Opinion
16529-18L
09-27-2024
ORDER
Joseph H. Gale, Judge
In this collection due process case, petitioner seeks review pursuant to I.R.C. § 6330(d)(1) of the determination of the Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals (Appeals) 1 that respondent properly seized a state income tax refund of $152.74 to collect petitioner's federal income tax due for the taxable year 2010. In response to a previous Order, respondent requested that we remand this case to Appeals for a supplemental hearing to consider whether the return of the seized refund would be in the best interests of both petitioner and the Government. See I.R.C. § 6343(d)(2)(D).
We are satisfied that the parties are likely to resolve the issues in this case at a supplemental hearing, and we therefore conclude that remanding this case would be productive and would conserve the Court's limited time and resources. See Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 189 (2001). Accordingly, on the Court's own motion, it is
ORDERED that this case is remanded to respondent's Independent Office of Appeals for the purpose of affording petitioner a supplemental administrative hearing to consider whether respondent should return to petitioner the seized state income tax refund of $152.74. It is further
ORDERED that respondent shall offer petitioner a supplemental administrative hearing at such place as may be mutually agreed upon (or by telephone or video conference if preferable) at a reasonable and mutually agreed upon date and time, but no later than December 26, 2024. It is further
1 On July 1, 2019, the IRS Office of Appeals was renamed the IRS Independent Office of Appeals. See Taxpayer First Act, Pub. L. No. 116-25, § 1001, 133 Stat. 981, 983 (2019).
ORDERED that each party shall, on or before January 27, 2025, file with the Court a report regarding the then present status of this case. Respondent shall attach to his report the Supplemental Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under Sections 6320 and/or 6330 issued to petitioner, if any.