CCA 200909036: Third-party clause did not block collection of assumed tax liability

Number
200909036
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Transferred Assets (See 9113.00-00)
Code sections
§ 6901
Ruling dated
August 8, 2008
Publicly released
February 27, 2009

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2009, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2009
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A contract apparently both transferred tax liabilities and barred third parties from obtaining rights under the agreement. Chief Counsel advised that the provisions were inconsistent unless the assumed tax liabilities were meant to be paid as part of the purchase price. The IRS was not acting as a third party in enforcing that promise. It stood in the transferor's shoes and could sue on grounds available to the transferor, including failure to provide promised consideration.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Did a no-third-party-rights clause prevent the IRS from collecting tax liabilities assumed in a contract?
  • Outcome: Advice given: no, the IRS could stand in the transferor's shoes to enforce the assumed liability.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6901, as identified by the document's UILC classification.

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-088949-08 Number: 200909036
Release Date: 2/27/2009
Office:
UILC: 6901.00-00

From: -----------
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:49 AM
To: -------------------------
Cc: ----------------------------
Subject: ------------------------------------

----------------------------------
--------

I managed to lose your email but I recall your question as being about taxpayer's position that a provision in the contract barring 3d parties from obtaining rights under the contract prevents the government from collecting on the basis of assumption of tax liability by the contract.

Assuming that both provisions exist in the contract, they are inconsistent. Either the tax liabilities have been assumed or they have not. If assumed, it must be for payment (and thereby collection by the IRS); this is an element of the purchase price for which the transferor can sue. Note that the IRS is not a 3d party in this matter; we stand in the shoes of the taxpayer (transferor) and can bring suit on whatever ground the transferor, who is a party to the contract, could have brought suit upon, including failure to provide a portion of the promised consideration.

----

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace