Ezel / IRS Rulings / 1320019
Chief Counsel Advice 1320019 Released May 17, 2013 Advice

CCA 1320019: Civil liabilities and criminal restitution assessments must be kept distinct

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2013, 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 2013
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

The memorandum considers whether Exam may use a closing agreement to resolve civil tax liabilities and penalties for tax periods covered by a federal district court's restitution order in a criminal tax case. It says the Service's civil determination is separate from the court's restitution order. A closing agreement for those periods does not affect the Service's required assessment under IRC § 6201(a)(4)(A) of court-ordered restitution. The memorandum advises making that distinction clear in the closing agreement and cautions that the Service cannot collect both amounts in full for the same tax period.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: May a closing agreement resolve civil liabilities for tax periods also covered by a criminal restitution order?
  • Outcome: Advice given
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6201(a)(4)(A)

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2013043011575554
Office: --------------
UILC: 6201.00-00
Number: 201320019
Release Date: 5/17/2013
From: --------------------------
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:57:57 AM
To: ------------------
Cc:
Subject: RE: IVT

We cannot envision a systematic problem with Exam using a closing agreement to resolve any civil tax
liabilities, including penalties, for tax periods already covered by federal district court's order of restitution
in a criminal tax case. The Service's determination of civil tax liabilities and penalties for a tax period is
separate and distinct from a court's order of restitution. Please note, however, that the use of a closing
agreement for those tax periods will have no bearing or effect on the Service's required assessment
under section 6201(a)(4)(A) of an amount ordered as restitution. Although not required, it is advisable
that the language of the closing agreement make it clear to the taxpayer that the closing agreement has
no bearing on the assessment of court ordered restitution under section 6201(a)(4). Also, as you know,
the Service will be precluded from collecting in full both the restitution-based assessment and the civil tax
liabilities under the closing agreement for the same tax period (i.e., restitution is ordered with respect to
the period ending December of 2005, and the closing agreement also covers the tax period ending
December of 2005) because that would be double collection for the same tax period.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2013, 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.