Penalties Under the Code
Memorandum Opinions / Penalties Under the Code / Tax Opinions

Plateau Holdings LLC v. Commissioner
T.C. Memo. 2021-133

On November 30, 2021, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case of Plateau Holdings LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2021-133). The primary issue presented in Plateau Holdings LLC was whether the 20% accuracy-related penalty applied to the portion of the underpayment not attributable to a valuation misstatement, that is, to the portion of the underpayment resulting from the Tax Court’s conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to a charitable contribution deduction corresponding to the correct value of the easements. Procedural Background to Plateau Holdings LLC This case involves a charitable contribution deduction claimed by Plateau Holdings, LLC (Plateau), for conservation easements. On its 2012 Federal income tax return Plateau claimed a deduction of $25,449,000 for the donation of the easements. On June 23, 2020, the Tax Court issued an opinion, Plateau Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner (Plateau I), T.C. Memo. 2020-93, disallowing the deduction in full because…

0 Comments
April 19, 2022
Penalties Under the Code
Full Tax Court Opinions / Penalties Under the Code / Tax Opinions

Sand Investment Co. v. Commissioner
157 T.C. No. 11

On November 23, 2021, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Sand Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 157 T.C. No. 11. The primary issue presented in Sand Investment Co. was whether the IRS obtained prior written supervisory approval pursuant to IRC § 6751(b)(1) insofar as whether the individual who made the initial determination received approval from its immediate supervisor. Held: Yeah…no dice, petitioner. Dueling Determinations The RA’s case and issue manager, Mr. Burris, signed the form on November 20, 2018, and the RA’s new team leader, Mr. Wilson, signed the form on November 23, 2018. The definite decision to assert penalties was communicated to Sand Investment Co. more than two months later, in the Final Partnership Audit Adjustment dated February 8, 2019. The IRS, thus, contends that timely approval of these penalties was secured.[1] The petitioner contends that supervisory approval came too late, and its argument has two essential steps. First,…

1 Comment
April 19, 2022