Potential Suitability Denial for resolved Tax issue

Hey guys -

I am new to this forum. I did not see anything directly on topic, so I hope y’all won’t mind me posting a question. I received and accepted a CJO in the IC about 8 months ago. Cleared the poly last month, and references were contacted this month. Last Friday, I received an email about a few past tax matters, all of which were resolved years ago. I do not have any outstanding tax issues, and all returns have been filed. I am a self-employed lawyer, and did not do a perfect job of planning for tax obligations early on in my self-employed career.

I was informed this morning that suitability is likely to be denied because it appears from the IRS transcript for 2015 that I entered into an installment agreement in June of 2016, but did not strictly abide by the terms. I can’t dispute that being the case. Either way, the IRS transcript shows all amounts owed were paid off around early March 2017. For various reasons, I was not as focused on the tax responsibility as I should have been in 2016.

My question is this - have you all ever seen a suitability denial over a long since resolved tax issue? Do IC Agencies provide SORs with opportunities to appeal something like this?

Thank you for any insight.

I guess this along with the tax issues raised a concern

Resolved financial issues with no current delinquent debt is not a suitability concern. I would question that and have them provide you with the guidelines being used and provide them with the proof that it was resolved.

Is this for a direct-hire position or a contractor?

This is for a direct-hire position as a General Attorney.

Thank you for the insight and advice, Marko. To be clear, I am being told it is a “suitability” concern, as opposed to a security clearance denial. Does that make any difference in your opinion? Thanks again.

Cannot advise further without knowing the specific details, but if you disclosed this information as required this would not hold up getting a security clearance, therefore common sense would say the same thing about “suitability”.

Marko - I noted on the SF-86 that there were several years in the past when I filed and paid taxes late, but that I had not failed to file or pay when the law required a filing or payment. I read the question on the SF-86 to be concerned with whether you outright failed to file or pay when the law requires a filing or payment (such as when a certain amount of income is made), not whether you did so late. The word “when” makes the intent of the question unclear to me. For that reason, I clarified in the notes that I had filed and paid late several times in the past 7 years, but that those years were all long since resolved. I did not detail the specifics of the years, amounts owed, etc. in the form. Perhaps I should have. At this point, I have not received notice that suitability is denied. My Accountant prepared a letter that I submitted, which hopefully provides information the concern. Thanks for your insight.