Major Changes to Offer Program
I Have to Sell My Home, But I Have a Tax Lien
IRS Taking Your Assets Now. If You Owe Taxes, Read This
to Keep From Getting Ripped Off
Is This the Death of the Offer Program?
Can The IRS Seize My Property?
Steve Kassel in Washington Times Article 4-17-06
IRS Tax Lien & Levy
Avoid These Tax Scams
IRS Warning on Offer in Compromise Promoters
I Want To Sell My House, But I Have a Tax Lien
Stay Away from These Tax Resolution Firms
Respected Tax Resolution Firms
Free tax consultation
Offer in Compromise
Offer Article for NAEA
Other Tax Related Scams
IRS Related Stress,
Don't Let it
the IRS Collect
Steve Kassel in the Media
Who Should I Hire?
Should I Hire an Attorney?
Can I File Bankruptcy?
Taxpayer Advocate Slams IRS Offer Program
& The IRS Filed For Me!
IRS Take My Property?
IRS Housing & Utility Expenses
IRS Transportation Expenses
Download IRS Forms?
Get Copy of Your
Tax Return, Extension or Any Other Tax Form
General Tax Questions
Tax Links & Other Stuff
in the spotlight:
Good Morning America
New York Times:
October 10, 1999
New York Times
July 20, 1999
New York Times
July 18, 1999
August 4, 1999
Meet the Staff of
Toll Free Phone
We're NOT the IRS, but we do
help people with IRS tax problems
Call the IRS at 800.829.1040
IRS in Transition: A Practitioners Perspective:
Offers in Compromise
Please note that I wrote this article which ran in the National
Association of Enrolled Agents EA Journal in November/December 1999. The amounts listed for
allowable transportation expenses have changed twice since this article was
written. Make sure to consult my office for all changes to the IRS Offer
By: Steven H. Kassel, EA
Nowhere are the changes in today's IRS more profound than in the Collection Division. For years, taxpayers and practitioners
could count on collection employees to be surly, difficult to work with and consistently inconsistent. In the post-Senate Finance
Committee hearings/RRA '98 era, those things are no longer true. Well, not exactly.
Changes are coming so quickly that IRS employees are having a very difficult time keeping up with the daily deluge of memos
from National Office. Indeed, many Revenue Officers have complained to me that the contradictions in those memos have left
them uncertain what to do with the most mundane of matters.
For practitioners trying to assist clients with past due liabilities, how should we approach the "new" IRS? First, enforcement
action is at an all-time low. According to the New York Times, (May 18, 1999) "Seizures of property are down 98 percent
over the last two years. Levies & garnishments of bank accounts and paychecks are just one-fourth the level of two years ago.
And the filing of tax liens are down two-thirds."
My own cases show me that the IRS is doing everything possible NOT to take enforcement action. That may be due in part to
fear among Revenue Officers and Automated Collection System (ACS) personnel of being personally sued under RRA '98.
Does that mean that now is the time to file delinquent returns, set up a payment agreement or submit an Offer in Compromise?
In the case of filing old returns, absolutely yes. Frankly, there has never been a particularly good reason to hold off filing
delinquent returns. You can't submit an Offer in Compromise (OIC) or get an Installment Agreement (IA) approved without all
returns being filed, so get them filed now.
From there it gets tricky. For the last few years the IRS has streamlined procedures for Installment Agreements (IAs) on
balances under $10,000 that could be paid in full in three years or less. That policy was codified in the Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998. Earlier this year the IRS took the policy even further. Assuming no unusual circumstances exist, taxpayers
who owe $25,000 or less and can pay the liability in full within five years will be approved for an IA without even taking a
financial statement. That's the good news.
However, recent changes that have not been highly publicized are causing major problems for taxpayers with larger past due
balances. Until just a few months ago and for as long as anyone can remember, the IRS routinely approved payment
agreements that clearly would never result in full payment. That is no longer the case. The IRS Office of Chief Counsel ruled that
according to the language in IRC 6159, installment agreements had to "satisfy" the tax debt. Counsel defined "satisfy" as
meaning payment in full. Thus, if an installment agreement will not result in satisfaction of the liability, that agreement cannot be
In the "old" days that would have been rectified by the IRS demanding that the taxpayer sign a waiver of the collection statute
for as many years as would be needed to ensure the tax being paid in full. When I testified before The National Commission on
Restructuring the IRS in 1997, I brought a stack of waivers the IRS had forced my clients to sign out as far as 2025. RRA '98
brought an end to that practice. Under present law, the IRS may only request the signing of a collection statute waiver
concurrent with the granting of an IA.
As a matter of policy, the IRS exceeded the legislation by limiting waivers to no more than five additional years and even then,
only if no previous waiver had been signed. As further proof of today's ever changing policies, I received a call two weeks ago
from the National Office Analyst-Installment Agreements, who told me that NO waivers are being approved at present.
So, what do you do with those clients who owe $110,000 and can pay $600 per month? If you need to buy some time go
through the motions and request the IA. You may find that the Revenue Officer or ACS employee initially gives you verbal
approval. But, mark my word, the manager WILL turn around and instruct that employee to reject the agreement. From there,
the case will be given to an "independent" reviewer. Just how independent that reviewer is, is something I can't answer, but I can
tell you that in this case the reviewer will uphold the rejection. You'll then get a formal letter of denial along with appeal rights
and a Notice of Intent to Levy. Yes, despite doing your best to settle the case in a proper manner, the IRS will turn around and
threaten your client with enforcement action. Not to worry. Exercise those appeal rights and in a few days you'll receive a call
from an Appeals Officer. That Appeals Officer may tell you that they disagree with Chief Counsel's opinion (from recent
personal experience this is more likely than not), but that their hands are tied. In a few days you'll receive another letter denying
your appeal and informing you that the case is being sent back to the collection division.
Huh? That same collection division has your case back and guess what, they have no idea what to do next. At least we're all in
the same boat. A few weeks ago, one befuddled Revenue Officer tried to tell me that I had to submit an Offer in
Compromise on behalf of my client. In fact, the Revenue Officer told me that's why the new Deferred Payment Offer in Compromise
(DPOIC) was developed. But, what if a DPOIC isn't right for your client? The IRS cannot force you to submit an Offer.
Period, no ifs ands or buts, end of discussion. In the case of my client, the statute of limitations on $90,000 of $110,000 owed
expires in 12 months. It would be malpractice to submit an Offer in that situation, especially under present rules which extends
the statute of limitations by 12 months plus the time the Offer is under consideration. (Author's note- beginning 1/1/2000 the
statute of limitations is only extended by the period the Offer is under
consideration plus 30 days)
So, now you may have a situation where you can't get an IA approved and an Offer doesn't make sense. Will the IRS take
enforcement action? That is highly unlikely given the present mindset of the IRS. Bankruptcy may be an option. While as
non-attorneys we must be careful not to cross the line of giving legal advice, you should be aware of the cases where
bankruptcy appears to be a good alternative. If you haven't already done so, get comfortable enough with bankruptcy law as it
relates to taxes so you can make a referral to a bankruptcy attorney when it is appropriate. However (it seems like every
paragraph contains this word at least once), proposed changes to the Bankruptcy Code may limit the cases where taxpayers
can file Chapter 7 (liquidation). Don't even ask about the ramifications of that.
Oh yes, back to my original thought. What will the IRS do? I have heard from practitioners across the country that the IRS has
put many of these cases into 53 (Currently Not Collectible) status. That means the IRS is allowing taxpayers who have the
ability to make substantial monthly payments to pay nothing. If you think Congress will be upset by this, you're right. The IRS is
actually leaving money sitting on the table. Remember, this is not the fault of the Collection Division. Place the blame for this folly
squarely on the back of Chief Counsel. I've been told that the IRS is looking for a legislative solution to this mess and I'm sure
NAEA will have a hand in correcting this problem.
What about the Offer in Compromise program? Many of us were disappointed in the changes announced in March. The only
substantive change eliminated the use of the confusing Present Value table in favor of a straight multiplier of 48. Thus, to
determine the minimum amount of an Offer, we now multiply the monthly ability to pay by 48 and add to that the equity in
But, once again, here's where things get fun. At one time, IRS personnel valued assets in a variety of ways. One IRS District
might value real property at a 20% reduction from fair market value (FMV) while other Districts were only allowing for costs of
sale, typically 7-8%. National Office standardized that policy at a 20% reduction FMV for real property, vehicles, etc. While
there could be disagreement over the FMV, most disputes were easily resolved.
Retirement assets have been valued to take the tax ramifications of withdrawal into account. For most of my clients, that has
typically meant a 50% reduction after federal and state taxes and the additional taxes for withdrawal prior to age 59 ½. Once
again, Chief Counsel has ruled that this is not correct. Under rules so new that most Revenue Officers and virtually all
practitioners are unaware of them, no reduction will be given unless the taxpayer is using the retirement funds to pay the Offer.
The ramifications of this are dramatic. Let's take two taxpayers who each owe $500,000 in unpaid taxes. Taxpayer 1, let's call
him Bob, has a home with a FMV of $500,000 and a mortgage of $400,000. Bob has a 401(k) of $200,000. Taxpayer 2, let's
call her Carol, has a home with a FMV of $500,000 and a mortgage of $400,000. Carol also a 401(k) of $200,000.
The IRS has accepted Bob's Offer in Compromise of $100,000, but has informed Carol that she must Offer $200,000.
No, you're not losing your mind. Don't waste your time going back and reading over this scenario. Instead, you've fallen into
"The Chief Counsel Zone". You see, Bob told the Revenue Officer that he was going to liquidate his 401(k) to come up with the
money for the Offer. To fund her Offer, Carol decided (wisely in my not so humble opinion) that she would borrow against the
equity in her home. Sorry. Chief Counsel says that because you aren't actually liquidating the retirement assets, you can't take
that reduction. Never mind that taxpayers with identical financial circumstances will be treated differently. In fact, this may be
illegal for that very reason. It's my belief that if this were to go to court, the IRS would lose. It's also my belief that once
Congress hears about it, they will go ballistic.
This puts practitioners in a hairy predicament. Do you lie for your client and tell the IRS that they will be liquidating their
retirement funds? Unless you want to serve time in a Federal Penitentiary, that probably isn't a good idea. But, if you and your
client are honest, your client will be treated unfairly. My remedy (and it's not a cure by any stretch of the imagination) is to
inform the IRS that "at this time my client is considering using their retirement assets to fund the Offer". If that isn't acceptable, let
them reject the Offer and take it to Appeals. If that fails, I'll be on the phone with every Senator on the Finance Committee and
every Representative on the Ways and Means Committee as well as with every member of the press I can find. This may be the
most unfair IRS ruling on Offers yet, but on this one, the hands of the Collection Division are clean.
Other than this problem, nothing has changed much in the Offer program. Individuals in high cost areas are still mistreated when
it comes to housing costs. If you've got nothing better to do, take a look at the IRS web site for the Allowable Expenses for
Housing and Utilities at http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/ind_info/coll_stds/cfs-housing.html. You would have to be on another
planet to not know that home costs in the San Francisco Bay Area are the highest in the nation. Yet, according to the IRS, it
costs the same to live in Howard County, Maryland as it does in the City and County of San Francisco. I'm a transplanted
Maryland boy and I know what it costs to live in Howard County and what it costs to live in San Francisco. Until these gross
disparities are corrected, taxpayers in some parts of the country will continue to be officially mistreated by the IRS.
The new DPOIC does hold some benefits for taxpayers who can't come up with the funds to pay off an Offer in a lump sum.
It's basically an Installment Agreement on an Offer in Compromise. In fact, that's exactly what it is. This option allows the
taxpayer to make monthly payments until the statute of limitations expire. When it was first announced, it made little sense to me.
It appears that this is the IRS remedy for those cases where an Installment Agreement will not be approved. One big caveat is
that the Federal Tax Lien will not be released until the Offer is paid off. If your client can come up with the money earlier, it is
certainly in their best interests to do so.
If your client is a good Offer candidate, I would submit the Offer now. I have heard from other tax pros around the country that
the IRS is going a little outside their normal guidelines to accept Offers as long as they are close on the numbers. Remember that
every $1 difference in the ability to pay on the IRS financial statement is a $48 difference in the amount of the Offer. Be very
careful to maximize all allowable expenses. If your client doesn't have health insurance, I strongly suggest that they get a
reasonable policy prior to submitting an Offer. Not only will this legitimately reduce the amount of the Offer; it is a necessary
expense that no one should do without. If your client has children, I also suggest the purchase of a reasonable term life insurance
policy. I have never, ever had the IRS question these expenses as long as they were appropriate for the situation.
But, what should you do if your client asks if it's wise to purchase or lease a new car prior to filing an Offer? I've got an easy
answer for that one…it depends. If your client owns a 1985 clunker that just rolled 200,000 miles and it's highly questionable
whether they'll be able to keep it running another year, it's not a bad idea. Remember that the maximum allowable expense for
the purchase or lease of a primary car is $372 per month and it's best not to exceed that figure. If your client has a car worth
$5,000 and it happens to be in good shape with no mechanical problems and chooses to use the equity for a down payment on
another car, that isn't such a great idea. The IRS could disallow the monthly payment altogether so be careful when approaching
The IRS would prefer to accept your Offer if it is reasonable and if it represents a good deal for the government. Remembering
that it is still the mission of the IRS to collect tax, make your Offer a sound one for all involved.
Finally, don't be lulled into a false sense of security. There is a great deal of concern that the pendulum may start to swing the
other way. IRS officials in Washington may put the word out that employees are being too lax and may expect them to start
Just because the IRS has been easier to work with the past couple years doesn't mean that will continue into the future. It is best
to take advantage of the climate now and get the most favorable treatment possible.
Copyright 1999 NAEA. All Rights Reserved. Last Update November 15, 1999