Attachment to Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing
Taxpayer: [Name(s) as shown on the notice] TIN: [SSN or EIN]
Address: [Address] Daytime telephone: [Phone]
Type of tax and periods: [Form 1040 / 941 and each period on the notice]
CDP notice: [Letter 1058 / LT11 / CP 90 / Letter 3172] dated [Date] (copy attached)
Date of this request: [Date]
1. Request for an equivalent hearing
The taxpayer requests an equivalent hearing with the IRS Independent Office of Appeals concerning the [proposed levy / filed Notice of Federal Tax Lien] described in the notice above, under Treas. Reg. [301.6330-1(i) / 301.6320-1(i)]. Box 2 of Form 12153 is checked. This request is made within the one-year period: [Levy notice: the notice is dated [date], and the one-year period beginning the day after that date ends on [date]. / Lien notice: the NFTL was filed on [date]; the five-business-day period ended on [date]; the one-year period beginning the next day ends on [date].]
2. Timeliness of the original request (if applicable)
[Keep only if there is a basis. The taxpayer contends the request for a CDP hearing was timely, or that the 30-day period should be equitably tolled, and asks Appeals to make a timeliness determination before treating this as an equivalent hearing: [the Form 12153 dated [date] was mailed on [date] by certified mail no. [number] to the address on the notice, within 30 days (receipt attached) / the request was faxed on [date] to the number given by the revenue officer (confirmation attached) / the request was mailed to the payment address shown on the notice, postmarked [date] / the taxpayer could not file within 30 days because [extraordinary circumstance, with dates and documents], and filed on [date], as soon as the circumstance ended]. If Appeals determines that the CDP request was timely, the taxpayer requests a CDP hearing and a Notice of Determination.]
3. Reasons for disagreement and issues for the hearing
- [Collection alternative: the taxpayer proposes [an installment agreement of $[amount] per month / an offer in compromise, Form 656 enclosed or to follow / currently not collectible status]. Form 433-A (or 433-F) dated [date] with substantiation is enclosed.]
- [Appropriateness of the action: the levy would create an economic hardship because [facts] / the NFTL filing was [premature or not in accordance with IRS procedures, facts] / a withdrawal under IRC 6323(j) is requested because [ground].]
- [Liability, only if there was no notice of deficiency and no prior opportunity to dispute it: the taxpayer disputes the liability for [period] because [reason], and did not receive [a notice of deficiency / Letter 1153 / a prior Appeals opportunity].]
- [Spousal defense: the taxpayer requests relief under IRC 6015 for [years]; Form 8857 is enclosed.]
- [Other: payments not credited, bankruptcy discharge, expired collection statute, with dates and documents.]
4. Compliance
All required returns for [years] have been filed. [Current year estimated tax payments / federal tax deposits are current as of [date].] [If not compliant: the returns for [years] will be filed by [date].]
5. Acknowledgment
The taxpayer understands that an equivalent hearing does not suspend the collection statute or, by statute, prohibit levy, and that Appeals will issue a decision letter rather than a Notice of Determination. [If a levy is threatened: The taxpayer asks that Collection be advised that the enclosed financial information shows levy would create an economic hardship, so that Appeals can respond accordingly if Collection proposes to levy while this hearing is pending.]
6. Enclosures
- Copy of the CDP notice [and the envelope]
- [Proof of mailing or fax confirmation of the original request, if section 2 applies]
- [Form 433-A or 433-F dated [date], with three months of bank statements and pay stubs / Form 433-B]
- [Form 656 / Form 8857 / proof of payments / discharge order]
- Form 2848
[Signature of taxpayer(s), or representative under Form 2848; both spouses for joint periods] [Date]
When this statement applies
Treas. Reg. 301.6330-1(i) gives a taxpayer who missed the 30-day CDP deadline an equivalent hearing on written request within one year. IRM 8.22.4.3 tells Appeals: “In an EH, follow the same procedures and consider the same issues as a CDP hearing.” The request has to ask for it: IRM 5.1.9.3.2.2 states that “Late CDP hearing requests are not automatically treated as EH requests.” Box 2 of Form 12153 (Rev. 7-2022) reads “If my request does not meet the requirements for a timely CDP hearing, I would like a hearing that is equivalent to a CDP hearing”; this statement repeats the request in the regulation’s words and adds what the form cannot hold. See equivalent hearings and Form 12153.
The statement also serves a request that is late but arguably timely. If a postmark, fax confirmation or delivery to the revenue officer shows the original request was within 30 days, section 2 asks Appeals to decide timeliness first (Craig, below). If no timeliness argument exists, delete section 2.
The one-year window and how it is measured
| Notice | Request must be made | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Levy notice under IRC 6330 | Within the one-year period commencing the day after the date of the CDP notice | Treas. Reg. 301.6330-1(i), A-I7 |
| Lien notice under IRC 6320 | Within the one-year period commencing the day after the end of the five-business-day period following the NFTL filing | Treas. Reg. 301.6320-1(i), A-I7; IRM 8.22.4.3 |
| Taxpayer abroad | Same periods; no extension | Treas. Reg. 301.6330-1(i), A-I9 |
A-I9 is explicit: “All taxpayers who want an equivalent hearing must request the hearing within the one-year period commencing the day after the date of the CDP Notice issued under section 6330.” IRC 7502 and 7503 apply (A-I8), so a request postmarked within the year and addressed to the office on the notice is timely, and IRM 5.1.9.3.2.2 treats fax or electronic transmission dates as receipt dates. The CDP deadline calculator computes both dates. After the year, A-I11 says the taxpayer forgoes the EH; the request goes to Appeals for a separate timeliness determination, and the options are the Collection Appeals Program, TAS, or equitable tolling, which IRM 8.22.5.3.2 applies to the one-year deadline as well.
What each section does
Section 1 supplies the elements of A-I1(ii): a dated request with name, address, daytime phone and TIN, the type of tax, the period, “A statement that the taxpayer is requesting an equivalent hearing with Appeals concerning the levy,” the reasons for disagreement and a signature. A request missing an element must be perfected within a reasonable time after the IRS asks (A-I1(iii)); one signed by a spouse or unauthorized representative must be affirmed by the taxpayer (A-I1(iv)).
Section 2 preserves timeliness and tolling. Appeals makes the determination, and IRM 5.1.9.3.2.2 has Collection tell the taxpayer: “The taxpayer is entitled to challenge in the hearing the determination that the request is untimely.” IRM 8.22.5.3.2 adds that tolling may be raised in the request or at any time during the hearing. Two cases show why the record matters. In Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255 (2001), the request was late, Appeals held an equivalent hearing, and the court dismissed the petition because the decision letter “was not, and did not purport to be, a determination letter pursuant to section 6320 or 6330”; holding the hearing “did not result in a waiver by respondent of the time restrictions within which petitioner was required to request an Appeals Office hearing under section 6330.” In Craig v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 252 (2002), the request was timely but Appeals mistakenly held an equivalent hearing; the court took jurisdiction, calling the labels “merely a distinction without a difference when it comes to our jurisdiction over this case, where a Hearing was timely requested.” With Craig facts, put them in writing now and petition within 30 days of the decision letter.
Section 3 lists the issues. A-I2 says Appeals “will consider the same issues that it would have considered at a CDP hearing on the same matter”: collection alternatives, the appropriateness of the action, spousal defenses, and liability where there was no notice of deficiency and no prior opportunity. Attach the financial statement with the request; see Form 433-A.
Section 4 addresses filing compliance, which Appeals requires for an installment agreement or offer in an EH as in a CDP hearing. Section 5 records the consequences and gives Appeals the hardship facts it needs if Collection moves to levy.
Levy, the CSED and court review
The statutory protections do not attach. A-I3 says the IRC 6330(e) suspension “relates only to hearings requested within the 30-day period,” and IRM 5.1.9.3.2.2 states that “CSED’s are not suspended during an EH.” On levy, A-I4 provides: “Collection action is not required to be suspended.” IRM 8.22.4.3 says levy is generally suspended as a matter of policy, but IRM 8.22.4.4 lets Collection levy when collection is at risk, only frivolous issues are raised, or an alternative is sought solely for delay; it first emails the Appeals team manager, and “The ATM responds within five days with yes or no response” as to whether Appeals has information that levy would create an economic hardship or is otherwise prohibited. That check is why the financial statement goes in with the request. Check the collection statute before relying on an EH for time.
Court review is the other loss. A-I6: “Section 6330 does not authorize a taxpayer to appeal the decision of Appeals with respect to an equivalent hearing.” IRM 8.22.4.3 and IRM 5.1.9.3.9 list the exceptions: IRC 6015 spousal relief (90 days), IRC 6404(h) interest abatement (180 days), and a dispute over whether the CDP request was timely, including equitable tolling. See CDP hearings.
Where to send it and what happens next
- Send Form 12153 with this attachment to the IRS office and address on the CDP notice (A-I10), by certified mail or fax; if no address appears, A-I10 says to call 800-829-1040. Keep the receipt.
- Collection stamps the received date, compares the postmark with the one-year window, and forwards a timely EH request to Appeals; a late one goes for a separate timeliness determination (IRM 5.1.9.3.2.2).
- A settlement officer sends a substantive contact letter and holds the hearing, then issues a Decision Letter, which A-I5 says will generally contain the same information as a Notice of Determination.
Mistakes
- Not checking box 2 and not saying equivalent hearing. A late request that does not ask is not converted automatically.
- Counting the lien year from the Letter 3172 date. It runs from the day after the five-business-day period following the NFTL filing.
- Assuming levy stops. It is suspended by policy, not by law.
- Omitting the timeliness facts. If the original request was timely, say so and prove it; the decision letter is otherwise unreviewable.
- Raising liability after a notice of deficiency or a received Letter 1153. Those are prior opportunities.
Questions practitioners ask
Can I check box 2 on a request I believe is timely?
Yes. Form 12153 says the box applies only if the request does not meet the requirements for a timely CDP hearing, so it protects against a miscounted deadline.
Is a separate Form 12153 needed after Collection says the first one was late?
No. IRM 5.1.9.3.2.2 says the taxpayer can confirm orally or in writing, and if the original request was mailed within the year the EH is timely even if the confirmation comes later within the time Collection specified.
Does an EH stop the collection statute?
No. CSEDs are not suspended during an EH (IRM 5.1.9.3.2.2), unless another suspension applies, such as a pending IRC 6015 request.
What if the year has already passed?
Appeals makes a separate timeliness determination. IRM 8.22.5.3.2 allows equitable tolling of the one-year deadline on proof of diligence and an extraordinary circumstance; otherwise the routes are CAP, the Taxpayer Advocate Service or a direct request to Collection.