Thanks for the detail.
So it sounds like someone may file for bankruptcy when they are merely insolvent. I understand that one of the main points of filing for bankruptcy is that it stops collection efforts by debtors (which is a good feature IMHO).
However, I thought that the process after that point was to then actually determine if the person could, if given time and space to do so, pay their debts/bills. If not, then they would actually be bankrupt and could wipe away most of their debts and start over - I think that's a chapter 7 bankruptcy. If so, they'd be shifted to another type of bankruptcy (chapter 13?) where they'd be put on payment plans.
It is also my understanding that if a person wants to keep their house, they would need to / get to keep their mortgage(s). The homestead laws around bankruptcy do not mean, as far as I know, that you can just wipe away your mortgage and keep your house.
So in the OP's case, they could pay a few grand to a bankruptcy attorney to go through a legal process to end up in a place where they still have the home, the mortgage, the IRS debt, and possibly payment plans on the rest, or maybe those get wiped away if they manage to stay in chapter 7. Or, they could not file bankruptcy and set up payment plans. I guess if I were in that situation I'd probably not pay the few grand to do a bankruptcy over $50K, but not having been in OP's shoes I can see how it might be different from the inside looking out.
I'd like to add that I wouldn't even be concerned about the credit impacts nor any societal judgment. It just seems like OP's Mom would end up in essentially the same place after a lot more effort and expense.
I also tend to think that if I go to a bankruptcy attorney and ask them if I should file bankruptcy, they're going to be honest but probably biased towards bankruptcy in edge cases because it's their livelihood.