Specific Types of Representation · Representing a taxpayer in the collection process
Collection Appeals Program: fast review, no Tax Court
tax year · reviewed 2026-08-18 · I. Ohu
The Collection Appeals Program is the fast, broad, administrative route to Appeals. It reaches situations collection due process does not, it moves in days rather than months, and it ends in a decision that no court will review. That last point is the whole trade, and it is the one clients are least likely to understand without being told.
The rule
CAP is administrative. It is not created by a Code section conferring hearing rights; it is a programme operated by the Independent Office of Appeals under IRM 8.24.1, and its defining limitation is stated there plainly: a taxpayer may petition the Tax Court from an Appeals determination under CDP, but not under CAP.
What it reaches. CAP is available to taxpayers and to third parties in a wide range of collection situations — including proposed or actual liens and levies, seizures, the rejection or termination of installment agreements, and matters such as discharge applications. Some actions that CDP reaches only before they happen, such as certain state refund, disqualified employment tax, and federal contractor levies, are appealable under CAP after the levy.
How it is requested. Form 9423, Collection Appeal Request, is recommended for field Collection cases, and the form carries its own instructions — but any written request for a CAP hearing will be honoured (IRM 8.24.1.3.5).
The deadlines are days, not weeks. In field Collection the taxpayer first has a conference with the Collection manager. They must tell the office within two business days of that conference that they intend to submit Form 9423, and the form must be received or postmarked within three business days of the conference, or Collection may resume on all actions except rejected or terminated installment agreements. A request arriving up to ten business days after the required managerial conference still entitles the taxpayer to a CAP appeal.
It is built for speed. Appeals hearing officers are directed to treat CAP cases as their first priority, against a five-day turnaround goal measured from the hearing officer’s receipt of the case to the input of the closing action. That pace is why the IRM notes it is extremely rare for Appeals to send new information back to Collection for comment.
Where the two overlap, CDP wins by default. The IRM directs that if a taxpayer cannot decide between a CDP hearing and CAP, they should be given the CDP hearing, and that where a taxpayer chooses CAP instead, Appeals should secure a withdrawal of the CDP request so it is clear the taxpayer understands they are giving up the right to seek judicial review.
How it works in practice
CAP earns its place on speed and reach. A revenue officer who is about to seize a vehicle, or who has just terminated an installment agreement, can be stopped and reviewed within days — far faster than a CDP hearing, and available where no CDP right exists at all because no lien has been filed and no levy notice issued.
The cost is finality. An adverse CAP decision ends the matter administratively. Where the dispute is really about the tax, or where the client will want a judge to look at the Appeals officer’s reasoning, CAP is the wrong instrument, and a CDP request — if the timing still allows one — is worth more.
The rejected-or-terminated installment agreement is the one case where the clock is gentler: collection does not resume on that action while the appeal is pending, which is why an IA appeal is often the safest CAP to bring.
Because the choice between the two routes forfeits something either way, it belongs in the file. A short note to the client — that CAP is faster and broader, that an adverse decision cannot be taken to a judge, and that the CDP window may close while CAP runs — protects the client and the practitioner. Appeals is directed to secure a withdrawal where a taxpayer with CDP rights elects CAP instead, and a representative who has already explained the trade in writing will not be explaining it for the first time at that point.
The managerial conference is also worth treating as part of the appeal rather than a formality before it. It is the last moment at which the revenue officer’s own manager can reverse the action without Appeals being involved at all, and the arguments that will be put to Appeals are usually the arguments that could have resolved it there. Practitioners who treat the conference as a box to tick arrive at Appeals having wasted the cheaper forum.
Three business days after the conference
A revenue officer notifies a client on Monday that his installment agreement is terminated. The representative holds the managerial conference on Wednesday and posts Form 9423 the following Tuesday.
Analysis. The form should be received or postmarked within three business days of the conference; Tuesday is outside that. The saving provision is the ten-business-day window, which still entitles the client to the CAP appeal. On a terminated installment agreement, collection does not resume on that action in the meantime — which is what makes this recoverable. On a seizure it would not have been.
Choosing the fast route and losing the judge
A client receives a final notice of intent to levy with CDP rights. Wanting speed, the representative files Form 9423 instead and asks Appeals to consider a collection alternative.
Analysis. Appeals should ask for a withdrawal of the CDP request so the client understands what is being surrendered. If the CAP decision goes against him, there is no Tax Court petition — the § 6330(d)(1) route belongs to CDP determinations only. Where the CDP window is still open, taking the slower route preserves the option; CAP can rarely be swapped back for it later.
The third party whose property was taken
A client's business equipment is seized to satisfy a liability owed by a former partner. The client is not the taxpayer named on the assessment.
Analysis. CAP is available to third parties as well as taxpayers, so the client can bring the seizure to Appeals directly rather than waiting to be treated as a stranger to the collection action. CDP would not help: those rights belong to the person named in the notice.
Traps
No judicial review. The single most important difference from CDP, and the one to put in writing to the client before filing.
The deadlines run in business days from the managerial conference, not from the collection action, and two of them — two days to signal, three to file — are easy to miss.
Collection resumes on everything except a rejected or terminated installment agreement. Filing does not freeze a seizure the way clients assume.
Form 9423 is recommended, not required. Any written request will be honoured, which matters when the clock is this short.
If both routes are open and the client is undecided, CDP is the default. Appeals is directed to give the CDP hearing.
Speed is not free. Where the CDP window is still open, electing CAP usually spends it — the two are alternatives in practice, not a sequence, and CAP rarely converts back.
How this has changed
CAP predates collection due process and survived it. When §§ 6320 and 6330 created statutory hearing rights in 1998, CAP was not displaced, because it reaches situations the statute does not and moves faster than the statute allows. Its current shape comes from IRM 8.24.1 as revised on 20 August 2024, which sets out the managerial conference sequence and the business-day deadlines described above, and makes explicit both the absence of Tax Court review and the instruction that a taxpayer who cannot choose between the two routes gets the CDP hearing.
Exam focus
The examinable core is the comparison. CAP is administrative, broad, fast, open to third parties, and unreviewable; CDP is statutory, narrower in trigger, slower, and ends in a determination the Tax Court may review within 30 days. Know that Form 9423 is recommended but any written request is honoured, that the deadlines run in business days from the managerial conference, and that a rejected or terminated installment agreement is the action on which collection does not resume during the appeal.
Check yourself
1. The principal disadvantage of CAP compared with a CDP hearing is: (A) It takes longer (B) There is no right to petition the Tax Court from the decision (C) It is unavailable for levies (D) It requires a Form 12153 Answer: B. IRM 8.24.1 states the Tax Court right exists under CDP but not under CAP.
2. Where a taxpayer cannot decide between a CDP hearing and CAP, the IRM directs that: (A) Appeals should choose CAP for speed (B) The taxpayer should be given the CDP hearing (C) Both should proceed together (D) The Collection manager decides Answer: B, with a withdrawal secured if the taxpayer later chooses CAP, so the surrender of judicial review is documented.
3. Which is true of Form 9423? (A) It is the only acceptable way to request a CAP appeal (B) It is recommended for field Collection cases, but any written request is honoured (C) It must be filed before the managerial conference (D) It gives the taxpayer Tax Court rights Answer: B.
4. On which action does collection NOT resume while a CAP appeal is pending? (A) A seizure (B) A proposed levy (C) A rejected or terminated installment agreement (D) A notice of federal tax lien filing Answer: C. The IRM carves that action out of the resumption rule.
Change log
- Initial publication from IRM 8.24.1 (revised 20 August 2024).