IRS Collection From Business Partner’s Property – Houston Tax Attorneys


Many business owners choose to acquire and operate their businesses with partners. This allows them to divide the responsibilities and share the risks and the rewards.

But what happens when one business partner falls behind on their federal taxes? Could the tax-compliant partner’s share of the business and business assets be at risk? Can the IRS seize and sell the tax-compliant partner’s assets? Can the IRS do this even if it effectively terminates the business?

The IRS has broad collection powers when it comes to delinquent taxes. Few realize that these powers can extend beyond the delinquent taxpayer to innocent third parties who own property jointly with the taxpayer, such as a business partner. While the law provides a remedy for spouses who file jointly and own joint property, there is no such remedy for business partners who are not spouses.

The recent decision in United States v. Driscoll, Civil Action 18-11762 (RK) (RLS) (D.N.J. Jan. 6, 2025), provides an opportunity to consider what business owners need to know to protect themselves in this situation.

Facts & Procedural History

The case involved a dental practice in New Jersey that was operated by two dentists. The dental practice was operated as an LLC formed under state law. Each of the dentists owned a 50 percent interest in the dental practice. They also both owned a 50 percent interest in the office building in which the dental practice operated.

One of the dentists failed to pay federal income taxes for nearly a decade. He owed approximately $500,000 in back taxes. The IRS eventually filed tax liens against the taxpayer’s property interests and filed suit to force the sale of both the entire dental practice LLC and the entire office building.

The innocent business partner did not owe back taxes and had no tax liability. He opposed the forced sale. He argued that forcing him to sell his interests would require him to close his practice, lay off employees, and abandon his patient relationships. The business partner offered alternative solutions, such as allowing the IRS to sell only the taxpayer’s 50 percent interests or using a charging order against the taxpayer’s LLC interest.

The IRS rejected the partner’s proposals and asked the court to force the sale of the entire dental practice LLC and the entire interest in the real estate.

The Authority to Force Property Sales

The IRS’s power to collect delinquent taxes starts with Section 6321 of the tax code. This law allows the IRS to place a lien on “all property and rights to property” belonging to a delinquent taxpayer. This law has a very broad scope. It covers virtually any property interest the taxpayer owns, from real estate to business interests to financial accounts. The IRS lien can even reach certain trust assets, but maybe not if the trust is structured properly.

The filing of the IRS lien notice itself is not a high hurdle for the IRS. The lien notice is just a pre-printed form that is filed into the public records and mailed to the taxpayer’s last known address. The IRS files these in bulk with the various county clerks and secretary of state’s offices across the country. This is all that is required for the lien to be “filed.”

Once a lien notice has been filed, Section 7403 gives the IRS the authority to ask a court to force the sale of property to satisfy the unpaid tax debt. As relevant in this case, this authority extends beyond just the taxpayer’s interest. The court can order the sale of the entire property. This is true even when innocent third parties own portions of the property.

Notably, the statute uses the word “may” in describing the court’s powers. This opens the door for the courts to have some discretion in whether to order the foreclosure and sale of property.

The Rodgers Factor Analysis

Recognizing the potential harshness of forced sales on innocent co-owners, the Supreme Court established a factor test for the courts to consider in determining whether a forced sale is appropriate. These factors are set out in United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677 (1983) and have come to be known as the Rodgers factors.

The Rodgers factors say that the courts must consider four key factors in deciding whether to allow the IRS to foreclose on jointly-owned property:

  1. Financial prejudice to the government if limited to selling only the taxpayer’s interest
  2. Whether the innocent owner would expect their interest to be protected from a forced sale
  3. Prejudice to the innocent owner, including practical and personal costs
  4. The relative value and character of the liable and non-liable interests

In practice, courts tend to focus heavily on whether there’s a realistic market for selling just the taxpayer’s interest. If selling a partial interest would significantly reduce the sale price or make finding a buyer difficult, courts are more likely to order a complete sale.

In this case, the court found almost all of the factors in supported selling the entire dental practice LLC and the entire real estate in which it operated. The court reasoned that there was no market for buying a partial interest in these assets and, surprisingly, that there was no harm to the innocent taxpayer as he would receive payment for his interests.

Charging Order vs. Section 7403 Forced Sale

To understand this case, we also have to consider the difference between a charging order and the IRS’s Section 7403 forced sale power.

The innocent partner in this case argued that the proper remedy was a charging order. The reason why he did that was that a charging order is a more limited remedy that:

  • Only redirects distributions/profits from the LLC to the creditor
  • Leaves the LLC ownership structure intact
  • Does not give the creditor management rights
  • Is typically the exclusive remedy available to private creditors under state LLC laws
  • Preserves the business as a going concern

In contrast, Section 7403 allows the IRS to:

  • Force the sale of the entire business and property
  • Extinguish all ownership interests
  • Override state law limitations
  • Terminate the business entirely
  • Convert all interests to cash proceeds

So while a charging order just diverts profits, Section 7403 allows the IRS to completely liquidate the business–a much more severe remedy that reflects the IRS’s unique collection powers under federal law.

The court in this case directly addressed this distinction. It rejected the innocent partner’s argument that a charging order should be used. The court explained that while state law limits regular creditors to charging orders, the IRS’s power under Section 7403 “does not arise out of its privileges as an ordinary creditor, but out of the express terms of § 7403.”

Application of Favorable State Law

Given this outcome, you may be wondering whether simply choosing a different state to form the LLC may have produced a different result for the LLC interest.

While some states (like Nevada or Wyoming) have stronger charging order protections for LLCs, the court in in this case made clear that state law protections don’t bind the IRS when it’s pursuing collection under Section 7403. The court explicitly stated that “neither New Jersey law nor the IRS manual binds the Court in this case” and that while state law defines the underlying property interests, “the consequences that attach to those interests is a matter left to federal law.”

So while favorable LLC jurisdictions might provide protection against private creditors, they might not prevent the IRS from forcing a sale of the entire business under Section 7403 when pursuing a tax-delinquent partner.

Adding Protections in Legal Agreements

This does not mean that business partners are without options. Partners can take several steps to protect themselves when drafting their partnership agreements and maybe even in real estate deeds.

For partnership agreements, partners can include several protective provisions. First, they can require all partners to maintain tax compliance and provide periodic proof, such as tax transcripts or certificates of compliance from taxing authorities. Second, they can include buyout rights that give non-delinquent partners the first opportunity to purchase a tax-delinquent partner’s interest before the IRS pursues collection (whether the delinquent partner is dead or live at the time or going through a divorce). These provisions should clearly specify both the triggering events and the process for exercising the buyout rights. Third, the agreement can establish specific valuation methods for partnership interests, such as predetermined formulas or procedures for obtaining third-party valuations. Having these valuation methods in place helps avoid disputes and expedites any necessary buyouts.

For real estate deeds, the parties can include contingent interests that automatically revert ownership back to the non-delinquent partner upon specific trigger events, such as tax liens being filed against the property. The deed can specify that each owner’s interest is conditioned upon maintaining tax compliance, with a reversionary right in favor of the other owner if this condition is breached. There are court cases with varying fact patterns where taxpayers have prevailed over the IRS by changing the real estate filings. There are other cases where transfers failed. While the effectiveness of such provisions against the IRS is uncertain, they may provide additional leverage in negotiations or court proceedings.

These protections must be established before any tax problems arise. Attempting to add these protections after tax issues exist could be viewed as an improper attempt to avoid collection. The IRS even has tools available to it for this circumstance too, including its right to pursue the innocent partner using the transferee liability statutes and, in more egregious cases, even criminal penalties.

The Takeaway

Business owners should understand that their business partner’s tax problems can directly affect their own interests in joint property. This is true even if one partner has done nothing wrong. To protect against this the partners may consider including provisions in partnership agreements that require partners to maintain tax compliance, give other partners rights to buy out a delinquent partner’s interest, and establish valuation methods for partner buyouts. Business partners might also benefit from adding language to real estate deeds for this contingency.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


Imagine working for years to resolve your tax problems and finally reaching an agreement with the IRS to settle your tax debt. You make all the required payments, fulfilling your part of the bargain.

You think you are in the clear, but say the IRS employees who worked on your case do not like you. Say that they send you a letter saying the IRS has decided to void the agreement entirely. When you ask why, the IRS refuses to provide specifics or allow you an opportunity to challenge its decision. Could a case like this ever happen? This question brings us to the Novoselsky v. United States, Case No. 24-cv-387-bhl (E.D. Wis. 2024) case.

Facts & Procedural History

The taxpayers in this case had negotiated and entered into an offer-in-compromise with the IRS for the 2009 to 2014 tax years. According to the court opinion, the taxpayers fulfilled all their obligations under the offer. As with the comment in the intro for this post, in May 2023, the IRS sent the taxpayers a letter revoking the offer and informing them it would restart tax collection proceedings.

The court opinion indicates that the taxpayers made various efforts to understand the basis for the revocation. The IRS’s response included only vague allegations about misrepresentations the taxpayers supposedly made concerning their home, including unclear claims about ownership interests and property values. When the taxpayers requested specific details about these alleged misrepresentations so they could attempt to address them, the IRS flatly refused. Instead of providing specifics or allowing any opportunity to cure potential issues, the IRS simply informed the taxpayers they had no right to even seek an internal review of the revocation decision.

The taxpayers then filed a civil action against the IRS, asserting that the IRS had revoked the offer based on “personal animus” against them. This dispute resulted in the court opinion at issue in this post. This case does not say who at the IRS would have had the personal animus, but it could have been any number of IRS employees. For example, if the case originated with a revenue officer, it could have been the revenue officer. The revenue officer generally does have the ability to influence the offer acceptance when they have the case prior to the offer being submitted.

About the Offer in Compromise

An offer-in-compromise allows taxpayers to settle their tax debt for less than the full amount owed. Congress granted the IRS authority to settle tax balances. The term “offer-in-compromise” is the name the IRS gave to the program it created under this authority.

The offer-in-compromise can be a great way to get a fresh start and to come into compliance. It brings in elements of bankruptcy discharge, without some of the negative aspects of bankruptcy. As with any government program providing relief, there are numerous requirements that one must meet to qualify. There are also drawbacks, such as an extension of the time the IRS has to collect.

Most offers are submitted by taxpayers based on doubt as to collectibility. With these offers, there is no challenge to whether the underlying liability is owed. Rather, the challenge centers on the taxpayer’s inability to pay the liability (there are other types of offers that can be made for the liability).

The taxpayer must submit a detailed application with comprehensive financial documentation and offer at least what the IRS calculates as their “reasonable collection potential.” The IRS evaluates offers based on the taxpayer’s ability to pay, income, household expenses, and asset equity. The IRS applies its collection rules to determine whether a taxpayer can pay the liability.

These requirements exist in addition to other standard qualifications, such as being current with all filing and payment requirements and not having an open bankruptcy proceeding.

When a taxpayer submits an offer, they must provide detailed financial information under penalties of perjury. But what obligation does the IRS have to verify this information before accepting the offer? And if the IRS fails to verify information it could have easily checked during the offer process, should it be able to later void the agreement based on that same information?

Contract Law Applies

The offer-in-compromise is fundamentally a contract. The courts have consistently held that contract law applies in resolving disputes related to offers.

Under basic contract law principles, a contract can be voided for fraudulent inducement when one party makes material misrepresentations that lead the other party to enter into the agreement. However, the party seeking to void the contract typically must show they reasonably relied on the misrepresentation and could not have discovered the truth through ordinary diligence.

The IRS’s actions in this case—claiming misrepresentation about readily verifiable property records without showing they actually verified anything—seem to fall short of this standard. But this raises an important question: can taxpayers actually sue the IRS for breach of contract?

Limited Remedies for Taxpayers

This case involved a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the IRS’s defense citing the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.

The Declaratory Judgment Act allows courts to issue declarations about parties’ legal rights in many situations. However, the Act specifically excludes cases “with respect to Federal taxes.” This tax exception is interpreted broadly and generally prevents courts from issuing declaratory judgments about tax matters.

The court held that determining whether the IRS properly revoked an offer falls squarely within this tax exception. Even though the taxpayers framed their argument in contract terms, the court found that the fundamental nature of the dispute involved federal taxes. Because reinstating the offer would effectively declare the taxpayers’ rights regarding their tax obligations, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the DJA. The stark conclusion: you cannot sue the IRS for breach of contract. The IRS is free to breach as it sees fit.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act provides another barrier. It generally prohibits suits that would restrain the assessment or collection of taxes. Congress enacted this law to ensure the government could collect taxes without judicial interference disrupting the flow of revenue. The Act essentially requires taxpayers to pay first and litigate later, with only a few narrow statutory exceptions.

In this case, the court found that the taxpayers’ attempt to reinstate their offer would effectively restrain the IRS’s ability to collect taxes. Even though the taxpayers argued they were merely seeking to enforce a contract, the court viewed this as an indirect attempt to stop tax collection. The court reasoned that because an offer by definition allows for payment of less than the full tax liability, forcing the IRS to honor the offer would interfere with its ability to collect the full tax amount.

Remedies After Collection Attempts

Absent these remedies, taxpayers who contract with the IRS are in a difficult position. They cannot preemptively challenge the IRS’s revocation of their contract through normal judicial channels. However, taxpayers may have alternative remedies once the IRS attempts collection.

A wrongful levy action under I.R.C. § 7426 could provide an opportunity to challenge the underlying validity of the tax debt and the offer revocation. This would require waiting until the IRS actually seizes property, but it might offer a path for judicial review that isn’t barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.

Taxpayers might also consider a Collection Due Process hearing, though the scope of review may be limited. In some cases, taxpayers might be able to file a refund suit if they can fully pay the liability for at least one tax period. None of these options are ideal, but they may provide some avenue for challenging an improper offer revocation.

The Takeaway

This case highlights a fundamental unfairness in tax administration. When taxpayers enter into offers, they must provide extensive financial documentation and make specific representations about their assets and income. The IRS scrutinizes this information before accepting an offer. Yet after acceptance, the IRS can apparently revoke the agreement based on vague allegations of misrepresentation, without having to prove or even clearly articulate what those misrepresentations were.

The practical implications are serious. Taxpayers who have fulfilled their obligations under an offer and moved forward with their lives can suddenly find themselves back at square one, facing their original tax liability plus additional interest and penalties. The lack of meaningful review or appeal rights makes the IRS’s revocation power nearly absolute.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link