Ezel / IRS Rulings / 1030026
Chief Counsel Advice 1030026 Released July 30, 2010 Advice

CCA 1030026: An IRA levy could be considered when it was the taxpayer's only asset

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2010, 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 2010
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 resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, 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

Chief Counsel Advice discusses whether Collection could levy an IRA when it was the taxpayer's only asset and the taxpayer refused to liquidate it voluntarily. The advice states that the revenue officer could make a case for flagrancy if the taxpayer was not retired and had continued contributing while knowing taxes were owed. It also notes that these levies required managerial approval by the Area Director of Collection, and that such levies had been approved. The advice states that Collection could levy the account if it followed the steps in the Internal Revenue Manual, while recommending review of the collection history to determine why a levy had not been made.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Could Collection levy an IRA that was the taxpayer's only asset under the stated facts?
  • Outcome: Advice given
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6330; IRM 5.11.6.2

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-712120-10 Number: 201030026
Release Date: 7/30/2010
Office: ----------
UILC: 6330.00-00

From:-------------------
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:09 PM
To:------------------
Cc:-----------------------
Subject: CDP

I spoke with -------------the Levy Analyst with respect to IRM 5.11.6.2. In his
experience, if the taxpayer has no other assets but refuses to liquidate the IRA
and make a voluntary payment, then the RO can make a case for flagrancy. Since
the taxpayer is not in retirement status it is also entirely possible that he has
been making contributions to the retirement account knowing he owes taxes which
is an example of flagrancy. (But then he might have a job and the Service should
levy his wages. Perhaps he has lost his job recently.) These levies must have
managerial approval by the Director of Collection in the Area. --- says these types
of levies have been approved. I cannot figure out why Collection did not levy if this
was the taxpayer's only asset. --- says that some ROs think they cannot levy on the
account if the taxpayer asks them to. But of course they can if they follow the
steps in the IRM. You probably need to go back and look at all the history from
Collection to determine why they wouldn't levy and why the AP agrees with them.
Please let us know if you need any further assistance.

---

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2010, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.