Keller Tank Servs. II, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
Citation | 848 F.3d 1251 (Mem) |
Decision Date | 21 February 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 16-9001,16-9001 |
Parties | KELLER TANK SERVICES II, INC., Petitioner–Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent–Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
In this appeal, we address whether a taxpayer may challenge a tax penalty in a Collection Due Process hearing ("CDP hearing") after already having challenged the penalty in the Appeals Office of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS").
Keller Tank Services II, Inc. ("Keller"), the taxpayer, participated in an employee benefit plan and took deductions for its contributions to the plan. The IRS notified Keller of (1) a tax penalty of $57,782 for failure to report its participation in the plan as a "listed transaction" on its 2007 tax return, and (2) an income tax deficiency and related penalties for improper deductions of payments to the plan. This case is about the $57,782 penalty and Keller's efforts to challenge it.
As more fully described below, Keller protested the tax penalty at the IRS Appeals Office. It then attempted to do so in a CDP hearing but was rebuffed because it already had challenged the penalty at the Appeals Office. Keller appealed the CDP decision to the Tax Court, which granted summary judgment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner"). Keller appeals that decision here. Exercising jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1), we affirm.
To aid the reader, we provide definitions of various terms, set forth the pertinent statutes and regulation, and offer a brief overview of the relevant tax enforcement process and administrative structure. We then turn to the factual and procedural history of this case.
The following terms are used throughout the opinion and first appear in the order presented here.1
The following statutes and regulation are the primary legal materials applicable to this appeal.
For purposes of this section:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New Mexico v. Dep't of the Interior
...Indians of Okla. v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. , 567 F.3d 1235, 1239–40 (10th Cir. 2009) ; see also Keller Tank Servs. II, Inc. v. Comm'r , 848 F.3d 1251, 1269 (10th Cir. 2017) (noting that "[t]he Chevron -deference analysis proceeds in two steps," and explicating them both). "If Cong......
-
Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin. (In re Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe)
...w-pub-number="0000506" w-pinpoint-page="1269" manual-edit="true" ID="I4302ddab8cd711ea9da8b52a7d65c485"> Keller Tank Servs. II, Inc. v. Comm'r , 848 F.3d 1251, 1269 (10th Cir. 2017) (noting that "[t]he Chevron -deference analysis proceeds in two steps," and explicating them both). "If Congr......
-
LG Kendrick, LLC v. Comm'r, 16-9003
...the assessment of the liability." Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A E2. We upheld this regulation in Keller Tank Servs. II, Inc. v. Comm'r, 848 F.3d 1251, 1272 (10th Cir. 2017), as a reasonable interpretation of § 6330(c)(2)(B). Here, LGK had an opportunity to dispute the underlying tax l......