS demanding a hearing prior to the issuance of the Final Notice doesn't get you a hearing.

But it should get you a response, if only a letter telling you that your CDP request was too late.

From his post,it appears that deslocc may be wading too deeply in the kool-ade to be helped, but that does not mean he has waived his rights to due process. If he requested a CDP hearing in March and received no response whatsoever, and he wants to discuss collection alternatives, he should contact his local TAS office.

deslocc will be fired for not working and generally pissing his boss off.

[webhick]

Termination for cause (like, "not doin[ing] a damn thing!") voids unemployment benefits.

Not that I know this first hand mind you....

He will cause a bit of a headache with unemployment, though and possibly get it anyway. When he applies he'll neglect to mention inconvenient facts and say that his employer stopped paying him, which is why he stopped working OR he may say that he was fired because his wages were levied. And if the unemployment office there is anything like the one here, they'll send a notice to the employer, ignore any response the employer gives, and then award him unemployment.

Although, one legitimate issue he may have is if the employer levied his ENTIRE paycheck. I think there's a maximum percentage allowable for garnishment (I vaguely recall something about 30%, but I haven't had to deal with it in a long while). But since he didn't try to resolve the over-garnishment with his employer...ah, who am I kidding? All he has to say is that they were mean to him.

[Quixote]

mutter offers this advice:

since you asked for a hearing and did not get one they violated the law and can be sued under 7433.

Because suits based on CTC have such a sterling record of success.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Although, one legitimate issue he may have is if the employer levied his ENTIRE paycheck. I think there's a maximum percentage allowable for garnishment (I vaguely recall something about 30%, but I haven't had to deal with it in a long while). But since he didn't try to resolve the over-garnishment with his employer...ah, who am I kidding? All he has to say is that they were mean to him.

It is 30%, but these types usually fly off the handle for 1 US Mille. My take: his boss tells him to calm down and explains what happened.

[jkeeb]

He just may go get a job at the other pool company in town.

[The Observer]

And of course the courts have ruled that if you are filing for CDPH based on frivolous arguments and nothing else, then the IRS doesn't have to grant you a hearing.

But the determination that the taxpayer's arguments are frivolous is made by Appeals and only after Appeals has contacted the taxpayer for a clarification of the CDP issues.

Merely sending a letter to some unknown in the IRS demanding a hearing prior to the issuance of the Final Notice doesn't get you a hearing.

But it should get you a response, if only a letter telling you that your CDP request was too late.

I would imagine it would all depend how deslocc worded his letter, when he sent it and where he sent it. The IRS does a pretty job of getting correspondence to someone who knows how to deal with it. If we take his story at face value he got his Final Notice sometime in February/March and responded to it. Apparently it took 4-5 months later for the IRS to issue the levy. If the Automated Collection Site (ACS) issued the levy, the trend is for those levies to go out immediately after the expiration of the appeal period on the L1058. If it did, then why didn't deslocc contact ACS and let them know he had filed for a CDP? Otherwise, if ACS did not issue the levy, then it probably went to the Collection Field division - and there the taxpayer would have most likely been given a contact attempt by a revenue officer before the levy went out. As you can see, no matter how deslocc wants to spin his narrative, it still provides a number of opportunities for him to respond and tell the IRS that something went wrong with his CDP appeal letter. Why didn't deslocc contact the revenue officer who is listed on the levy notice and get this straightened out? At best, it appears deslocc did all he could to avoid personal contact with the IRS - meaning he didn't want an intellectually honest resolution to his situation.

From his post,it appears that deslocc may be wading too deeply in the kool-ade to be helped, but that does not mean he has waived his rights to due process. If he requested a CDP hearing in March and received no response whatsoever, and he wants to discuss collection alternatives, he should contact his local TAS office.

deslocc will be fired for not working and generally pissing his boss off.

But again, this is all predicated on whether deslocc is (a) telling the truth and/or (b) understands the process well enough to understand whether he even applied correctly for a CDP. Judging from the past, I am not willing to jump out here and believe deslocc ever got to first base in the CDP process.

And going to TAS isn't going to help, because you and I know very well that deslocc isn't interested in discussing collection alternatives.

[fortinbras]

Under federal law, employers and banks are REQUIRED to comply with IRS levies and garnishments, and are made immune from lawsuits from taxpayer.

This guy has put himself into hot water. His employer has no choice about the levy and now this guy is stealing his paycheck. Outcome, he'll be fired. Without a paycheck to satisfy the levy, the IRS will move in for forfeiture of his house or something similarly drastic.

[gottago]

The IRS uses a form based on exemptions of the levy target to determine the amount "exempt from levy" when a levy is served. In my case, the amount "exempt from levy" was $956 per month and the IRS wanted everything above that amount sent to them (approximately $7000) so it was about 90% of what I made. They want you to sign the form "agreeing" to the levy for this amount, which I refused to do. While we did hire the attorney to do the OIC and contact the Taxpayer Advocate during that time, it was too late to save my job.

An employer is subject to a fine of $1000 if an employee is fired due to the employer receiving an IRS levy. In my case, the levy was not mentioned as a reason for my termination (just a coincidence, I suppose) but in a "right to work" state like TX they do not have to have any reason at all to fire anyone. Unemployment can be denied if there is DOCUMENTED PROOF of "misconduct related to the work" or various other reasons. In my case the termination and subsequent unemployment led to the levy of the IRA account. The CDPH request timely submitted to the RO was then conveniently kept in her drawer for 8 months before being forwarded to appeals which allowed appeals jurisdiction over the OIC that was submitted. When the CDPH finally held (15 months after the request was received by the IRS) and appeals determined the "proposed levy was not sustained" the levy had already happened (IRA, bank account) but since I was fired no amount was sent to the IRS by the company I worked for. Had I not been fired I would have been in quite a better spot to actually work toward resolution of the problem but that was not the case.

Gottago

[LOBO]

My private sector company has stolen (unlawfully converted) my property and give it over because of a notice of levy.

Lou Grant: Want to call a cop?

[LPC]

In my case, the amount "exempt from levy" was $956 per month and the IRS wanted everything above that amount sent to them (approximately $7000) so it was about 90% of what I made.

You were earning $95,000 per year when you decided to diddle the IRS?

You poor thing. No wonder you are self-absorbed.

[gottago]

In my case, the amount "exempt from levy" was $956 per month and the IRS wanted everything above that amount sent to them (approximately $7000) so it was about 90% of what I made.

You were earning $95,000 per year when you decided to diddle the IRS?

You poor thing. No wonder you are self-absorbed.

Yes, Dan, that was what I was earning at that time. The diddling with the IRS started a number of years before that and the levy was actually based on SFR'S for inflated liabilities 6-7 years prior to the actual year that the levy occurred.

I wasn't poor then nor am I now. I don't know what is "self absorbed" about what I wrote--just reporting my "real life experiences" for the benefit of any lurking idiots that might be considering going down the path of Schiff, CTC or any other stupid plan that is not going to work. If that qualifes as "self absorbed" to you then that is fine, I am sure you know the old saying about opinions being like assholes because everbody's got one. I haven't been properly insulted or ridiculed here on quatloos for quite a while, I sometimes forget how important doing that is to some of you.

Gottago

[Nikki]

....

just reporting my "real life experiences" for the benefit of any lurking idiots that might be considering going down the path of Schiff, CTC or any other stupid plan that is not going to work. If that qualifes as "self absorbed" to you then that is fine, I am sure you know the old saying about opinions being like assholes because everbody's got one. I haven't been properly insulted or ridiculed here on quatloos for quite a while, I sometimes forget how important doing that is to some of you.

You are officially a member of the sadder but wiser, formerly compliance-challenged population. As such, you are automatically immune from insults, ridicule, flying cows, and bad French accents until such time when (like it's ever gonna happen) you fall for a new and improved evasion scheme.

You (with the significant help of others) made a mistake and are now working on getting out of the hole and back on your feet. I sincerely hope you are able to do so in (on a cosmic scale) a relatively short time.

[webhick]

deslocc gave us an update on his employment status:

Well.. I repeatedly told them a "notice" is not a levy, but they read the typed crap in the lower part of the form saying "see.. it says lien".

I also know that I won't get unemployment if I quit but I asked them that they might want to consider terminating me, since my only recourse is to sue the company. They told me "we have nothing to do with this levy, it's from the irs.. you have no recourse against us".. Only I do.

I have read numerous SC decisions about a "notice" not being an actual levy and how it has no force of law. How should the company receive such and unlawfully convert my pay, they take 100% of the responsibility as they clearly took the property without a proper levy.

I have some things in work, I've always been a "model" employee, rarely miss a day, work hard.. But it'll be hard to afford my rent of $860 if I get checks of less than $350.. or $700 or less/mo. The "NoL" is for my 2003 refund and the current listed civ penalties for 2003 - 2005.. with interest about $21k..

Maybe I should buy some stamps and go parcel!! BonZi

So...fire me so I can collect unemployment against your account or I'll sue you? Yeah...that'll work.

[The Observer]

Well.. I repeatedly told them a "notice" is not a levy, but they read the typed crap in the lower part of the form saying "see.. it says lien".

Ok, you have proven you don't understand the term "abstract."

I have read numerous SC decisions about a "notice" not being an actual levy and how it has no force of law. How should the company receive such and unlawfully convert my pay, they take 100% of the responsibility as they clearly took the property without a proper levy.

Yet when you show up in court, you won't be able to produce a single citation from the SC that says anything of the sort. Instead you will rely challenging the judge about his credentials, scattering your incoherent 357-page brief on the courtoom floor, and then wet your pants as the 125 pound female bailiff humiliates you by taking you down in one fell swoop.

I have some things in work, I've always been a "model" employee, rarely miss a day, work hard.. But it'll be hard to afford my rent of $860 if I get checks of less than $350.. or $700 or less/mo. The "NoL" is for my 2003 refund and the current listed civ penalties for 2003 - 2005.. with interest about $21k..

Yet you are unable to see that you decided to put yourself in this difficult situation. Instead you want to blame your employer.

So...fire me so I can collect unemployment against your account or I'll sue you? Yeah...that'll work.

Yeah, he sounds like he has been listening to Mikey.

[ASITStands]

I have read numerous SC decisions about a "notice" not being an actual levy and how it has no force of law. How should the company receive such and unlawfully convert my pay, they take 100% of the responsibility as they clearly took the property without a proper levy.

Funny how they can never cite the "numerous" SC cases, or rightly "parse" the holdings.

I think I "know" this person. If I'm right, he works in Ohio for IBM or HP.

He's also never understood administrative process. My guess would be he submitted his request for CDP without having received the "final notice" which offers the opportunity.

[The Observer]

He's also never understood administrative process. My guess would be he submitted his request for CDP without having received the "final notice" which offers the opportunity.

That was my guess as well - the timing that he related doesn't make sense in regards to collection activity. It sounds like he filed the CDP in response to notifications about the pending assessment.