2 questions...

Posted by -- TW on September 26, 2008, 3:23 pm

Please log in for more thread options

1) Which is better -- to call the nat'l IRS office, or to go to a
LOCAL IRS office -- to resolve a back taxes issue?

I heard the answer before, but I can't remember which is better. One
of the two is supposedly better because they will/won't FOCUS on you
more intently.

2) What trips the meter in terms of when they will/won't offer you a
payment plan vs. them coming after the $$ full force?

Thanks.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Condor on September 26, 2008, 4:20 pm

Please log in for more thread options

> 1) Which is better -- to call the nat'l IRS office, or to go to a

> LOCAL IRS office -- to resolve a back taxes issue?

I assume you're asking whether it's preferable to call the IRS toll-free
number or pay an in-person visit to your local IRS walk-in office. The
answer depends on some variables, but in general, I think you'll get better
service in a walk-in office. When addressing a balance over $25,000 than
the taxpayer expects to take longer than 3 years to pay, neither walk-in nor
toll-free are authorized to set up an Installment Agreement (IA). Taxpayers
whose situations fall outside of what IRS considers "streamlined" criteria,
must go through either the Automated Collection System (ACS) or a revenue
officer.

Condor

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by TimW on September 26, 2008, 5:22 pm

Please log in for more thread options

Thanks.

Not really wondering which will give 'better service.' More
interested in which option will produce more or less intense focus. I
remember hearing that one option will get an officer who cares LESS
about the particular/individual case -- and therefore might me more
lenient.

Also, what about an approx 30k debt -- but CAN pay back within 3 yrs
or less? Does it sound like they might go for a pmt arrangement?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Condor on September 26, 2008, 5:44 pm

Please log in for more thread options

> Also, what about an approx 30k debt -- but CAN pay back within 3 yrs

> or less? Does it sound like they might go for a pmt arrangement?

If there are no other compliance obstacles such as unfiled returns and the
collection information statement (CIS) does not reflect sufficient liquid
assets to pay off sooner, odds are good IRS will approve the IA. An IA for
a balance this large will need to be worked through ACS.

Condor

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Mark Bole on September 26, 2008, 7:08 pm

Please log in for more thread options

TimW wrote:

> Not really wondering which will give 'better service.' More

> interested in which option will produce more or less intense focus. I

> remember hearing that one option will get an officer who cares LESS

> about the particular/individual case -- and therefore might me more

> lenient.

"Caring less" could work both ways -- if someone on the other side
doesn't care very much, why would they be inclined to spend any extra
time (beyond their minimum job requirements) working out an arrangement
in your favor?

> Also, what about an approx 30k debt -- but CAN pay back within 3 yrs

> or less? Does it sound like they might go for a pmt arrangement?

For that level of delinquency, and given the naivete of your approach
posted here so far, you should hire a professional to represent you.

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>