Can the IRS Take Your Home and Sell It When an Offer-In-Compromise is in Effect???
In a somewhat recent court case on appeal —>United States v. Brabant-Scribner, No. 17-2825 (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2018) the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court allowing the sale of taxpayer’s home and affirmatively determining that an offer in compromise request filed by the taxpayer has no impact on the ability of the court to grant the request by the IRS to sell the home or on the IRS’ ability to sell the home once the court granted its approval. In reaching this conclusion the Eighth Circuit analyzed the exemptions to levy in Internal Revenue Code section 6334 and the relief those provisions do and do not provide.
The taxpayer, in this case, owes the IRS over $500,000. The opinion does not discuss the actions by the taxpayer to pay or resolve her liability prior to the action by the IRS to sell her house. I imagine that the IRS considered her a “won’t pay” taxpayer. Before seeking to sell her home, the IRS had seized and sold her boat and levied on her bank accounts.
The 1998 Restructuring and Reform Act added Internal Revenue Code section 6334(e)(1)(A) to require that prior to seizing a taxpayer’s principal residence the IRS must obtain the approval of a federal district court judge or magistrate in writing. Before the passage of this provision, the IRS could seize a taxpayer’s home with the same amount of prior approval needed to seize any other asset owned by the taxpayer. No approval was necessary to seize any asset of the taxpayer. Prior to 1998 collection due process did not exist. Prior to 1998 the 10 deadly sins did not exist one of which calls for the dismissal of an IRS employee who makes an inappropriate seizure. So, the landscape regarding seizures, and especially personal residence seizures, changed dramatically after 1998. However, the amount of litigation regarding seizure of personal residences is low and the Brabant-Scribner case offers a window on one aspect of this process.
As the IRS initiated the process of seizing her personal residence by obtaining the appropriate court approval, the taxpayer filed an offer in compromise. She filed an effective tax administration offer of $1,000 but the amount and sincerity of her offer do not really matter to the legal outcome of this case. The timing and the amount of the offer may have influenced the thinking of the judges and made them more inclined to dismiss her argument but her possibly bad faith effort to stop the approval and execution of the sale should not have affected the outcome here.
To convince the court to allow the sale of a personal residence, the IRS must show compliance with all legal and procedural requirements, show that the debt remains unpaid and show that “no reasonable alternative” for collection of the debt exists. The taxpayer argued that her offer was a reasonable alternative. However, the court spends three paragraphs explaining that an offer does not matter in this situation. The relevant language in the applicable regulation is “reasonable alternative for collection of the taxpayer’s debt.” The court explains that the word “for” holds the key to the outcome.
“For” refers to an alternative to the sale of the personal residence such as an installment agreement or the offer of funds from another source to satisfy the debt. An offer in compromise is not an alternative for collection but an alternative “to” collection.
Having determined that the words of the Treasury Regulation point toward a resolution other than an offer as providing the necessary alternative, the court looks at the remainder of the Treasury Regulation for further support of its conclusion. It points to the provision in Treasury Regulation 301.6334-1(d)(2) which provides that the taxpayer has a right to object after the IRS makes its initial showing and “will be granted a hearing to rebut the Government’s prima facie case if the taxpayer … rais[es] a genuine issue of material fact demonstrating … other assets from which the liability can be satisfied.” This regulation, like the one providing an alternative “for” collection, looks not to relief from payment of the liability but a source for making payment. It does not provide the offer in compromise as a basis for relief. Based on this the court concludes that “nothing requires the district court to ensure that the IRS has fully considered a taxpayer’s compromise offer before approving a levy on a taxpayer’s home.”
Since the IRS properly made its case for seizing and selling the home and the taxpayer did not rebut that case, the Eighth Circuit affirms the decision of the district court to approve the sale. The decision provides clear guidance for district courts faced with the request by the IRS to seize and sell a personal residence. Personal residence seizures by the IRS remain rare at this point. Taxpayers faced with such a seizure, almost always taxpayers the IRS characterizes as “won’t pay” taxpayers, will find it difficult to stop the seizure and sale based on this decision. I do not think this decision will motivate the IRS to increase the number of personal residence seizures but it will make it a little easier to accomplish when it decides to go this route.
If you are having problems with the IRS, Solid Tax Solutions can help you.
We are only a ☎ phone call away at ☛ (845) 344-1040.
Bruce – Your Host at The Tax Nook
Our Firm’s Website: SolidTaxSolutions.com
Other Social Media Outlets: Facebook.com/SolidTaxSolutions.
Twitter: Twitter.com/@SolidTax1040 (BTW, We Follow-Back).
Leave a Reply