Today, we welcome guest blogger Kenneth C. Weil. Ken has his own practice in Seattle that focuses on representing individuals with tax debt and resolving that debt through administrative action with the IRS or through bankruptcy. He has written a book on his specialty area, Weil, Taxes and Bankruptcy, (CCH IntelliConnect Service Online Only) (3d ed. 2014). In 1994 Congress passed the first major set of reforms to the Bankruptcy Code of 1978 but it knew that more reform was necessary. It set up a bankruptcy commission to look into the needed reforms and the reform commission established a tax advisory panel to assist it with the tax aspects of the reforms. Ken served on the tax advisory panel and has continued to be a leading thinker at the intersection of tax and bankruptcy.
He serves in the leadership of the Bankruptcy and Workouts (B&W) Committee of the ABA Tax Section. The ABA Tax Section met in Los Angeles in late January where Ken participated in a B&W Committee panel with Bankruptcy Judge Mark Wallace of the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana Division. As part of that panel he presented information regarding the new passport revocation/denial rule. I thought this information might be of interest to the blog readers and persuaded Ken to write something for us. Keith
The Operative Language
New I.R.C. § 7345(a) authorizes the State Department to deny issuance, revoke, or limit a passport if the IRS certifies to the State Department that an individual has seriously delinquent tax debt (SDTD). The operable verbs in § 7345(a) are deny, revoke and limit. Denial and revocation are straight-forward. Limitation is not as clear. By way of example, FAST Act § Section 32101 (e) provides a time-limitation clause for return to the United States for citizens whose passports are being revoked.
For certification to occur, there must be SDTD, which is a defined term with four components. Section 7345(b)(1)(A) provides that the tax debt must have been assessed and be legally enforceable before it can be SDTD. (The requirement of assessment means the standard for SDTD is very different from a claim in bankruptcy, which Bankruptcy Code section 101(5) defines broadly). In addition, Section 7345(b)(1)(B) and (C) require both an “age” component and a size component before tax debt can be SDTD. As to the “age” component, for the assessed and legally enforceable tax debt to be converted into SDTD, the tax liability must have been subject to a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) and the accompanying administrative rights for seeking a collection due process (CDP) hearing are exhausted or have elapsed, or, the tax liability must have been the subject of a levy. Also, the “qualifying” tax debt must exceed $50,000, including penalties and interest, as indexed for inflation. This means there must be $50,000 of SDTD not $50,000 of tax debt.
read more...Even if tax debt qualifies as SDTD, there are events that take the debt out of that classification. Section 7345(b)(2) sets out the events that prevent debt from being SDTD. These events are the taxpayer is (i) in an installment agreement (IA), (ii) making payments under an offer in compromise (OIC), (iii) in a pending CDP hearing or has requested one, or (iv)seeking innocent spouse relief (ISR).
Certification can be reversed. Section 7345(c)(1) provides that certification shall be reversed if the debt “ceases to be seriously delinquent tax debt by reason of subsection (b)(2).” In other words, the events in the previous paragraph will support reversal. Certification can also be reversed if the certification were erroneous or the debt is fully satisfied. This means once certification has occurred a partial payment that takes the SDTD below $50,000 will not be grounds for certification reversal. Rules for the date by which the certification must be reversed are found Section 7345(c)(2).
Certification information transferred from the IRS to the State Department is limited to the taxpayer’s identity information and the amount of the SDTD. I.R.C. § 6103(k)(11).
Examining Fast Act § 32101 More Closely
A close examination of Fast Act § 32101 raises some interesting nuances and a number of unanswered questions.
Seriously delinquent tax debt. The trigger for certification is not $50,000 of tax debt. It is $50,000 of SDTD. To be SDTD, the tax debt must have been subject to a levy or a NFTL with exhausted/elapsed CDP rights. If the individual has some debt that “qualifies” as SDTD and some debt that does not because the collection process has not progressed far enough, only the “qualifying” debt is used to reach the $50,000 total.
Different rules for liens and levies. There is a slight difference in treatment between liens and levies. Tax debt will not convert into SDTD when the NFTL is filed, if CDP rights remain. The actual phrase used in Section 7345(b)(1)(C) is the administrative rights must “have been exhausted or have elapsed.” The best guess is that tax debt is SDTD if the taxpayer has “only” equivalency hearing rights. In contrast, a levy is sufficient to create SDTD.
CDP-hearing-notice rights that are sent because of a NFTL filing must warn of the possibility of a denial, revocation, or limitation of a taxpayer’s passport. In slight contrast, notices of intent to levy must provide that warning. I.R.C. § 6331(d)(4)(G). Presumably, because the notice is provided in the notice of intent to levy, the requirement of an additional notice was not added to the CDP-hearing notice that accompanies the final notice of intent to levy.
Legally unenforceable. The requirement of legal enforceability in § 7345(b)(1) creates difficult issues in the intersection of bankruptcy and § 7345.
Legally unenforceable: discharge granted but NFTL not released. It is unclear whether the tax debt is legally unenforceable if it has been discharged in bankruptcy but the NFTL is not released. Does the NFTL mean the debt is still legally enforceable? Will it make a difference if the tax debt is discharged, the NFTL remains attached to an asset, and the value of the applicable assets is well below $50,000 even though the discharged debt is well above $50,000? Does it make a difference if the value could, at some point, rise above $50,000? If the taxpayer disagrees with the determination that the debt is legally enforceable, then, judicial recourse is available.
Legally unenforceable: repayment plans in bankruptcy. There is no clear answer whether payments pursuant to plans in Chapters 11, 12, or 13, which presumably make the debt temporarily unenforceable but still owing, bar certification. Consider whether special provisions can be added to plans in Chapters 11, 12, or 13 to provide for payment of the tax debt so that the passport will not be certified for revocation, or, if already certified, so that the certification will be reversed. Normally, a special class is not allowed in Chapter 13 to pay unsecured, nondischargeable tax debt. Copeland v. Fink (In re Copeland), 742 F.3d 811 (8th Cir. 2014), held that discrimination to pay nondischargeable tax debt was not allowed; but, discrimination was allowed if the discrimination was proposed in good faith and the degree of discrimination was directly related to the basis or rationale for the discrimination. If the taxpayer needs a passport to work, then, a special class of debt should be allowed. Will this be a sufficient payment plan to prevent denial of issuance or reversal of certification?
If payments under a plan are considered legally unenforceable, postpetition tax debt where property revests in the debtor under the terms of a Chapter 13 may also create a problem. In re Markowicz, 150 B.R. 461 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1993) found that postconfirmation earnings not committed to a plan were not part of the bankruptcy estate, and, the IRS’s postpetition levy to collect postpetition tax did not violate the automatic stay. Similarly, In re DeBerry, 183 B.R. 716 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 1995) granted the IRS relief from stay to pursue collection of postpetition taxes outside Chapter 13 plan where all plan payments had been made. In such an instance, will some of the tax be considered legally unenforceable or subject to an IA and some legally enforceable?
When certifications will not be made. Some events remove tax debt from the definition of SDTD. If tax debt is not SDTD, then, certification will not be made. These events are the taxpayer is (i) in an IA, (ii) making payments under an OIC, (iii) in a pending CDP hearing or has requested one, or (iv) seeking ISR.
Submission of an OIC is not a listed event. To be an exception, the OIC must have been accepted so that the debt is no longer owed or the taxpayer must be making payments under the OIC. Given the length of time the IRS takes to process offers, this is troubling.
What happens if a revenue officer decides to levy social security at 15% and takes no further action? Will the ongoing levy, which operates like an IA, be sufficient to qualify as an IA under the § 7345(b)(2) exceptions?
What happens if the debtor has insufficient income to warrant an IA? Should currently uncollectible status (CNC) be considered the equivalent of being in an IA? Must the taxpayer be in an IA that pays a de minimis amount to avoid certification, e.g., one dollar a month? A passport might be very important to someone on CNC status, e.g., if one lives near the border or has close family outside the United States.
Certification and the automatic stay. Is certification barred by the bankruptcy automatic stay? Governmental actions that are used to enforce their police and regulatory power are not subject to the automatic stay because of the exception to the stay found in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). Clearly, the passport rule is a coercive rule to enforce collection. Will it be viewed as a police and regulatory action similar to the criminal collection statutes in Nevada? In Nevada, criminal prosecutions to collect casino debts are not considered a violation of the discharge injunction or the automatic stay. Nash v. Clark Cty Dist. Attorney (In re Nash), 464 B.R. 874 (9th Cir. BAP 2012) held that the Clark County District Attorney had not violated the discharge injunction when enforcing the criminal statute even though the statute was clearly designed to collect unpaid casino debts for the benefit of the casino. Does the automatic stay analysis change if the tax debt is otherwise dischargeable and likely to become legally unenforceable?
Judicial review. Section 7345(e) grants judicial review of certification to the Tax Court and district courts but not to bankruptcy courts. Section 7345(d) provides that notice of certification shall be given to the taxpayer and the notice shall include information about the right to contest the certification. Notice of reversal of certification must also be given to the taxpayer.
If the taxpayer and the government disagree whether the debt remains legally enforceable after bankruptcy, there may be a back-door entrance into bankruptcy court. Denial or revocation of a passport might subject the taxing authority to an action for a violation of the discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 524. Damages, including attorney’s fees, are notoriously difficult to collect because of the exceptions in section 7433 of the Internal Revenue Code. Given the uncertainty of the new law, one can certainly envision the IRS arguing that its position was substantially justified.
Bankruptcy isn’t the only problem with the passport revocation law.
‘Section 7345(b)(1)(A) provides that the tax debt must have been assessed and be legally enforceable before it can be SDTD. […] In addition, Section 7345(b)(1)(B) and (C) require both an “age” component and a size component before tax debt can be SDTD. As to the “age” component, for the assessed and legally enforceable tax debt to be converted into SDTD, the tax liability must have been subject to a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) and the accompanying administrative rights for seeking a collection due process (CDP) hearing are exhausted or have elapsed, or, the tax liability must have been the subject of a levy.’
So a Tax Court petition doesn’t even count. If a CDP hearing upheld a lien or intent to levy, and even if the IRS intends to concede after Tax Court calendar call that the IRS had no basis for the lien or intent to levy, the IRS can win by preventing the victim from getting to Tax Court. Revoke the victim’s passport so the immigration department of the victim’s country of residence will arrest the victim[*], and take their sweet time dithering about whether they’ll issue a restricted passport until after Tax Court dismisses for missing calendar call.
Is assessment really required, or just legal enforceability? If a CDP hearing upheld a lien or intent to levy, and even if the IRS concedes in Tax Court that there was no assessment, the tax debt is still legally enforceable. Tax Court can prohibit collection by means of lien or levy, but the IRS can proceed to collect by other means, and Court of Federal Claims can either allow the collection or refuse to take jurisdiction because the unassessed debt has only partially been collected. The CDP hearing has been exhausted, legally.
Of course CDP hearings have their own problems, such as not providing due process by not revealing the IRS’s underlying alleged basis for the alleged debt which might or might not have actually been assessed, thereby not providing the victim with opportunity to dispute the underlying basis and call appropriate witnesses. Having not been provided an examination hearing or notice of deficiency, I don’t know if this kind of notice and opportunity might be available in such kinds of pre-collection hearings when such hearings are provided.
Of course there are other problems too, such as sending a registered letter to the IRS in Washington DC, seeing the registered letter tracked to USPS in New York, and then seeing it disappear with no delivery, no return, and no answer to postal inquiry. Anything they can do to set the stage for passport revocation, it looks like they’ll do it.
[* Section 7345 wasn’t the reason for revoking Bobby Fischer’s passport, but the technique is the same.]
>So a Tax Court petition doesn’t even count
The statute reads “administrative rights … have exhausted or elapsed.” As § 6320(c) incorporates the provisions of § 6330(d), which provides for a Tax Court hearing, I think your premise that a Tax Court petition does not count is incorrect.
>Is assessment really required
Yes, § 7345(b)(1)(A).
Your point about lack of notice because of USPS problems is well-taken.
What is the impact on those with dual citizenship? If a person is abroad in a country in which that individual also happens to have citizenship, and the IRS revokes the individual’s U.S. passport, what then?
Great question. Here is a link to a state department web site on dual citizenship. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal-considerations/us-citizenship-laws-policies/citizenship-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html
Here are some thoughts. Passport revocations of citizens overseas will most likely include a time limit to reenter the US. That is implied in Fast Act § 32101(e). If the dual citizen chooses to remain overseas, one would think that the dual citizen can just use the “other” country’s passport. Will that person be barred from entering the US because of the revoked US passport? Will that person lose US citizenship because that person is using “another” country’s passport? If the answer to the last question is yes, wouldn’t that trigger the expatriation tax? If the citizen already has SDTD, would the expatriation tax ever be collected?
Ken Weil replid to me:
“As § 6320(c) incorporates the provisions of § 6330(d), which provides for a Tax Court hearing, I think your premise that a Tax Court petition does not count is incorrect.”
Provision for a Tax Court hearing is a judicial right (by statute, as if the Fifth Amendment didn’t already provide it). If judicial rights were treated as administrative rights, lots of people would be denied judicial rights, because they have to exhaust administrative rights before a court acquires jurisdiction.
abc’s question is an understatement: “If a person is abroad in a country in which that individual also happens to have citizenship, and the IRS revokes the individual’s U.S. passport, what then?”
If a person has two or more citizenships, regardless of whether one of them is the country of residence or physical presence, what then? Bobby Fischer was in jail until Iceland issued him a passport, and Japan deported him to Iceland instead of to the US. If this statute had existed when IRS employees[*] framed me for fraud, and if the asserted[**] penalties had been just a bit larger, and if my Japanese immigration stamps were still in my US passport, they could get me arrested too. By coincidence my Japanese immigration stamps had already been moved to my Canadian passport for different reasons, so hypothetical revocation of my US passport would only prevent me from travelling to the US while I held US citizenship.
Ken Weil responded with questions:
‘If the dual citizen chooses to remain overseas, one would think that the dual citizen can just use the “other” country’s passport.’
Yes, except for entry to the US and exit from the US.
‘Will that person be barred from entering the US because of the revoked US passport?’
Almost. A different statute requires US citizens to use US passports to enter and exit the US. I think they can’t be legally be barred but they can be jailed. However, in view of the INS’s historical tendency to deport US citizens, I’m not sure if today’s successor to the IRS could do barring too.
‘Will that person lose US citizenship because that person is using “another” country’s passport?’
No. If a US citizen or US non-citizen national has performed a potentially expatriating act then subsequent use of a non-US passport to enter or exit the US could be used as evidence that the person had intent to expatriate at the time of performing the potentially expatriating act. But simply use (illegally) of a non-US passport to enter or exit the US is not itself one of the listed potentially expatriating acts. (I used to be confused on this matter too. Experts at isaacbrocksociety.ca set me straight.)
[* Likely including Monica Henandez.]
[** Some of them assessed.]
I typoed: ” However, in view of the INS’s historical tendency to deport US citizens, I’m not sure if today’s successor to the IRS could do barring too.”
That should say today’s successor to the INS. Though in this context, it’s the IRS too.
Here is a statute supporting Mr. Diamond’s statement regarding dual citizens entering the US.
8 USC § 1185(b). Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid United States passport.
Another web site indicated that you could not get a US visa if you are also a US citizen. So, even more problems for the dual citizen. Presumably, the “other” passport will allow the person to travel elsewhere in the world.
Guess I am going to learn more about CBP (Customs and Border Protection) than I ever imagined.
Can a person with over $50,000 of IRS debt (and an IRS lien) who has already had her passport restricted set up a small IRS Installment Agreement and THEN get the passport restriction removed/released by the State Department or by IRS and then be able to visit her daughter in Europe?
“Can a person with over $50,000 of IRS debt (and an IRS lien) who has already had her passport restricted set up a small IRS Installment Agreement and THEN get the passport restriction removed/released”
The blog posting indicates yes:
‘Section 7345(b)(2) sets out the events that prevent debt from being SDTD. These events are the taxpayer is (i) in an installment agreement (IA), (ii) […], (iii) […], or […].’
‘Section 7345(c)(1) provides that certification shall be reversed if the debt “ceases to be seriously delinquent tax debt by reason of subsection (b)(2).”’
>Mr. Blanton’s question of May 5.
I agree with Mr. Diamond. The new installment agreement should provide grounds to have the revocation reversed.
If an individuals tax debt exceeds 50,000 and has been placed in non collectable status can the irs still revoke/deny a passport?
Currently not collectible (CNC)status is an administrative designation and not one mentioned in the Code. Nothing in the statute creating revocation or denial of a passport addresses your question which means that a taxpayer could have their debt designated for referral to the State Department unless the IRS adopts administrative procedures which would cause it not to refer a case in CNC status. My guess is that the IRS will not adopt an administrative practice exempting individuals in CNC status and that an individual in CNC status who otherwise meets the criteria under the statute could have their passport revoked or denied.
The title asks if bankruptcy filing would get passport back however I didn’t see that answered. So if the debt is certified would a chapter 13 filing reverse that? Wouldn’t a 13 be considered a form of payment plan?