Smith v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, No. 9845–09.
| Decision Date | 21 December 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 9845–09. |
| Citation | 133 T.C. 424,133 T.C. No. 18 |
| Parties | Sydney G. and Lisa M. SMITH, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
R issued Ps a notice of deficiency that determined deficiencies in income tax and accuracy-related penalties for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 under secs. 6662, I.R.C., and 6662A, I.R.C. R subsequently sent Ps notices of assessment for penalties assessed under sec. 6707A, I.R.C., for 2004, 2005, and 2006. R filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to the Section 6707A Penalties.
Held: This Court lacks jurisdiction to redetermine sec. 6707A, I .R.C., penalties in a deficiency proceeding.
Michael E. Lloyd and Stephen J. Pieklik, for petitioners.
John R. Bampfield, for respondent.
This matter is before the Court on respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to the Section 6707A Penalties. We decide for the first time whether this Court has jurisdiction in a deficiency proceeding to redetermine a taxpayer's liability for section 6707A 1 penalties. We conclude that we do not.
We recite these facts solely for purposes of ruling on respondent's motion. Petitioners resided in Hawaii at the time they filed the petition. Respondent issued petitioners a deficiency notice for 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Respondent determined a deficiency in income tax for each challenged year, as well as accuracy-related penalties under sections 6662 and 6662A as follows:
+-------------------------------------------------+
¦Penalties ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+-----------+------------+-----------+------------¦
¦Year ¦Deficiency ¦Sec. 6662 ¦Sec. 6662A ¦
+-----------+------------+-----------+------------¦
¦2003 ¦$637 ¦$127.40 ¦— ¦
+-----------+------------+-----------+------------¦
¦2004 ¦65,065 ¦5,433.20 ¦$10,804.50 ¦
+-----------+------------+-----------+------------¦
¦2005 ¦33,683 ¦94.60 ¦10,500.00 ¦
+-----------+------------+-----------+------------¦
¦2006 ¦34,589 ¦53.00 ¦10,762.00 ¦
+-------------------------------------------------+
Respondent also sent petitioners notices of assessment of section 6707A penalties for failure to report involvement in a listed transaction. The assessments were for 2004, 2005, and 2006, in the amount of $100,000 for each year, totaling $300,000.
Respondent also issued deficiency and assessment notices to petitioner Mr. Smith's solely owned company, Sydney G. Smith, MD, Inc. (corporation). Respondent determined that the corporation had deficiencies in income tax for 2004, 2005, and 2006 and was liable for accuracy-related penalties under sections 6662 and 6662A. Respondent also assessed the corporation with section 6707A penalties for years 2004, 2005, and 2006, in the amount of $200,000 for each year, totaling $600,000. Mr. Smith filed this case separately from the case involving his corporation, Sydney G. Smith, MD, Inc. v. Commissioner, Docket No. 10037–09.
Petitioners timely filed a petition challenging the deficiency notice and the notices of assessment. Respondent then filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike as to the Section 6707A Penalties, stating that this Court lacks jurisdiction to redetermine the section 6707A penalties. Petitioners object and ask the Court to deny respondent's motion and find that this Court has jurisdiction to redetermine liability for the section 6707A penalties.
The parties agree that we have jurisdiction to decide the issues presented in the deficiency notice. The parties disagree, however, whether this Court has jurisdiction to redetermine petitioners' liability for the section 6707A penalties.
We now consider whether we have jurisdiction to redetermine petitioners' liability for section 6707A penalties. We begin by explaining the general principles of Tax Court jurisdiction.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress. Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529, 1985 WL 15396 (1985). The Tax Court is without authority to enlarge upon that statutory grant. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 885, 888, 1989 WL 43931 (1989). We nevertheless have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction. Hambrick v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 348, 2002 WL 655426 (2002); Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632, 1984 WL 15623 (1984); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314, 1984 WL 15610 (1984). We therefore find we have authority to determine whether this Court has jurisdiction to redetermine petitioners' liability for the section 6707A penalties.
Respondent contends that we lack jurisdiction to redetermine the section 6707A penalties and has therefore moved to strike them from the pleading. This Court may strike from any pleading any insufficient claim or defense or any redundant or immaterial matter upon a timely motion of the parties or on our own initiative. Rule 52. In determining whether we lack jurisdiction and therefore may strike the portion relating to the section 6707A penalties, we turn now to the legislative history of section 6707A.
Congress enacted section 6707A to aid the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) effort to stop abusive tax shelters, specifically by imposing a penalty for a taxpayer's failure to disclose participation in certain tax-avoidance transactions known as reportable transactions.2 See H. Rept. 108–548 (Part 1), at 261 (2004). Before section 6707A's enactment, the Treasury Department had issued regulations requiring taxpayers to disclose participation in reportable transactions. See id. at 260; sec. 1.6011–4, Income Tax Regs. Even with the disclosure requirement, however, the IRS often did not learn of the existence of tax shelters until after it conducted audits. National Taxpayer Advocate, 2008 Annual Report to Congress (Vol.Two), at 420 (2008). Congress believed that Treasury needed additional tools to enforce compliance with the reportable transaction disclosure regulations. Congress thereafter passed a law imposing a penalty for failure to include information regarding participation in a reportable transaction on a taxpayer's tax return or statement. H. Rept. 108–548 (Part 1), supra at 261. Congress codified the new penalty in section 6707A. American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Pub.L. 108–357, sec. 811, 118 Stat. 1575.
The amount the IRS may assess a taxpayer for failure to include information required under section 6011 with respect to a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction is $10,000 in the case of an individual and $50,000 in any other case. Sec. 6707A(b)(1). If the failure is with respect to a listed transaction the penalty is increased to $100,000 in the case of an individual and $200,000 in any other case. Sec. 6707A(b)(2). The penalty applies without regard to whether the transaction ultimately results in an understatement of income, estate, gift, or excise tax, or, for that matter, any tax whatsoever, and in addition to any other penalty, including an accuracy-related penalty, imposed by the Code. See sec. 6707A(f).
The Commissioner may rescind all or any portion of the penalty imposed respecting a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction. Sec. 6707A(d)(1). A determination by the Commissioner regarding the rescission of a penalty may not be reviewed in any judicial proceeding. Sec. 6707A(d)(2). The legislative history indicates that the statute's prohibition of judicial review is not intended otherwise to limit the taxpayer's ability to litigate whether a penalty is appropriate. H. Rept. 108–548 (Part 1), supra at 262 n. 233; see Rev. Proc.2007–21, 2007–1 C.B. 613. We turn now to petitioners' liability for the section 6707A penalties.
Petitioners filed a petition with this Court asserting that we have jurisdiction not only over the deficiency notice but also over the assessed section 6707A penalties. Respondent counters that our deficiency jurisdiction does not include section 6707A penalties.
A section 6707A penalty is an “assessable penalty” located under subchapter B of chapter 68, entitled “Assessable Penalties.” Respondent asserts that petitioners may not seek a redetermination by this Court of the section 6707A penalty because it is an “assessable penalty.” The label of “assessable penalty,” however, does not automatically bar a taxpayer from using the deficiency procedures to challenge the liability. An assessable penalty, rather, must be paid upon notice and demand and assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. Sec. 6671; Hickey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.2009–2.
Certain penalties imposed under subchapter B of chapter 68 are explicitly exempt from the deficiency procedures.3 No such explicit limitation is found in section 6707A. Section 6707A's silence as to deficiency proceedings, however, does not vest this Court with jurisdiction. This Court and others have held that other penalties lacking such an explicit exemption are not subject to the deficiency procedures. See Shaw v. United States, 331 F.2d 493 (9th Cir.1964) (); Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1981 WL 11307 (1981) (), affd. 742 F.2d 1446 (2d Cir.1983); Judd v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651, 1980 WL 4463 (1981) ().
“Deficiency” means, as relevant here, the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 exceeds the amount shown as tax by the taxpayer upon his or her return. Sec. 6211(a); see Granquist v. Hackleman,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keller Tank Servs. II, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...upon a deficiency; they are imposed solely for the failure to disclose, even in cases involving an overpayment of tax. Smith v. Comm'r, 133 T.C. 424, 428-29 (2009). Because § 6707A penalties are not subject to deficiency procedures, the taxpayer may not directly appeal a penalty to the Tax ......
-
Keller Tank Servs. II, Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...upon a deficiency; they are imposed solely for the failure to disclose, even in cases involving an overpayment of tax. Smith v. Comm'r , 133 T.C. 424, 428–29 (2009). Because § 6707A penalties are not subject to deficiency procedures, the taxpayer may not directly appeal a penalty to the Tax......
-
Larson v. United States
...a challenged tax or assessment, Larson's penalty is not a "deficiency" and therefore is not reviewable in Tax Court. See Smith v. C.I.R., 133 T.C. 424, 429-30 (2009) (Tax Court "lack[s] jurisdiction to redetermine [section 6707] penalties" because Tax Court "has never exercised jurisdiction......
-
Our Country Home Enters., Inc. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...reporting penalties imposed for failing to report participation in various tax-shelter transactions. See I.R.C. § 6707A ; Smith v. Comm'r , 133 T.C. 424, 428–29 (2009). For these nondeficiency taxes—which are not subject to deficiency procedures like prepayment judicial review in tax court—......