TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
Tax Court
Subscribe to Tax Court's Posts

Tax Court Says Pollution Control Systems Are Not Pilot Models, Rejects Tax Research Credits

By and on Jul 14, 2023
Posted In ,

On July 6, 2023, the US Tax Court issued its decision in Betz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-84. Betz considers the application of the pilot model supply rule to expenses incurred by a designer (CPI[1]) of made-to-order air pollution control systems called oxidizers. At issue was approximately $500,000 of research and development tax credits pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41 on wage and supplies expenses for 19 different oxidizers that CPI produced under various purchase agreements or purchase orders. Generally, IRC Section 41 grants qualifying taxpayers federal income tax credits for increasing research activities, calculated with respect to the amount of “qualified research expenses” (QREs) incurred by the taxpayer during the tax year over a base amount. The statute is complex and has been the subject of substantial controversy between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxpayers since its enactment in 1981.

In Betz, CPI generally oversaw the component fabrication process and the assembly of the systems at its subcontractor facilities and then installed or oversaw installation of the oxidizer at the customer’s location. Testing of the oxidizers generally occurred after assembly or after installation. The supply expenses generally included the major components of the various oxidizers, all of which were fabricated by subcontractors. CPI claimed the credit based on a study performed by a tax consultancy group, the fees for which were capped at a percentage of the research credits identified.

The IRS challenged whether the taxpayer met the test in IRC Section 41 that the research must be research “with respect to which expenditures may be treated as expenses under [IRC] section 174.” (See IRC Section 41(d)(1)(A).) The Tax Court found that CPI failed to substantiate that the claimed wages and supplies constituted IRC Section 174 “investigative” activities. CPI’s primary evidence was in the form of testimony from CPI executives and supervisory personnel whom the Tax Court found to be “vague, in conflict with the record, and lacking in credibility[.]” Alternatively, the Tax Court found that, even assuming CPI engaged in IRC Section 174 research activities that gave rise to IRC Section 41 creditable expenses, five of the projects constituted funded research given CPI’s complete transfer of rights in the results of any such research to its customers.

Regarding the supply QREs, the Tax Court held that taxpayer intent was essential to determining whether its efforts to create a pilot model satisfy the “uncertainty” standard in IRC Section 174 regulations. In that regard, the taxpayer had to show “that its purpose in producing that representation or model was to evaluate and resolve uncertainty about the product (i.e., to obtain unavailable information necessary to establish capability, method, or appropriate design).” The taxpayer failed to make this showing. The Tax Court pointed to the lack of “early-stage” testing as an indication that the oxidizers were not used as pilot models but were, in fact, final products.

Practice Point: Betz demonstrates that the IRS continues to scrutinize claims of qualified research expenses. The Tax Court’s [...]

Continue Reading



Tax Court Tells IRS It Cannot Assess or Collect Certain Tax Penalties

By , , and on Apr 26, 2023
Posted In , , ,

On April 3, 2023, the US Tax Court issued its opinion in Farhy v. Commissioner, holding that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lacked the statutory authority to both assess tax penalties under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6038(b) and collect said penalties via a levy against the taxpayer.

The decision in Farhy is significant because the IRS regularly assesses civil tax penalties for the late filing of international information return forms, such as Form 5471, Information Return of US Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. Moreover, for any taxpayer who paid a penalty for filing Form 5471 late, arguably the assessment of that penalty was improper, and the taxpayer may be able to seek a refund of the penalty paid.

Read more.



IRS Proposes New Regulations to Settle Supervisory Approval of Penalties Requirements

By and on Apr 14, 2023
Posted In , , , ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has proposed regulations to clarify the rules regarding supervisory approval of federal civil tax penalties under IRC Section 6751(b). Since Chai v. Commissioner, there has been a substantial number of cases litigating issues involving supervisory approval of federal civil tax penalties. Back in September, we posted about the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits split in which both Courts departed from long-standing US Tax Court precedence on the timing requirement of supervisor approval. Those two decisions, along with others, prompted this new guidance “to have clear and uniform regulatory standards.”

The proposed regulations address three timing rules: (1) penalties subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court; (2) penalties raised in the Tax Court after a petition and (3) penalties assessed without prior opportunity for Tax Court review.

Specifically, the proposed regulations allow supervisors to approve the initial determination of a penalty up until the time the IRS issues a pre-assessment notice, such as a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, which is the notice that provides taxpayers with a ticket to the Tax Court. The proposed regulations explain that “earlier deadlines created by the Tax Court do not ensure that penalties are only imposed where appropriate” and the “bright-line rule relieves supervisors from having to predict whether approval at a certain point will be too early or too late.” Additionally, penalties raised in the Tax Court after a petition is filed, such as an answer or an amended answer, would need supervisory approval any time prior to the penalty being raised. Supervisory approval for penalties not subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court may be obtained at any time prior to the assessment.

The proposed regulations require the approval of “the immediate supervisor,” which is defined as “any individual with responsibility to approve another individual’s proposal of penalties without the proposal being subject to an intermediary’s approval.” The term is also not limited to any particular individual.

Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by July 10, 2023.

Practice Point: Penalties continue to be a hot topic in the tax controversy arena. The updated guidance promises to clarify and standardize the requirements of supervisory approval of IRS penalties, with the hope and expectation of reducing litigation on the issue. From the taxpayer’s perspective, ideally, the new regulations will enable examiners and managers the opportunity to thoroughly review the facts and circumstances of cases before deciding if penalties are warranted. We will continue to follow and report on any new developments.

Please see the links to our prior commentary on Code Section 6751 below:



Tax Court Rules That the IRS Cannot Assess or Collect Certain Tax Penalties

By , and on Apr 5, 2023
Posted In , , ,

On April 3, 2023, the US Tax Court issued its opinion in Farhy v. Commissioner, ruling that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could neither assess tax penalties under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6038(b) against Alon Farhy nor collect those penalties via a levy.

This is a significant development because the IRS automatically assesses these penalties on any late-filed Form 5471, Information Return of US Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. This practice will presumably be immediately ceased. Moreover, any taxpayer who was assessed and paid a penalty on a late-filed Form 5471 may be able to obtain a refund on the penalty paid.

Farhy had failed to file Form 5471 with his US federal income tax return. Failure to timely file Form 5471 comes with a civil tax penalty of $10,000 for each year. (See IRC Section 6038(b)(1).) If the IRS sends the taxpayer notice of its failure to file Form 5471, the taxpayer has 90 days after the notice is mailed to comply with the filing requirement. Failure to comply within the 90-day period subjects the taxpayer to an additional penalty of $10,000 for each 30-day period, with a $50,000 maximum. (See IRC Section 6038(b)(2).)

Code Section 6201(a) permits the IRS to “assess” taxes and assessable penalties. Assessment is the act of formally recording a tax liability on the IRS’s records for a taxpayer. After assessment and failure to pay, the IRS can enforce the collection of tax, penalties and interest by asserting a lien on property or by levying (taking) property.

The Code provides statutes that permit the IRS to assess taxes (including interest, additional amounts and additions to tax) and certain types of penalties (assessable penalties). In Farhy, the Tax Court held that the Code does not contain any statute that permits the IRS to assess the penalty provided in Code Section 6038(b). As such, although the IRS correctly determined that Farhy should be penalized for failing to file Form 5471 with his return, the IRS lacked the statutory ability under the Code to assess and collect the penalty under traditional assessment and collection procedures that they use for other penalties (essentially treated similar to deemed taxes).

The Tax Court did note that the government had other tools at its disposal to collect the penalties, for example, 28 U.S.C. § 2461(a): “Whenever a civil fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for the violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of recovery or enforcement thereof, it may be recovered in a civil action.”

Practice Point: Farhy is a major taxpayer victory and demonstrates that a technical deficiency in the Code can have substantial ramifications for the administration of our tax laws and the potential collection of penalties relating to violations thereof. Clearly, Congress intended to permit the IRS the ability to collect the penalties determined under the Code but failing to connect Code Section 6038(b) with the statutory provisions to assess tax and penalties makes the IRS unable to practically and efficiently collect said penalties. We expect (and are [...]

Continue Reading



Weekly IRS Roundup March 13 – March 17, 2023

By on Mar 20, 2023
Posted In , ,

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of March 13, 2023 – March 17, 2023.

March 13, 2023: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin 2023-11, which highlights the following:

  • Notice 2023-21: This notice postpones the beginning of the lookback periods under Section 6511 for certain taxpayers to file a claim for refund. Affected taxpayers include those who had tax returns due from April 15, 2020 to July 15, 2020, or from April 15, 2021 to May 17, 2021, and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, those due dates were postponed by Notice 2020-23 or Notice 2021-21 to July 15, 2020 or May 17, 2021, respectively.
  • Treasury Decision 9972: These final regulations amend the rules for filing certain returns and statements electronically to reflect changes made by the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 and to promote electronic filing.
  • Notice 2023-19: This notice provides guidance on the corporate bond monthly yield curve, corresponding spot segment rates and the 24-month average segment rates for February 2023. The notice also provides guidance as to interest rates on 30-year Treasury securities and 30-year Treasury weighted average rates.
  • REG 122286-18: These proposed regulations provide rules relating to the use of forfeitures in qualified retirement plans, including a deadline for the use of forfeitures in defined contribution plans, and clarify that forfeitures arising in any defined contribution plan may be used for one or more of the following purposes, as specified in the plan, to (1) pay plan administrative expenses, (2) reduce employer contributions under the plan or (3) increase benefits in other participants’ accounts in accordance with plan terms.
  • Action on Decision 2023-2: The IRS announced nonacquiescence to the US Tax Court’s decision in Complex Media, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-14, that the parties’ failure to report transactions fully or consistently should not be a major factor in a decision of whether to allow a taxpayer to disavow the form of its transactions and to the standard the Court applied to allow a petitioner to disavow its form. The IRS also announced nonacquiescence to the court’s determination that the fair market value of a “Deferred Payment Right” for purposes of Section 351(b)(1) is not equal to its issue price.
  • Treasury Decision 9973: This document contains final regulations that treat members of a consolidated group as a single US shareholder in certain cases for purposes of Section 951(a)(2)(B). The final regulations affect consolidated groups that own stock of foreign corporations.

March 13, 2023: The IRS announced that Danny Werfel began work as the 50th Commissioner of the IRS. Werfel was confirmed by the US Senate on March 9, 2023, and his term will run through November 12, 2027. You can read more about his confirmation
Continue Reading



Tax Court Holds That Deficiency Petition 90-Day Time Limit Is Jurisdictional

By , and on Dec 1, 2022
Posted In , ,

Last summer, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the 30-day time limit to file a Collection Due Process (CDP) petition is a non-jurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling (Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner). (Our prior discussion of Boechler can be found here.) The natural follow-up issue was whether this holding extended to the 90-day limit for deficiency petitions.

On November 29, 2022, in a unanimous 17-0 opinion in Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, the US Tax Court held that the 90-day time limit is jurisdictional not subject to equitable tolling. The taxpayer in that case filed its deficiency petition one day late but argued that the 90-day limit is non-jurisdictional under Boechler and that it should be allowed to show cause for equitable tolling of the limitations period.

The Tax Court analyzed the relevant statute (Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6213(a)) and found that the statutory text, context and relevant historical treatment all confirmed that the 90-day time limit clearly provided that the deadline was jurisdictional. Its analysis started with the US Constitution and tracked the deficiency procedures from the days of its predecessor (the Board of Tax Appeals) through various statutory changes and the overall framework of the procedures. Based on its analysis of almost 100 years of statutory and judicial precedent, the Tax Court concluded that it and the US Courts of Appeals have expressly and uniformly treated the 90-day time limit as jurisdictional, and the US Congress was presumptively aware of this treatment and had acquiesced in it.

The Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments to the contrary. It noted that the Supreme Court in Boechler rejected the analogy of the statutory 30-day limit for a CDP petition to the statutory 90-day limit for a deficiency petition. The Court also provided separate reasons why the statutory 30-day time limit was different, both in its text and in prior judicial constructions from the 90-day time limit.

Practice Point: The Tax Court’s opinion in Hallmark will not be the last word on the issue, and we expect further developments in this area. Additionally, there are other types of petitions that can be filed in the Tax Court (e.g., so-called “innocent spouse” petitions filed in non-deficiency cases) that contain language different from the statutes addressed in Boechler and Hallmark. We will continue to follow this area and provide relevant updates as they develop.



Tax Court to Host COVID-19 Webinar

By and on Oct 19, 2022
Posted In ,

On November 16, 2022, the US Tax Court will host an informative webinar panel discussion moderated by Chief Judge Kathleen Kerrigan from 12:00 – 1:00 pm (EST). The program will highlight changes to Tax Court practice that were made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and include lessons learned, best practices and practical implications for ongoing controversy matters and trial calendars. The webinar is free and open to everyone—register here.

Practice Point: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the tax world significantly. For those with an active practice in the Tax Court, this webinar should be very informative and helpful. Additional COVID-19 resources for the Tax Court can be found here.

For some of our prior coverage on the impact of COVID-19 on the Tax Court’s operations, see here and here.



Former Tax Court Judge Herbert Chabot Passes Away

By and on Oct 17, 2022
Posted In ,

The US Tax Court announced that former Judge Herbert Chabot passed away on October 11, 2022.

Judge Chabot joined the Tax Court in 1978, serving as a regular judge and then as a senior judge for almost 40 years. Before being appointed to the Tax Court, he served on the staff of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation for over a dozen years. Prior to that, he clerked at the Tax Court, served on the Legal Staff of the American Jewish Congress and served in the US Army and the Army Reserves.

We both knew Judge Chabot well during our time clerking at the Tax Court. He was very thoughtful and cared deeply about reaching the correct result in each case. The Tax Court’s announcement aptly states: “He was a delightful storyteller and often regaled his colleagues and law clerks with wonderful stories. His charm, humor, and ubiquitous bowtie will be missed.”



Courts Split on Supervisory Approval Requirement for Tax Penalties

By , and on Sep 28, 2022
Posted In , , ,

Since Chai v. Commissioner, an opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit subsequently followed by the US Tax Court in several opinions, there has been a substantial number of cases litigating issues involving supervisory approval of federal civil tax penalties. Two recent additions to that list include decisions from the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, where both Courts departed from the Tax Court’s analysis and ruling on the issue. The disagreement centers on when approval must occur. (Some of our prior discussions on this topic are linked below.)

LAIDLAW’S AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In Laidlaw’s Harley-Davidson Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner, the Ninth Circuit, reversing the Tax Court’s ruling, applied a textualist approach and held that approval is required only before the assessment of a tax penalty and not before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) communicates a proposed penalty to the taxpayer. The Court reasoned that the “language of [Internal Revenue Code (Code) section 6571(b)] provides no reason to conclude that an ‘initial determination’ is transformed into ‘something more like a final determination’ simply because the revenue agent who made the initial determination subsequently mailed a letter to the taxpayer describing it.” While the Court was “troubled” by the manner in which the IRS communicated the potential imposition of the penalty, it explained that a court’s role is to “apply the law as it is written, not to devise alternative language.” In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the position developed by the Tax Court in recent years.

KRONER AND THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

In Kroner v. Commissioner, the Eleventh Circuit followed Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales and similarly concluded that the IRS satisfies Code Section 6751(b) so long as a supervisor approves the penalty before it is assessed. The Court explained that this was the best reading of the statute because (1) it is more consistent with the meaning of the phrase “initial determination of such assessment,” (2) it reflects the absence of any express timing requirement in the statute, and (3) it is a workable reading in the light of the statute’s purpose. The Court suggested that the IRS may be wise “to have a supervisor approve proposed tax penalties at an early juncture…but the text of the statute does not impose an earlier deadline.”

The Eleventh Circuit was explicit in its departure from Chai and Tax Court precedent, stating that “the Chai court missed an important aspect of the statute’s purpose: it is not just about bargaining, it is also a check on the imposition of erroneous penalties.” The Court also explained that “appropriate penalties should be assessed and collected. Chai’s analysis of these competing interests leaned heavily on the former to the detriment of the latter when justifying its departure from the statutory text.”

Practice Point: It remains to be seen whether this issue will make its way to the Supreme Court of the United States given the apparent circuit split on the issue as [...]

Continue Reading



Tax Court Relaxes COVID-19 Protocols

By , and on Aug 25, 2022
Posted In , ,

Courts have been relaxing their COVID-19 protocols over the past several months, and on August 23, 2022, the US Tax Court announced its latest position. In Administrative Order No. 2022-01, the Tax Court detailed new protocols for entry into the Washington, DC, courthouse, as well as in-person proceedings at all the locations in which it holds court.

As of August 29, 2022, court personnel and contractors will no longer be required to show a COVID-19 attestation form, a vaccination card or a negative COVID-19 test to enter the Washington, DC, courthouse. Instead, anyone entering will be required to self-certify whether they have or have been exposed to COVID-19. Additionally, individuals who test positive for COVID-19 within five days of entering the Washington, DC, courthouse are requested to notify the Tax Court.

Trial participants, witnesses and members of the public attending in-person proceedings must complete the COVID-19 self-certification requirement via QR code for entry into a Tax Court proceeding at any location. Additionally, entrants to both the Washington, DC, courthouse and Tax Court in-person proceedings at any location are requested to follow the current guidelines provided in the Court Standards and Protocols to Protect Public Health.

Practice Point: COVID-19’s effects on the administration of Tax Court proceedings lingers on more than two years after the outbreak. If you plan to attend a court proceeding in person, we suggest checking the Tax Court’s website in advance to ensure that you are in compliance with its procedures before showing up.



BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge