Lien enforcement actions and the extent to which those actions are related to the collection of the underlying taxes, and the extent to which compliance with the levy is warranted by the level of noncompliance with the tax laws that the debtor has been charged with. In these cases, the courts found that the taxpayers were not in compliance with the tax laws because they had not filed returns for tax years 2006, 2007, and 2008. In each case, the IRS prepared substitute returns for the taxpayers and attempted to collect the taxes based on those returns. None of the courts ruled in the government's favor, even though the taxes had not been paid. The courts expressed skepticism about the IRS's motive for filing the lien actions. The IRS is an agency whose primary mission is to collect taxes. A lien will be imposed when a tax has not been paid. Thus, the filing of a tax lien without a tax liability assessment is an odd way to collect unpaid taxes. However, in each case, the IRS asserted that it filed the lien because of serious noncompliance by the taxpayer with the tax laws. If this assertion was accurate, the IRS would be justified in filing a lien. In these cases, the IRS tried to justify its lien actions as being based on the taxpayer's failure to file the required returns and pay the resulting taxes. But the taxpayers contended that, even though they did not file the returns and pay the tax, the amounts on which they had been assessed by the IRS were incorrect, and the IRS could not collect the unpaid taxes. Therefore, these cases were not about the taxpayers' failure to file returns and pay taxes. The cases were only about the IRS's attempts to collect those unpaid taxes. Thus, even if the IRS was right about the amount of unpaid taxes and compliance with the tax laws, the court would have to reject the lien actions if the IRS knew that the taxpayer was not in compliance with the tax laws. And the courts found evidence that this was the case in all of these cases. In each case, it was apparent that the IRS had already assessed income taxes, penalties, and interest, based on a tax return prepared by the IRS for a prior tax year. The assessments were based on an audit of the taxpayers' financial records for the prior year. An examination of that tax return would have revealed the tax problem in all three cases. As a result, the court ruled that the lien actions were not justified. The IRS did not appeal any of the three cases. But it did file one new case in the Southern District of New York, which was assigned to me. The IRS's lawyer in that case asked me to enter a judgment in favor of the IRS. The IRS had not appealed my opinion in any of the three earlier cases and had not filed its own motion for reconsideration in any of those cases. After the three earlier cases were filed, I sent the taxpayers' lawyers a letter stating that I believed that I should grant the taxpayers' motion for a summary judgment dismissing the lien actions and that I had filed the motion for a summary judgment in order to facilitate appellate review. The IRS did not appeal my earlier rulings even though it had a right to appeal. The IRS's New Case In the case that the IRS filed after the three earlier cases, the IRS took a different position on the facts and the law. In this case, the taxpayer had filed a return in January 2013, for a tax year in which he reported income of $0. The return did not indicate that there was any tax due. The return did not include a W-2 or other W-3 form. The return included no payment with the return. The return did not include any of the IRS's standard forms indicating that the taxpayer owed any tax. The IRS filed a substitute return based on the taxpayer's estimate of his tax liability for that year. The substitute return had an attachment that included a list of the taxpayer's income for that year. That attachment stated that the taxpayer owed $9,760 in income tax for that year. However, it did not indicate that there was any income tax due for the previous tax year. This case raises an interesting question: In a case in which there is no tax liability on the return, and no attached statement of any tax liability, can the IRS prepare a substitute return, including a statement that the taxpayer owes a substantial amount of tax, and use that substitute return to start collection proceedings? In other words, can the IRS rely on the Tax Court to resolve the taxpayer's dispute with the IRS over liability for a tax without even contacting the taxpayer? The taxpayer filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing that the IRS's substitute return did not show that there was any income tax due and that the IRS could not rely on that return. He relied on the fact that his return did not include any payment and a Schedule E that showed his net worth. The taxpayer also filed a motion for sanctions on the ground that the IRS had filed a frivolous claim and refused to withdraw it. The taxpayer asked for sanctions in the amount of the attorney's fees that the taxpayer had incurred as a result of the filing of the motion for summary judgment and for sanctions for a frivolous complaint. The taxpayer relied on Revenue Ruling 75-464, which provides that "there is no authority for the institution of such [taxpayer] proceedings to test the correctness of the amount of the deficiency" and that proceedings may not be instituted solely for that purpose. Under 26 USC § 6213(a), a taxpayer is required to file a petition in Tax Court if the IRS files a notice of deficiency in the amount of a tax or a statement that no deficiency has been determined. The taxpayer filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the IRS had filed an improper substitute return and that the substitute return was not a notice of deficiency. The IRS's position was that the substitute return was a notice of deficiency and that the return prepared by the IRS was a reasonable estimate of the taxpayer's tax liability. However, the IRS did not move to dismiss the action on that ground. The taxpayer filed a cross motion for summary judgment. The government responded to the taxpayer's motions, arguing that the substitute return was not a substitute return, that the tax court did not have jurisdiction to hear a case based solely on the taxpayer's motion for summary judgment, and that the taxpayer's motion for summary judgment was not a motion to dismiss the action and should not be construed as a motion for sanctions. The IRS also argued that its substitute return was a notice of deficiency. In May 2017, I granted the taxpayer's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the IRS did not have the authority to prepare a substitute return and was not entitled to dispute the taxpayer's position on whether there was a deficiency. The IRS filed a timely appeal of that ruling, which is pending in the Second Circuit. The taxpayer moved for attorney's fees and sanctions against the IRS, but he failed to show that any part of the IRS's position was not substantially justified. The taxpayer also filed a motion for sanctions against the IRS based on 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a)(1), which authorizes IRS agents to issue summonses and subpoenas for the purposes of determining a person's liability for taxes. This case raises an interesting question: In cases in which there is no dispute about the amount of tax or liability, can the IRS issue a summons or subpoena? The taxpayer alleged that the IRS was using the summons to collect an amount that was greater than what the taxpayer owed, and the taxpayer made this argument without any factual basis. The taxpayer also argued that the IRS had not filed the summons in good faith because the IRS knew that it had no reason to issue a summons. In my response to the taxpayer's motions, I rejected the taxpayer's argument about the absence of good faith. However, I granted the taxpayer's request for sanctions and denied his request for attorney's fees. I found that the taxpayer had been forced to engage in litigation with the IRS only because the IRS has forced taxpayers to respond to an improper practice of filing frivolous lawsuits as a way of resolving disputed tax liabilities. The Government Is Still Litigating The government has appealed my decision and its appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. The IRS was unable to identify any other collection actions that it has filed against the taxpayer that rely on a substitute return and are not based on the taxpayer's failure to pay the assessed tax. The IRS may file a new case in which it claims that the taxpayer owed a substantial amount of income tax based on the taxpayer's failure to file a return and pay the tax. The IRS did file such a case, but it did not identify any facts supporting the alleged tax deficiency. So, based on the IRS's litigation record, it is apparent that the IRS does not have a reasonable basis for disputing the taxpayer's factual position, which is that he has