§7485 — Bond to stay assessment and collection
30 cases·13 followed·2 distinguished·1 questioned·1 criticized·13 cited—43% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §7485
Notwithstanding any provision of law imposing restrictions on the assessment and collection of deficiencies, the review under section 7483 shall not operate as a stay of assessment or collection of any portion of the amount of the deficiency determined by the Tax Court unless a notice of appeal in respect of such portion is duly filed by the taxpayer, and then only if the taxpayer—
on or before the time his notice of appeal is filed has filed with the Tax Court a bond in a sum fixed by the Tax Court not exceeding double the amount of the portion of the deficiency in respect of which the notice of appeal is filed, and with surety approved by the Tax Court, conditioned upon the payment of the deficiency as finally determined, together with any interest, additional amounts, or additions to the tax provided for by law, or
has filed a jeopardy bond under the income or estate tax laws.
If as a result of a waiver of the restrictions on the assessment and collection of a deficiency any part of the amount determined by the Tax Court is paid after the filing of the appeal bond, such bond shall, at the request of the taxpayer, be proportionately reduced.
The condition of subsection (a) shall be satisfied if the partnership duly files notice of appeal from a decision under section 6234 and on or before the time the notice of appeal is filed with the Tax Court, a bond in an amount fixed by the Tax Court is filed, and with surety approved by the Tax Court, conditioned upon the payment of deficiencies attributable to the partnership-related items (as defined in section 6241) to which that decision relates as finally determined, together with any interest, penalties, additional amounts, or additions to the tax provided by law. Unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, the amount fixed by the Tax Court shall be based upon its estimate of the aggregate liability of the parties to the action.
For requirement of additional security notwithstanding this section, see section 7482(c)(3).
For deposit of United States bonds or notes in lieu of sureties, see
section 9303 of title 31
, United States Code.
30 Citing Cases
We need not decide whether, in some circumstances, ignorance of the law might excuse the ignorant and unwitting taxpayer from liability for the addition unde r section 6651(a)(3), since this case involves an experienced tax lawyer well able to determine his rights and obligations under section 7485(a) .
Section 7485 provides that, "[n]otwithstanding any provision oflaw imposing restrictions on the assessment and collection ofdeficiencies, * * * [appellate] review under section 7483 shall not operate as a stay ofassessment or collection - 8 - [*8] ofany portion of* * * the deficiency determined by the Tax Court" unless
- 8 - However, section 7485 provides that respondent may assess a deficiency and initiate collection during an appeal from the Tax Court unless the taxpayerposts a bond, which petitioner did not do.
In Jacobsoh, a bond was filed pursuant to section 7485 in order to stay the assessment and collection of deficiencies during the pendency of;the appeal.
Following this Court's entry ofdecision in the deficiency case, on July 19, 2010, petitioner moved to waive the section 7485 bond requirementto stay assessment and collection pending appeal or to set the bond at the lowest amount possible.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit without filing a bond under section 7485 to stay assessment and collection .
The estate did not post a bond under section 7485 to stay the assessment or collection of the tax liabilities in dispute during the pendency of the appeals .
In Jacobson, a bond was filed pursuant to section 7485 in order to stay the assessment and collection of deficiencies during the pendency of the appeal.
The estate did not file a bond pursuant to section 7485 in order to stay the assessment or collection of the deficiency during the pendency of the appeal.
Commissioner, supra. Petitioners contend that it was unreasonable for respondent to pursue further collection after that date. In contrast, we conclude that it was unreasonable for respondent to pursue further collection after October 1, 1996.17 16 Sec. 7485 provides, in relevant part, as follows: SEC. 7485 BOND TO STAY ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION. (a) Upon Notice of Appeal.--Notwithstanding any provision of law imposing restrictions on the assessment and collection of deficiencies, the review un
Petitioner argued that section 7485 is a defense to the claim in his petition that the assessments were premature and therefore respondent waived the provisions ofsection 7485 by failing to refer to them in his answer. Ex parte communications. Petitioner argued that the emails between Settlement Officer Chavez and Office ofChiefCounse
Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit without filing a bond under section 7485 to stay assessment and collection.
Petitioner did not -file a bón under esection 7485, however, to stay assessment and collection - 4 - Without a bond to stay, assessment and collection, respondent issued petitioner a Statutory Notice of Balance Due on March 1, 2004.
Other Matters Considered at the Section 6330 Hearing Section 6330(c) (1) and (3) provides that the settlement officer must (1) verify that the requirements of applicable law and administrative procedure have been met, and (2) consider whether the proposed collection action balances the need for the efficient collection of taxes with the legitimate concern of the taxpayer that any collection
But section 7485 trumps this by stating tha t (continued . . .) - 7 - trying to collect it . In April 2005, the Commissioner sent them a notice that he intended to levy upon their property to collect what was by then more than $10,000 . They each mailed back a timely request for a collection due process (CDP) hearing . Before the hearing, the Kovacevi
any way that respondent’s determination is erroneous, and he has presented only frivolous long-discredited arguments to the Court. He has not properly prosecuted this case, and dismissal is appropriate. 4 Petitioner did not file an appeal bond, see sec. 7485, and, therefore, respondent was free to proceed with assessment and collection for the years in issue. - 5 - filed with the County Recorder, Maricopa County, Arizona, a Notice of Federal Tax Lien regarding petitioner’s unpaid income taxes fo
6851 or 6861, no levy or proceeding in court shall be made, begun, or prosecuted against the individual making an election under subsection (b) or (c) for collection of any assessment to which such election relates until the close of the 90th day referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii), or, if a petition has been filed with the Tax Court under subparagraph (A), until the decision of the Tax Court has become final.
In response, petitioner raised the - 4 - argument that respondent, in waiving the right to respond to the petition for writ of certiorari, had also waived opposition to the issues presented in the petition. Petitioner also argued that because of respondent’s waiver petitioner is entitled to a $300 refund. On April 17, 2002, respondent i