Penalties Under the Code
"Penalty" Means "Penalty"

Chadwick v. Commissioner
154 T.C. No. 5

On January 21, 2020, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Chadwick v. Commissioner (154 T.C. No. 5). The issue presented in Chadwick v. Commissioner was whether the penalty assessable pursuant to IRC § 6672(a) (the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty or TFRP) was subject to the requirement that written supervisory approval be secured at the initial determination of such assessment pursuant to IRC § 6751(b)(1). The IRC § 6672(a) Trust Fund Recovery Penalty is…Wait for

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 21, 2020
Penalties Under the Code
"Penalty" Means "Penalty"

Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales Inc. v. Commissioner
154 T.C. No. 4

On January 16, 2020, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales Inc. v. Commissioner (154 T.C. No. 4). The issue presented in Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales Inc. v. Commissioner was whether the written supervisory approval requirement of IRC § 6751(b)(1) applied to the assessable penalty imposed by IRC § 6707A (failure to disclose a reportable transaction). 30-Day Letter Triggered IRC § 6751(b)(1) Supervisory Approval Requirement in Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales Inc. v. Commissioner The

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 16, 2020
Business Related Issues
Abuse of Discretion

Hommel v. Commissioner
T.C. Memo. 2020-4

On January 8, 2020, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case of Hommel v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2020-4). The issue presented in Hommel v. Commissioner was whether a petitioner, who presented no evidence to the contrary, could challenge a bank deposits analysis for abuse of discretion.  The real issue, however, was how close Judge Holmes could get to calling the petitioner a #^&%$ idiot without actually doing so. Personal Note in Hommel

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 8, 2020
Penalties Under the Code
Burden of Proof

Frost v. Commissioner
154 T.C. No. 2

On January 7, 2020, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Frost v. Commissioner (154 T.C. No. 2). The issue presented in Frost v. Commissioner was whether the IRS satisfied the burden of production under IRC § 7491(c) in offering evidence of compliance with the requirement of IRC § 6751(b)(1) that the agent initially determining accuracy-related penalties obtained timely written supervisory approval to assert IRC § 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties against the petitioner. Parsing the Semantics

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 7, 2020
Procedural Issues
Burden of Proof

Chicago Baseball Holdings LLC v. Commissioner
T.C. Memo. 2020-2

On January 6, 2020, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case of Chicago Baseball Holdings LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2020-2). The issue presented in Chicago Baseball Holdings LLC v. Commissioner was whether prior written supervisory approval of penalties was required before the IRS communicates the penalties to the taxpayer for the first time, even if such communication was informal. Jurisdiction in Chicago Baseball Holdings LLC v. Commissioner The Tax Court has jurisdiction

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 6, 2020
Penalties Under the Code
60-Day Letter

Belair Woods LLC v. Commissioner
154 T.C. No. 1

On January 6, 2020, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Belair Woods LLC v. Commissioner (154 T.C. No. 1). The issue presented in Belair Woods LLC v. Commissioner was when, precisely, was written supervisory approval required pursuant to IRC § 6751(b)(1) (initial determination of penalty assessment). The penalties at issue in Belair Woods were gross overvaluation (IRC § 6662(h)), negligence (IRC § 6662(c)), and substantial understatement (IRC § 6662(d)). Written Supervisory Approval (IRC § 6751(b)(1)

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 6, 2020
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pocket
Email
Print

Most popular tagged posts:

Chadwick v. Commissioner
154 T.C. No. 5

On January 21, 2020, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Chadwick v. Commissioner (154 T.C. No. 5). The issue presented in Chadwick v. Commissioner was whether the penalty assessable pursuant to IRC § 6672(a) (the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty or TFRP) was subject to the requirement that written supervisory

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 21, 2020

Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales Inc. v. Commissioner
154 T.C. No. 4

On January 16, 2020, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales Inc. v. Commissioner (154 T.C. No. 4). The issue presented in Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales Inc. v. Commissioner was whether the written supervisory approval requirement of IRC § 6751(b)(1) applied to the assessable penalty imposed by

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 16, 2020

Hommel v. Commissioner
T.C. Memo. 2020-4

On January 8, 2020, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case of Hommel v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2020-4). The issue presented in Hommel v. Commissioner was whether a petitioner, who presented no evidence to the contrary, could challenge a bank deposits analysis for abuse of discretion.  The

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 8, 2020

Frost v. Commissioner
154 T.C. No. 2

On January 7, 2020, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Frost v. Commissioner (154 T.C. No. 2). The issue presented in Frost v. Commissioner was whether the IRS satisfied the burden of production under IRC § 7491(c) in offering evidence of compliance with the requirement of IRC § 6751(b)(1)

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 7, 2020

Chicago Baseball Holdings LLC v. Commissioner
T.C. Memo. 2020-2

On January 6, 2020, the Tax Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in the case of Chicago Baseball Holdings LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo. 2020-2). The issue presented in Chicago Baseball Holdings LLC v. Commissioner was whether prior written supervisory approval of penalties was required before the IRS communicates the penalties to

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 6, 2020

Belair Woods LLC v. Commissioner
154 T.C. No. 1

On January 6, 2020, the Tax Court issued its opinion in Belair Woods LLC v. Commissioner (154 T.C. No. 1). The issue presented in Belair Woods LLC v. Commissioner was when, precisely, was written supervisory approval required pursuant to IRC § 6751(b)(1) (initial determination of penalty assessment). The penalties at issue

Read More »
Scott St. Amand January 6, 2020