Taxpayer’s Refusal to Provide Financial Information Constitutes Sufficient Grounds to Sustain Levy Under IRC §6330(c)(3)(C)

Introduction

In Martin G. Plotkin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (11th Cir. No. 24-10667, May 15, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit addressed the scope of the IRS’s authority under the Collection Due Process (“CDP”) provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 6330. Petitioner Martin Plotkin, a former attorney convicted of filing false tax returns, accrued approximately $1.8 million in unpaid federal income taxes for tax years 1991–1995. After numerous proceedings in the Tax Court and this Court, the IRS issued a notice of intent to levy. The central issue on appeal was whether the IRS Appeals Office abused its discretion under the “balancing test” of § 6330(c)(3)(C) by sustaining the levy without petitioner’s financial disclosure and despite his refusal to request or cooperate with any collection alternative.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Tax Court’s decision sustaining the IRS notice of levy, subject to minor abatements the IRS had conceded.
The court held that an initial inclusion of $15,073.68 in expired assessments did not invalidate the collection action because the IRS promptly abated the error and issued a corrected supplemental notice.
Under § 6330(c)(1), the IRS’s account transcripts and the supplemental notice of determination satisfied all verification and procedural requirements.
Under § 6330(c)(3)(C), the Appeals Office did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the levy when petitioner never requested a collection alternative and repeatedly refused to submit the required Form 433-A (Collection Information Statement).
Challenges to the Tax Court judge’s authority and due process were rejected, as the judge was properly “recalled” under 26 U.S.C. § 7447(c) and no bias or jurisdictional defect appeared.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Plotkin v. Commissioner, 498 F. App’x 954 (11th Cir. 2012) — Affirmed petitioner’s underlying tax deficiencies and fraud penalties under I.R.C. § 7206(1).
26 U.S.C. § 6330 — Establishes CDP hearings (subsection (b)), requires verification of legal and procedural requirements (subsection (c)(1)), and imposes the balancing test (subsection (c)(3)(C)).
Ginsberg v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 88 (2008) — Minor errors in a levy notice do not invalidate collection if promptly cured and taxpayer is not prejudiced.
Kelby v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 79 (2008) — The last supplemental determination on remand is the Commissioner’s controlling position.
Sapp v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.M. (CCH) 1177 (2006) — Sustained levy where petitioner ignored multiple requests for a Form 433-A.
Byers v. Commissioner, 740 F.3d 668 (D.C. Cir. 2014) — Upheld the constitutionality of recalled Tax Court judges under § 7447(c).

Legal Reasoning

Verification under § 6330(c)(1): The court applied the presumption of regularity to IRS account transcripts. The IRS’s abatement of the erroneously reinstated $15,073.68 cured any procedural defect, in line with Ginsberg and Kelby.
Balancing Test under § 6330(c)(3)(C): The Appeals Office must weigh the IRS’s interest in efficient collection against the taxpayer’s concern over intrusiveness. Here, Plotkin never requested an alternative (e.g., currently-not-collectible status or installment agreement) and refused to provide the financial disclosure (Form 433-A). The court held that such noncooperation justified sustaining the levy when no less-intrusive method could be evaluated.
Due Process and Judicial Authority: The court rejected petitioner’s claims of due process violations and lack of jurisdiction based on the judge’s recall status. Under 26 U.S.C. § 7447(c), a recalled Tax Court judge retains full authority, and no bias or procedural unfairness was shown.

Impact

This decision makes clear that taxpayers seeking to challenge or modify IRS levies in a CDP hearing must fully cooperate by submitting requested financial information. A taxpayer’s refusal to engage with the appeals process can itself satisfy the balancing test and result in the levy being sustained. The ruling will guide lower courts and IRS appeals officers in requiring substantive cooperation as a condition for considering collection alternatives.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Collection Due Process (CDP) Hearing: A pre-levy hearing under I.R.C. § 6330 that allows taxpayers to contest proposed levies or seek payment alternatives.
Form 433-A (Collection Information Statement): A detailed financial disclosure form used by the IRS to determine a taxpayer’s ability to pay, eligibility for installment agreements, offers in compromise, or currently-not-collectible status.
Balancing Test (§6330(c)(3)(C)): A statutory mandate requiring the IRS to consider whether a levy is the least intrusive means of collection relative to the taxpayer’s rights.
Currently-Not-Collectible Status: An administrative suspension of collection efforts when a taxpayer demonstrates an inability to pay.
Recalled Judge (§7447(c)): A judge whose active service term has expired but is formally recalled to continue hearing Tax Court cases with full judicial authority.

Conclusion

Plotkin v. Commissioner clarifies that in CDP hearings under I.R.C. § 6330, a taxpayer’s refusal to provide financial information can justify sustaining an IRS levy under the balancing test of § 6330(c)(3)(C). Administrative errors are not fatal if promptly corrected and if the taxpayer is not prejudiced. The decision also reaffirms the validity of recalled Tax Court judges under § 7447(c). By emphasizing the taxpayer’s obligation to cooperate with IRS appeals procedures, this precedent reinforces the procedural rigor required to contest or mitigate collection actions.