IRS Gets Tougher On Frivolous CDPs

[The Observer]

IRS Chief Counsel has issued a Notice stating that it is permissible for Appeals to forgo examining claims/arguments that are frivolous in nature (already identified by the IRS as a typical frivolous position, when present in a CDP. As such, these types of arguments are being ruled as not meeting the requirement for stating the reason or grounds for the hearing. This should speed up the time Appeals needs to wade through the nonsense being filed by the clowns wishing to get out of their responsibility to pay taxes.

If a portion of a request is based on a position that the Service has identified as frivolous in Notice 2010-33, as provided in section 6702(b)(2)(A)(i), or that reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of the federal tax laws, as provided in 6702(b)(2)(A)(ii), Appeals can, pursuant to section 6330(g), treat that portion of the request as if it were never submitted. If every portion of the request can be treated under section 6330(g) as if never submitted, then the requesting taxpayer has not stated any grounds for the hearing. Accordingly, under amended section 6330(b)(1), if the taxpayer has not stated the grounds for the hearing, then the taxpayer has not satisfied the conditions that trigger Appeals' obligation to hold a hearing, and Appeals can disregard the hearing request in its entirety.

This analysis does not conflict with the Tax Court's holding in Hoyle v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 197 (2008), that Appeals has an independent obligation under section 6330(c)(1) to verify that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure have been met, regardless of whether the taxpayer raises issues concerning those requirements in the CDP hearing. Section 6330(c) applies only "n the case of any hearing conducted under this section . . . ." By the terms of section 6330(b)(1), the taxpayer is not entitled to a hearing if the taxpayer states no grounds for a hearing. If Appeals can disregard the entirety of a CDP hearing request pursuant to sections 6330(b)(1) and 6330(g), it has no obligation of verification under section 6330(c)(1).

[LaVidaRoja]

Which should also cut off the TPs ability to petition the Tax Court; although the lack of a legal notice allowing the petition will not stop the petitions to the Court, and of course, the "true believers" will still appeal the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
If nothing else, this should speed up the actual collection (or full assertion of liens) of the amounts owing.