Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotQuiteGoodEnougher t1_j6omjx8 wrote

Reply to comment by tmoney144 in Optima says my dad owes $40k in back taxes?! by [deleted]

If you acknowledge the debt and work out a payment plan, it absolutely does. You're kidding right?

28

tmoney144 t1_j6ondib wrote

Nope. See 26 U.S. Code § 6159 and IRM 5.1.19.3.5(6) https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-001-019#idm139995971385904

"The CSED is not suspended while an installment agreement is in effect."

Also IRM 5.14.2.2

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-014-002r#idm139895071258224
"All taxpayers are expected to immediately full pay delinquent tax liabilities. When this is not possible, taxpayers may be allowed to pay their liabilities over a prescribed period of time. If full payment cannot be achieved by the Collection Statute Expiration Date (CSED), and taxpayers have some ability to pay, the Service can enter into Partial Payment Installment Agreements (PPIAs). The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 amended IRC 6159 to provide this authority."

−22

NotQuiteGoodEnougher t1_j6oposf wrote

1st, the OP indicated the tax debt is from 2018, 2019 and 2020, which means they have at least 5-7 years before the debt could expire due to lapse of timing.

2nd. The IRS has other levers to pull in the case of tax liabilities. I suppose the OP could 'hang on' for another 5 years, dodge the IRS and hope for the best. For the money they are talking...unlikely. A couple of hundred, probably.

3rd, I would concede as a non-tax professional that your reply does indicate that a payment plan does not extend past the tax due date, which seems counterintuitive, but that's the Gov for you.

Additionally, what you're NOT saying is that the IRS will look to settle the debt through exisiting assests/liquidation/levy of assets.

>Before a PPIA may be granted, equity in assets must be addressed and, if appropriate, be used to make payment. In some cases, taxpayers will be required to use equity in assets to pay liabilities. However, as discussed below, complete utilization of equity is not always required as a condition of a PPIA. Consider levy or seizure in accordance with IRM 5.10, Seizure and Sale, and IRM 5.11, Notice of Levy if there is significant equity in assets.

So let's not make it like a taxpayer can simply run the clock out and the IRS is powerless to settle the claim for taxes in arrears.

13

tmoney144 t1_j6orjc3 wrote

I was responding to a comment that said "they don't care how long it takes" and "re-payment plans can be a lifetime," which is not true, because tax debt eventually expires and the IRS absolutely cares about you paying it before that date. As you can see, by the text you quoted and highlighted, the IRS will levy you if they think they can be paid before the CSED expires.

YOU then said "the debt doesn't 'expire' if it's being serviced though payments" which is just 100% false.

I was not suggesting OP try to run out the clock, that's a terrible idea. I'm just trying to correct the misinformation that is rampant in this sub from people who don't know what they're talking about, giving advice on what they "feel" is correct or how it "should" work instead of how it actually works.

1

NotQuiteGoodEnougher t1_j6osuku wrote

Then maybe be a little more pointed and a little less general. For the 5-7 year timeframe the OP is in before the 10 year statute of limitations expires, they are ABSOLUTELY able to engage in a payment plan, and hopefully cover their taxes in arrears.

From you posting, I suppose you score a point for 'absolutism' but accomplish little else.

Yay! You're technically correct, but also wrong. I suppose in one sense though it simply points out that the IRS wants their money. You can make a payment plan, and if it's within the timeframe they will play softball.

If you're up against the wall on the 10 year limit, they'll just bend you over and take what they are owed, with a little less nuance and care.

Also, never ever said "they don't care how long it takes". Go back and read again, none of my previous comments are edited. Perhaps you're in such a hurry to make such a non-point you were misreading? It certainly didn't come from my mouth. I specifically noted the 10 year timeframe.

Ease up, Francis.

3

tmoney144 t1_j6ouegk wrote

I know what you said, that's why I emphasized YOU when I responded to what you said. I was originally responding to someone else.

If you aren't concerned about being "technically correct" then maybe don't give advice to people that can fuck their life up.

You know, you could have also just said "oops, I didn't know that," when confronted with the fact that you were wrong instead of... whatever it is you think you're trying to do.

−2

NotQuiteGoodEnougher t1_j6owcis wrote

What exactly did I give that was factually incorrect?

The IRS will work with you to work out a payment plan? (check)

You have 10 years? (check)

If you don't work out a plan, they can seize/sell assets? (check)

I was wrong that the plans end at the end of 10 years. You however, were also wrong to imply that was the end of the discussion. Carefully leaving out the additional powers the IRS can employ to 'get the money' before the 10 years are up.

I think you're arguing with me, while taking issue with another poster. Try harder.

1

tmoney144 t1_j6ox5vn wrote

> What exactly did I give that was factually incorrect?

> I was wrong that the plans end at the end of 10 years

I apologize if correcting you has upset you. In the future, I will be more mindful of correcting your false information so as not to hurt your feelings.

−7

NotQuiteGoodEnougher t1_j6oxu5m wrote

Lol hilarious. The double down I can't admit I've been arguing with the wrong person defense.

You're a hoot at parties I imagine.

4

tmoney144 t1_j6ozmyh wrote

> The debt doesn't 'expire' if it's being serviced through payments.

> it absolutely does. You're kidding right?

>I was wrong that the plans end at the end of 10 years.

What's that about a "double down?"

Again, I know who I'm responding to. That's why I said "I was responding to a comment" (not "your comment") when talking about the post that wasn't you, and then said "YOU then said" when talking about what YOU said.

−3