The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today heard a case of cross appeals from orders of the U.S. Tax Court relating to whether the taxpayer underreported income on the 2004 income tax return and whether the taxpayer was subject to self-employment income tax plus a penalty on a $2 million payment received from a now-defunct tax-shelter scheme.
The case is: Chai v. Commissioner, 15-1653 (L) (2d Cir. March 20, 2017). Read the Second Circuit’s opinion.
Prior to a determination in the Tax Court proceeding, the Tax Court held in a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) proceeding that partnership losses for another partnership in which the taxpayer was a partner were disallowed. The IRS then asserted in an amended answer in the taxpayer’s deficiency case to increase the deficiency from the loss in the other partnership matter. The Tax Court sustained the self-employment deficiency and related penalty, but dismissed the Service’s later asserted income tax deficiency from the TEFRA partnership matter. The Tax Court also rejected the taxpayer’s argument as untimely that the Commissioner had failed to carry his burden to show compliance with the requirement that a supervisor approved the penalty assertion prior to the issuance of the notice of deficiency as required by the statute.
The Second Circuit addressed the problems of “marrying” TEFRA and deficiency proceedings and held that procedural oddities do not mean the tax is uncollectable. The Second Circuit ultimately held that the Tax Court had jurisdiction with respect to the income tax deficiency relating to the other partnership. Thus, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the Tax Court to enter a revised decision upholding the additional income-tax deficiency as the taxpayer conceded the $2 million payment is fully taxable, and affirmed the Tax Court’s order upholding the self-employment tax deficiency.
However, the Second Circuit reversed the portion of the Tax Court’s order upholding the accuracy-related penalty relating to the deficiency proceeding. The Second Circuit disagreed with the majority holding in Graev v. Commissioner, 147 T.C. No. 16 (Nov. 30, 2016). In a split holding in Graev, (nine judges in the majority and 5 judges in dissent) the majority rejected that the taxpayer’s argument that an IRS supervisory approval was required prior to the issuance of the statutory notice. The majority held that this argument was premature and that an IRS supervisor could still approve the penalty prior to the assessment which was currently suspended during the Tax Court proceeding.
The Second Circuit looked at the statutory provision, the legislative history, and the Internal Revenue Manual and determined that section 6751(b) required the IRS supervisory approval prior to the issuance of a notice of statutory deficiency (or before the IRS files an answer or amended answer) asserting a penalty. Further that compliance with section 6751(b) is part of the Commissioner’s burden of production and proof in a deficiency case in which a penalty is asserted that falls under section 7491(c). Section 7491(c) only applies to individuals.
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International. KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever. The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at: + 1 202 533 4366, 1801 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.