The U.S. Tax Court today granted the taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the IRS had not complied with the requirements under section 6751(b)(1) that written supervisory approval for imposing a section 6707A penalty must be obtained before the IRS's first formal communication to the taxpayer of its determination to assess the penalty under section 6707A.
The case is: Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. No. 4 (January 16, 2020). Read the Tax Court’s opinion [PDF 108 KB]
The IRS determined that the taxpayer corporation had failed to timely disclose its participation in a listed transaction when it filed its Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, for the tax year ending May 31, 2008.
The IRS revenue agent responsible for examining the May 2008 return issued a 30-day letter that proposed to assert a penalty under section 6707A for the failure to disclose reportable transaction information with the tax return. The 30-day letter afforded the taxpayer the right to appeal to the IRS Office of Appeals. Approximately three months after the 30-day letter, the revenue agent’s immediate supervisor approved the penalty assertion and signed a Form 300, Civil Penalty Approval Form.
The taxpayer requested a conference with IRS Appeals to contest the proposed section 6707A penalty. IRS Appeals sustained the penalty proposal, and the IRS assessed the penalty. After the IRS sent a levy notice to collect the penalty liability, the taxpayer requested a collection due process (CDP) hearing before Appeals. This was followed by Appeals issuing a notice of determination sustaining the levy action.
The taxpayer filed a Tax Court petition challenging the notice of determination, and the Tax Court issued an order in October 2015, remanding the case to IRS Appeals for further development of certain arguments raised by the taxpayer. A supplemental CDP hearing was conducted, and IRS Appeals once again sustained the levy notice.
The taxpayer then filed in the Tax Court proceedings, a motion for summary judgment asserting that the IRS had failed to comply with the requirements for written supervisory approval under section 6751(b)(1) in determining the section 6707A penalty.
The Tax Court today granted the taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that:
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.