Solely to Delay: When the IRS Refuses to Treat Your Payment Plan Request as Real

The levy bar that comes with a payment plan request is strong, so the IRS has a way to deal with requests that are not serious. The regulation says the bar does not apply if the IRS determines the proposed agreement was submitted solely to delay collection. Treas. Reg. 301.6159-1(f)(2). The procedures for that determination are in IRM 5.14.3.3, and they are more specific, and more limited, than the phrase suggests.

What the determination does

IRM 5.14.3.3 lays out the consequences in a table. When a request is treated as made to delay collection:

• The request is not recognized and is not identified as pending.
• The pending code is not input.
• No rejection is issued, so there is no independent administrative review and no Collection Appeals Program appeal of the request.
• The IRS can begin or resume enforced collection, including levy.

That is a severe result, which is why the IRM surrounds it with conditions. Group managers must agree that a request was made to delay collection and must document their agreement in the case history. The taxpayer must be told as soon as possible, in person, by phone, in writing or by other usual means, that the request will not be treated as pending, and the IRM stresses that the notification should come before any levy. Higher levels of approval are required for enforcement action in these cases.

You also keep other rights. The IRM notes that taxpayers can still meet with the manager, request an appeal of a levy, or contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service.

The five triggers

IRM 5.14.3.3 says at least one of the following must apply before a request can be treated as made to delay collection:

• No economic reality. The proposed payment is nominal, the IRM's example is $1 a month, or so small it does not come close to reflecting your ability to pay, or it is made without reference to ability to pay after the IRS asked for that reference.
• No response to prior direction. After a rejection, you submit a new request that is not materially different, does not address the modifications you were told about, such as an acceptable payment amount, or does not address expenses that were disallowed or undocumented.
• Ignoring the revenue officer. The revenue officer asked you to pay in full based on your financial statement, or to submit documentation, you did not, and then you asked for a plan.
• Prior defaults. You are asking after defaulting on a prior agreement and either your ability to pay has not changed since the default, or you have a history of non-compliance with deposits, estimated payments, withholding or filing.
• Timing. The request comes at a point that makes it a request to delay enforcement, such as just before a scheduled sale of seized property.

Examples from the Manual

The IRM gives three. In the first, a taxpayer's $700 proposal was rejected after independent review, and the taxpayer was told $1,000 would be acceptable, with the manager involved. With no change in circumstances, the taxpayer offers $725. That is a delay action. In the second, after a rejection, the case proceeds to seizure, and at the sale five months later the taxpayer asks for another plan. The sale may continue. In the third, a prior request was rejected because the taxpayer could pay in full, and the taxpayer proposes another plan with no change in circumstances. Pending status is not identified.

The common thread is repetition without change. A first request is rarely treated this way. A second request that ignores what the IRS told you about the first one is the classic case.

The guaranteed agreement exception

The IRM carves out one important exception. A request that qualifies as a guaranteed agreement should be processed even if submitted solely to delay collection, because IRC 6159(c) contains no exception for such requests. When Congress says the IRS shall accept an agreement, the IRS cannot refuse it on delay grounds.

The 2020 version of IRM 5.14.3.3 also notes, under the no economic reality trigger, that balances meeting guaranteed or streamlined criteria will be granted. The July 2026 rewrite of IRM 5.14.5 adds a caution for the Simple Payment Plan that replaced streamlined agreements: when prior defaults exist, Field Collection must evaluate whether the current proposal is solely to delay, based on the facts and circumstances, including compliance history and prior defaults. If you have defaulted before, do not assume the $50,000 line protects you.

Businesses with repeat payroll problems

Businesses face a version of this rule aimed at a specific pattern. The July 2026 IRM says Simple Payment Plans for business trust fund balances are not granted when the case meets the solely to delay criteria, and it calls out situations where the business may be using pyramiding or successor entities to avoid its tax responsibilities. Pyramiding is the IRS term for a business that keeps falling behind on new payroll deposits while it owes for old quarters.

The BMF procedures in IRM 5.14.7.2 show the path back. Taxpayers identified as repeaters may not immediately be granted agreements, but their requests should be identified as pending if they are maintaining current federal tax deposit compliance, and once they stop accruing new liabilities, make deposits and file all returns, they may qualify. For a business, current deposits are the proof that a request is not made to delay. See IRS payment plans for businesses.

Revised proposals after a rejection

The regulation gives you a real second chance, with one condition. Treas. Reg. 301.6159-1(b)(3) says that if, after a rejection, the IRS determines you made a good faith revision of your proposal and submitted it within 30 days of the rejection, the protections of the regulation apply to the revised proposal. If the revision was not made in good faith, the regulation does not apply to it, and the 30-day appeal period continues to run from the date of the original rejection.

That last clause is a trap. A token revision does not stop the appeal clock. If you are going to revise, revise for real, address what the IRS said, and consider filing an appeal at the same time. See appealing through the Collection Appeals Program.

Frivolous submissions

A related but separate rule sits in IRC 7122(g). If any portion of an installment agreement application meets the frivolous submission standards of IRC 6702(b)(2)(A), the IRS may treat that portion as if it were never submitted, and it is not subject to further administrative or judicial review. Arguments that wages are not income and the like do not belong anywhere near a payment plan request.

How to stay clear

• Propose a real number, tied to your actual finances, and be ready to explain how you arrived at it.
• If the IRS rejected a prior proposal, read the rejection letter and address every reason in it. If it named an acceptable payment, either propose that amount or explain specifically what changed.
• Meet every deadline a revenue officer sets for documents, returns or payments. If you cannot, ask for more time before the deadline, in writing.
• If you defaulted before, show what is different now: a new job, a lower expense, a direct debit authorization, current estimated payments.
• Ask early. A request made the morning of a scheduled sale will be viewed differently from one made when the first notice arrived.

If you are told your request is being treated as made to delay, ask to speak with the manager, ask what specifically triggered the determination, and put your response in writing. The determination requires manager agreement and documentation. Make sure the documentation reflects your side of it.