You received Letter 1058 or LT11. You have 30 days. Here's what they mean.
The Final Notice of Intent to Levy is the IRS's last warning before enforced collection. Under IRC §6330, you have 30 days from the date the notice was sent — not received — to file Form 12153 and request a Collection Due Process hearing. Filing within the 30-day window triggers automatic suspension of collection activity under §6330(e)(1) and preserves your right to Tax Court review under §6330(d)(1). Miss the window and those rights are gone.
Ebot Mbi, CPA, EA · Texas CPA #127163 · IRS Enrolled Agent, federally licensed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to practice before the IRS · base fee $650 · same-business-day notice review.
Authority
IRC §6330 · IRC §6331(d) · Treas. Reg. §301.6330-1
Forms Filed
Form 12153 · Form 433-A · Form 2848 · Form 9465
Outcome Targeted
CDP hearing · collection alternative · Appeals determination
The 30-day clock runs from the date printed on the notice — not the day you opened the envelope.
Under IRC §6330(a)(3)(B) and IRM 5.1.9, the 30 days begin the day after the date printed on Letter 1058 or LT11. The IRS uses postmark date for timeliness — meaning Form 12153 must be mailed (postmarked) by the deadline, not received by it. Day 31 is when the IRS regains levy authority. Move now.
What the IRS sent — the procedural meaning
Letter 1058 and LT11 are the same notice with different delivery channels.
The notice you received is the Final Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, required under IRC §6331(d) (30-day pre-levy notice requirement) and IRC §6330(a) (notice of right to hearing). The IRS issues this notice in two forms that are legally identical: Letter 1058 is issued by Field Collection in cases assigned to a Revenue Officer; LT11 is the culminating notice in the Automated Collection System (ACS) sequence. Both trigger the same 30-day CDP window. Both carry the same consequences if the window expires.
This notice arrives only after the IRS has exhausted earlier collection notices — typically CP14 (first notice of balance due), CP501 (reminder), CP503 (second reminder), CP504 (notice of intent to levy state tax refund). Letter 1058 / LT11 is the IRS's last legal step before enforced collection. After the 30-day CDP window expires, the IRS has full levy authority under IRC §6331(a) to seize wages, bank accounts, investment accounts, real property, and receivables — with no further notice required.
The CDP framework was created by Section 3401 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206 — codified at IRC §6320 (for liens) and IRC §6330 (for levies). The legislative purpose was to "afford taxpayers adequate notice of collection activity and a meaningful hearing before the IRS deprives them of their property." The 30-day CDP window is the operational realization of that guarantee. It is the only moment when the taxpayer controls the timeline.
The CDP filing — what changes when you file
Form 12153 stops the IRS from levying. Until the hearing concludes.
A timely-filed Form 12153 — postmarked within 30 days of the date on Letter 1058 or LT11 — triggers four specific legal consequences under IRC §6330:
Automatic collection suspension — IRC §6330(e)(1)
From the moment of filing through the conclusion of the CDP hearing (and any Tax Court appeal), the IRS may not proceed with the proposed levy. The statutory exceptions under IRC §6330(f) are narrow: jeopardy assessments, state income tax refund levies, and disqualified employment tax levies. For typical individual and business cases, the suspension is immediate and absolute.
Hearing before an impartial Appeals Settlement Officer
Under IRC §6330(c)(1), the hearing must be conducted by an Appeals officer who has had no prior involvement with the unpaid tax. The Settlement Officer must verify that all statutory and procedural requirements have been met, consider all issues raised, and balance efficient tax collection against the concern that collection action be no more intrusive than necessary.
Authority to consider collection alternatives
Under IRC §6330(c)(2)(A), you may raise: spousal defenses including innocent spouse relief under IRC §6015; challenges to the appropriateness of the collection action; and offers of collection alternatives including installment agreement (IRC §6159), offer in compromise (IRC §7122), or currently not collectible status. Issues not raised at the SO level cannot be raised on Tax Court review — Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107 (2007).
Tax Court review rights — IRC §6330(d)(1)
Following the Appeals determination, you have 30 days from the date of the Notice of Determination to petition the United States Tax Court. This is the principal advantage of timely CDP filing over the Equivalent Hearing fallback: only timely CDP preserves judicial review. The Tax Court applies de novo review where the underlying liability is properly at issue, and abuse of discretion review on collection-alternative determinations.
The Goza framework — challenging the underlying liability
You can contest what you owe — but only if you never had a prior chance.
The most consequential limitation on CDP hearings is IRC §6330(c)(2)(B): the taxpayer may challenge the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability "only if the taxpayer did not receive any statutory notice of deficiency for such tax liability or did not otherwise have an opportunity to dispute such tax liability." The Tax Court's foundational interpretation came in Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000).
Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 611 (2000)
"Whether the underlying tax liability is properly at issue in a section 6330 administrative hearing depends on whether the taxpayer had an opportunity to challenge the liability, not whether the taxpayer acted upon that opportunity."
Subsequent decisions have refined the doctrine: Bell v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 356 (2006), held that a prior CDP hearing itself constitutes a prior opportunity precluding re-litigation. Giamelli v. Commissioner, 129 T.C. 107 (2007), established that issues not raised before the Settlement Officer cannot be raised for the first time on Tax Court review. Barnhill v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 1 (2020), analyzed §6330(c)(2)(B) without according deference to the IRS. The most recent reaffirmation came in The Diversified Group Incorporated v. Commissioner, 166 T.C. No. 2 (2026). The Goza framework is settled law.
Practical impact
If you received a Notice of Deficiency for the same tax year and let the 90-day window expire, the CDP hearing will not re-open the assessment. The CDP hearing will focus on collection alternatives — installment agreement, offer in compromise, currently not collectible, levy release on hardship grounds — rather than whether you actually owe the tax. If no Notice of Deficiency was issued (typically Substitute for Return cases), the CDP filing protects the right to challenge the underlying amount.
Missed the 30-day window — what now
Equivalent Hearing under Treas. Reg. §301.6330-1(i)(2).
If the 30-day window has expired, Form 12153 may still be filed within one year of the Letter 1058 / LT11 date — but as a request for an Equivalent Hearing under Treas. Reg. §301.6330-1(i)(2). The Appeals consideration is essentially identical: the Settlement Officer reviews the same issues, considers the same collection alternatives, and reaches a determination under the same procedural standards.
The Equivalent Hearing request does not automatically suspend collection activity. The IRS may continue or initiate levy action while the Equivalent Hearing is pending. Practitioners typically combine the Equivalent Hearing request with a Form 911 to the Taxpayer Advocate Service requesting a hold on collection in parallel.
What is lost vs. timely CDP
Tax Court review rights under IRC §6330(d)(1)
(Except narrow §6015 and §6404 carve-outs)
Automatic collection suspension under IRC §6330(e)(1)
IRS may levy during EH pendency
CSED tolling under IRC §6502
Collection statute keeps running
Appeals consideration of collection alternatives
Same Settlement Officer framework
Innocent spouse review under IRC §6015
Retains narrow Tax Court review
Transparent pricing — LT11 / CDP engagements
Scope-priced engagement, confirmed in writing before any IRS contact.
| Service | Fee |
|---|---|
| Base resolution scoping + transcript pull | $650 |
| LT11 / Letter 1058 response — Streamlined IA path | $1,500 – $2,500 |
| CDP hearing with Settlement Officer (timely) | $2,500 – $4,500 |
| Equivalent Hearing (untimely) | $2,000 – $3,500 |
| Tax Court petition under IRC §6330(d)(1) | $4,500+ (separate engagement) |
| Underlying liability challenge under §6330(c)(2)(B) | $3,500+ |
| Unfiled return preparation (per year, if required) | $500 – $2,500 |
The engagement letter is the controlling document; no specific outcome or timeline is guaranteed. Outcomes depend on individual facts, current IRS procedures, and applicable law. Texas CPAs are bound by the rules of the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy.
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about LT11 / CDP
A Texas CPA. A federally licensed IRS Enrolled Agent.
CDP hearing representation requires both technical authority and procedural urgency inside a narrow statutory window. Ebot Mbi holds the two credentials that matter: a Texas CPA license #127163 issued by the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, and an IRS Enrolled Agent license federally issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury — the highest tax-representation credential the federal government awards. Under IRS Circular 230, Enrolled Agents are one of three categories authorized to represent taxpayers in any administrative matter before the IRS. The other two are attorneys and CPAs. Ebot Mbi is two of the three.
Engagements operate under written engagement letter and Form 2848 Power of Attorney. The fee is confirmed before any work begins; no specific outcome is promised.
What happens after the CDP window — sibling pages
Notice in hand right now?
Send Letter 1058 or LT11. We review it the same business day, calculate the exact 30-day deadline, scope the engagement, and prepare Form 12153 with the appropriate collection alternative once the engagement letter is signed.
Email Notice →Studying CDP for your EA exam or representing a client?
The full practitioner walkthrough — IRC §6330 procedural framework, the Goza / Sego underlying-liability framework, Treas. Reg. §301.6330-1 implementing rules, full Tax Court case-law chain, hearing strategy, Tax Court petition procedure, video lesson, and Bluebook citation index — is on the practitioner page.
Read the practitioner pageLast updated: September 7, 2026
ebotCPA Academy