there is no planned resolution for the case; or

there is a planned resolution, but no payments will result from that planned resolution until a later date; or

the financial information received from third parties or taxpayers is incomplete or insufficient to determine a disposition for the case but sufficient information exists to request a series of payments; or

the disposition of an asset or assets necessary to reduce the amount of liability subject to agreements will take time; or

there is a necessity to verify financial information received thus far, and documentation or supplemental information has been requested from the taxpayer; or

there is a necessity for the taxpayer to file tax return(s) prior to determining eligibility for an IA or other resolution and time will elapse prior to the return filing; or

the taxpayer plans to make payments during the collection investigation or requests to make payments pending final disposition of the case.

action date(s) pass without receipt of payments (whether required or voluntary);

financial information is not received;

documentation is not received; or

compliance with filing and payment requirements is not maintained.

the request for an IA is recommended for rejection;

an IAR agrees rejection should be conveyed to the taxpayer. See IRM 5.14.9.7, Independent Administrative Review after Recommended Rejection of Installment Agreement Requests;

rejection is conveyed to the taxpayer; and

appropriate appeal time frames (or appeals) have expired. See IRM 5.14.9.7(13)d, Independent Administrative Review after Recommended Rejection of Installment Agreement Request.

No collection action may be taken (based on the reasons provided above) until after an IAR agrees rejection should be conveyed to the taxpayer. See IRM 5.14.9.7, Independent Administrative Review after Recommended Rejection of Installment Agreement Requests; rejection is conveyed to the taxpayer; and appropriate appeal time frames (or appeals) have expired.

After the actions described in IRM 5.14.3.2 (11)a, and if all other appropriate notices, CAP and CDP appeal time frames and other actions have been taken, appropriate collection action may be taken.

Example A: On March 21, 2019, Mr. Bass meets with the RO regarding tax liabilities totaling $200,000 for two years, and unfiled 1040 tax returns for 2016 and 2017. The RO demands full payment of the tax liabilities and delinquent returns, but Mr. Bass states that he is unable to pay. Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement for Wage Earners and Self Employed Individuals, is completed at the meeting. It indicates an ability to pay $5,000 per month and that Mr. Bass has equity in property. Therefore, an IA may not be appropriate due to the equity in the property unless the property is needed to meet reasonable necessary living expenses or other extenuating circumstances exist which require further investigation. The RO discusses a realistic plan for case resolution that includes borrowing against or selling property in which the taxpayer has equity. The RO advises the taxpayer that the NFTL will be filed and provides the taxpayer with information regarding lien subordinations and discharges. The RO establishes deadlines for action by giving Mr. Bass the Form 9297, Summary of Taxpayer Contact, providing dates by which Mr. Bass must take the following actions:

Example B: This example is identical to Example A above except that before leaving the office, Mr. Carp requests an IA in the amount of $5,000 per month. The RO informs Mr. Carp that he can make a new request for an IA upon having filed all tax returns, and that he currently does not have a pending IA request. Prior to acceptance, the taxpayer will likely be required to borrow on the equity in the property, and provide other information (see (a) above). RO also informs Mr. Carp that the requested payments of $5,000 per month should be made while the agreement request is being considered. She warns Mr. Carp of the consequences of non-receipt of requested information and delinquent returns. All of the above is documented in the case history.

Example C This example is identical to Example A above except that the taxpayer has no delinquent returns and the taxpayer makes an IA request of $5000 per month. The IA request of $5000 per month would meet the pending criteria and a 971/043 would be requested immediately. If the May 21st deadline to liquidate the equity in the property is not met, the RO can recommend the IA for rejection to the IAR. If the IAR concurs with the RO recommendation, the RO can communicate the rejection of the IA proposal and the associated appeal rights to the taxpayer.

There is no economic reality to the request. This applies if the proposed monthly payment amount is nominal (for example $1 per month) or so small it does not come close to reflecting the taxpayer ’s ability to pay or it is made without reference to ability to pay after such reference is requested.

The request does not address changes requested in response to prior requests. If, after rejection of prior IA request(s), taxpayers submit new requests that are not materially different from the prior request or requests, or do not address modifications (for example, taxpayers were provided acceptable monthly payment amounts), or do not address previously disallowed or undocumented expenses, then the (subsequent) request or requests do not result in identification of a pending IA.

The request ignores direction provided by revenue officers . When ROs request that taxpayers fully pay accounts (based on financial statement analysis) or submit documentation to support analysis of a financial statement, yet this direction is not followed. When the taxpayer fails to comply with one of these requests and then subsequently requests an IA, this is considered a delay action.

The request is made by a taxpayer that has defaulted on prior installment agreements. If taxpayers request IAs after a default of a prior agreement, the new agreement request will not result in identification of a "pending" agreement if: (1) the ability to pay has not changed since default of the prior agreement or (2) the taxpayer has demonstrated a history of non-compliance with FTD requirements, ES payment requirements, proper payroll withholding, or filing tax returns when due.

The request is made at a time that causes it to be classified as a request made to delay enforcement action: See IRM 5.11.1.4.8, Pending and Active Installment Agreements, regarding levies relative to pending and active installment agreements and IRM 5.10, Seizure and Sale, for guidance. See the important note below regarding requests for agreements in the case of sale of property.

Example A: The taxpayer previously requested an IA for $700 per month and the request was rejected by the independent reviewer. The taxpayer was told when the rejection was communicated that an acceptable agreement would be $1000 per month. This amount was fully explained and also discussed with the group manager. The taxpayer now offers $725 per month, with no change in circumstances since the rejection. The subsequent request constitutes a delay action.

Example B: The taxpayer previously had a request for an IA rejected. The case has proceeded to seizure and sale of the taxpayer’s assets. At the sale, five months after the rejection of proposed IA, the taxpayer requests another IA. The sale may continue. See IRM 5.14.3.3 (3)e and IRM 5.10, Seizure and Sale, for procedures.

Example C: The taxpayer has the ability to fully pay the liability and there are no reasons why assets cannot be used to fully pay taxes. See IRM 5.14.1.4(5), Installment Agreement Acceptance and Rejection Determinations. The independent reviewer rejected a prior request based on the taxpayer’s ability to fully pay the liability. The taxpayer proposes another IA amount. There is no change in taxpayer circumstances since the rejection. This subsequent request is considered to be one made to delay collection action. "Pending" status is not identified.

Group managers must agree that such requests were made to delay collection action.

Group managers must document case histories that they agree that the request was made to delay collection action.