Under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 7345, the IRS is granted the statutory authority to certify a taxpayer as having a "seriously delinquent tax debt". Once the Secretary of the Treasury transmits this certification, the Secretary of State is mandated to take "action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport". The recent United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island decision in United States v. Richard H. Hatch Jr., No. 1:22-cv-00332 (D.R.I. Mar. 2, 2026), highlights the rigid procedural boundaries taxpayers and their representatives face when attempting to challenge a passport revocation in the midst of an active federal tax collection suit.

Facts of the Case

The taxpayer, Richard H. Hatch Jr., has been entrenched in a "long-running tax dispute with the government". The underlying legal action is a lawsuit filed by the United States explicitly for the collection of Mr. Hatch’s outstanding tax liabilities. Due to his unpaid and legally enforceable federal tax liabilities, the IRS certified Mr. Hatch’s account as a "seriously delinquent tax debt" pursuant to IRC § 7345, which subsequently barred the renewal of his United States passport.

Taxpayer’s Request for Relief

Seeking judicial intervention, Mr. Hatch filed a Motion to Compel the United States "to timely facilitate the renewal of [his] United States passport". Mr. Hatch petitioned the District Court to utilize its "inherent authority" to compel the government to return his passport. His primary economic argument was that renewing his passport would allow him to "travel overseas, make a living, and begin to pay off his debt".

In his pleadings, Mr. Hatch also alleged that he had been subjected to "systemic judicial abuse, psychological torture, and prosecutorial overreach". Alongside his passport request, Mr. Hatch asked the court to reconsider several previous rulings that were issued before the case was transferred to the current presiding judge.

Court’s Analysis of the Law

The statutory framework governing this issue rests strictly within IRC § 7345. By law, a "seriously delinquent tax debt" is an unpaid, assessed federal tax liability exceeding $50,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) for which a notice of lien has been filed and administrative rights under IRC § 6320 have lapsed or been exhausted, or for which a levy has been made under IRC § 6331.

While IRC § 7345(e)(1) explicitly grants taxpayers the right to "bring a civil action against the United States in a district court of the United States, or against the Commissioner in the Tax Court, to determine whether the certification was erroneous," the government argued that this jurisdictional avenue was improperly invoked. The government asserted that the current proceeding "is about the collection of tax liabilities owed, and that it does not involve a claim that he does not have a seriously delinquent tax debt". Consequently, the government reasoned that because there was no formal legal assertion that the tax debt was improperly certified under the statute, the court possessed "no authority to interfere".

Application of the Law to the Facts

Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. agreed entirely with the government’s procedural defense. The court found that Mr. Hatch "cites no authority for this Court, in this case, to overturn a certification of a seriously delinquent tax debt, resulting in a non-renewal of his passport".

The court ruled that an ongoing collection suit cannot be utilized as a backdoor mechanism to bypass the specific civil action required by IRC § 7345(e) to challenge a passport certification. The judge concisely summarized the procedural defect in the taxpayer’s motion, ruling: "Simply put, this is not the correct legal vehicle for Mr. Hatch to receive his requested relief".

From a practical standpoint, the court acknowledged the logical merit of the taxpayer’s core argument. In a footnote, the judge remarked that "it would seem to be in the government’s best interest to work with Mr. Hatch so that he may obtain his passport to allow him to earn a living through work overseas to pay off his tax debt". Nevertheless, the court remained strictly bound by statutory jurisdiction, concluding, "But alas, this Court does not have the authority in this case to [do] so by order".

Conclusions

Because the taxpayer failed to employ the proper legal vehicle to challenge his passport certification, the District Court DENIED Mr. Hatch’s Motion to Compel. Additionally, the court refused to exercise any inherent authority to overturn the prior judge’s decisions, stating that it "sees no reason now to reconsider any prior orders of the Court".

For CPAs and EAs representing clients with seriously delinquent tax debts, United States v. Hatch serves as a vital reminder: challenges to IRC § 7345 certifications cannot be brought as general equitable pleas within separate tax collection proceedings. Relief must be sought through a dedicated civil action specifically contesting the erroneous nature of the certification itself, or by resolving the debt through statutorily recognized exceptions such as an approved installment agreement (IRC § 6159) or offer-in-compromise (IRC § 7122).

Prepared with assistance from NotebookLM.