The language in your post indicates that this scenario presents some sort of criminal liability ("guilty until they can prove themselves innocent") which is simply wrong; the standards and burden here are entirely different.
In the event of an issuance of a notice of deficiency, the Commissioner's position is initially presumed correct, but that presumption is rebuttable. The taxpayer merely needs to present any credible evidence to rebut the presumption and, if the taxpayer does so, the burden would shift back to the Commissioner per Section 7491.
The Commissioner would then have the burden of going forward which would entail producing and presenting evidence to the contrary of that presented by the taxpayer. A bald allegation that the Commissioner is correct at this point would be ineffective to overcome the taxpayer's evidence to the contrary. What might the Commissioner introduce? Simply stating that the Commissioner is still correct would be insufficient to overcome the taxpayer's evidence. Provided the taxpayer has complied with the procedure (written document (lien), perfection thereof, and paying interest at the market rate), the Commissioner's position is now a loser.
@Opus 17 wrote:
....I'm a pessimist in this situation, and perhaps you are an optimist.
Actually, I am not an optimist, not in the least. However, I do have a formal legal and tax education, hold professional licenses, and have represented taxpayers before the IRS in the past. You, on the other hand, appear to be adept at using internet search engines and rely on information written on various random web sites, with some being reasonably accurate, some being misleading or ambiguous, and some containing information and legal positions that are simply erroneous. Regardless, you have, in the past, misapprehended and misinterpreted the Code and Regs, apparently fail to understand the basics, such as the order of precedence, and use terms, legal and otherwise, incorrectly, to wit:
@Opus 17 wrote:
The conclusion that this is a sham would be even stronger.........
There is no "conclusion" here unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction renders a verdict on the issue(s) presented.
