SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 11
Baixar para ler offline
133 T.C. No. 18



                UNITED STATES TAX COURT



     SYDNEY G. AND LISA M. SMITH, Petitioners v.
     COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



Docket No. 9845-09.                Filed December 21, 2009.



     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.
-2-

                                 OPINION


       KROUPA, Judge:   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

6707A1 penalties.    We conclude that we do not.

                               Background

       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


       1
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
(Code) in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless
otherwise indicated.
-3-

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.
-4-

                             Discussion

     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.

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).    The Tax Court

is without authority to enlarge upon that statutory grant.      See

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 885, 888 (1989).

We nevertheless have jurisdiction to determine whether we have

jurisdiction.   Hambrick v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 348 (2002); Pyo

v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984); Kluger v. Commissioner,

83 T.C. 309, 314 (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
-5-

section 6707A penalties, we turn now to the legislative history

of section 6707A.

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


     2
      Sec. 1.6011-4(b), Income Tax Regs., defines “reportable
transactions” to include “listed transactions” (e.g., a
transaction the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has determined to
be a tax avoidance transaction and has identified by notice,
regulation, or other published guidance as a listed transaction).
-6-

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,
-7-

2007-1 C.B. 613.   We turn now to petitioners’ liability for the

section 6707A penalties.

Tax Court Review of “Assessable 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


     3
      Secs. 6677(e) (failure to file information with respect to
foreign trust), 6679(b) (failure to file returns, etc., with
respect to foreign corporations or foreign partnerships), 6682(c)
(false information with respect to withholding), 6693(d) (failure
to provide reports on certain tax-favored accounts or annuities),
6696(b) (rules applicable with respect to secs. 6694, 6695, and
                                                    (continued...)
-8-

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) (distinguishing section 6672

penalties not subject to deficiency proceedings from section 6651

additions subject to deficiency proceedings); Medeiros v.

Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255 (1981) (this Court lacks jurisdiction

to review previously assessed section 6672 penalties), affd. 742

F.2d 1446 (2d Cir. 1983); Judd v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651

(1981) (this Court lacks jurisdiction to review assessment of

section 6652 additions to tax).

     “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, 264 F.2d 9, 15

(9th Cir. 1959).    We conclude that section 6707A penalties are

not included in the statutory definition of “deficiency.”    See

secs. 6671, 6211.    Section 6707A penalties do not depend upon a


     3
      (...continued)
6695A), 6697(c) (assessable penalties with respect to liability
for tax of regulated investment companies), 6706(c) (original
issue discount information requirements), 6713(c) (disclosure or
use of information by preparers of returns), 6716(e) (failure to
file information with respect to certain transfers at death and
gifts).
-9-

deficiency.   They may be assessed even if there is an overpayment

of tax.   The IRS imposes the penalty for failure to disclose a

reportable transaction.

     We note that this Court has never exercised jurisdiction

over an assessable penalty that was not related to a deficiency,

even absent Congress’ explicitly circumscribing our jurisdiction.

See Williams v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 54, 58 n.4 (2008)

(assessable penalties fall outside the deficiency notice regime

of sections 6212 to 6214 and thus fall outside this Court’s

deficiency jurisdiction).   Moreover, most of the assessable

penalty provisions4 that do not implicate deficiency proceedings

concern a taxpayer’s failure to file a return or provide other

information similar to failing to disclose a reportable

transaction under section 6707A.



     4
      See secs. 6651 (failure to file a tax return or to pay a
tax; the deficiency procedures apply only to the portion of the
penalty attributable to the deficiency in taxes), 6677 (failure
to file information returns with respect to certain foreign
trusts), 6679 (failure to file returns, etc., with respect to
foreign corporations or foreign partnerships), 6686 (failure to
file returns or supply information by domestic international
sales corporation or foreign sales corporation), 6688 (assessable
penalties with respect to information required to be furnished
under sec. 7654), 6690 (fraudulent statement or failure to
furnish statement to plan participant), 6692 (failure to file
actuarial report), 6707 (failure to furnish information regarding
reportable transactions), 6708 (failure to maintain lists of
advisees with respect to reportable transactions), 6710 (failure
to disclose that contributions are nondeductible), 6711 (failure
by tax-exempt organization to disclose that certain information
or service available from Federal Government), 6712 (failure to
disclose treaty-based return positions).
-10-

     Here respondent issued a deficiency notice, which is a

condition precedent to Tax Court jurisdiction.    See Medeiros v.

Commissioner, supra at 1260.     The notice, however, did not

determine the section 6707A penalties.    Respondent assessed

penalties based on his determinations that petitioners failed to

report a listed transaction as required by section 6011.    Sec.

6707A(a).   The section 6707A penalty is not within our deficiency

jurisdiction.   See sec. 7442.    Respondent may therefore assess

and collect the penalty without issuing a deficiency notice.5       We

accordingly conclude that we lack jurisdiction6 to redetermine the




     5
      The Court notes that the IRS is aware of the impact of the
sec. 6707A penalties on taxpayers. National Taxpayer Advocate,
2008 Annual Report to Congress (Vol. Two), at 420 (2008). The
IRS “believe[s] the imposition of such a large penalty on a
taxpayer who entered into a transaction that produced little or
even no tax savings and without regard to the taxpayer’s
knowledge or intent raises significant * * * concerns.” Id. at
421. Though Congress may later determine that this Court should
be given jurisdiction to review sec. 6707A penalties to address
these concerns, we are constricted at this time.
     6
      Though this Court is currently without jurisdiction,
petitioners may have other avenues for judicial review.
Petitioners may pay the penalties and seek recovery in a refund
court. See sec. 7422; 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346 (2006). In addition,
we would presumably have jurisdiction to redetermine a liability
challenge asserted by petitioners in a collection due process
hearing. See sec. 6330(d)(1); Williams v. Commissioner, 131 T.C.
54, 58 n.4 (2008); Callahan v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 44, 48
(2008); D & M Painting Corp. v. United States, 103 AFTR 2d 2009-
1516, 2009-1 USTC par. 50,343 (W.D. Pa. 2009) (District Court
dismissed case because taxpayer could still seek redress by
either paying the tax or through obtaining a pre-levy hearing
pursuant to sec. 6330).
-11-

section 6707A penalties and shall grant respondent’s motion to

dismiss and to strike as to the section 6707A penalties.7

     For the foregoing reasons,



                                           An appropriate order will

                                      be issued.




     7
      We maintain jurisdiction as to petitioners’ deficiencies
and the accuracy-related penalties under secs. 6662 and 6662A.

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Garrin v. commissioner
Garrin v. commissionerGarrin v. commissioner
Garrin v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
Pearce v. commissioner
Pearce v. commissionerPearce v. commissioner
Pearce v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
Claborn v. commissioner
Claborn v. commissionerClaborn v. commissioner
Claborn v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
Perkins v. commissioner
Perkins v. commissionerPerkins v. commissioner
Perkins v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
2. yap-v-commission-on-audit
2. yap-v-commission-on-audit2. yap-v-commission-on-audit
2. yap-v-commission-on-auditkarlcredo1
 
Bp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlement
Bp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlementBp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlement
Bp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlementMichael J. Evans
 
4. hilario-v-prudente
4. hilario-v-prudente4. hilario-v-prudente
4. hilario-v-prudentekarlcredo1
 
14 10-114-maintenance-spousal-support
14 10-114-maintenance-spousal-support14 10-114-maintenance-spousal-support
14 10-114-maintenance-spousal-supportFedRalcon
 
117834247 mwss-case-2011
117834247 mwss-case-2011117834247 mwss-case-2011
117834247 mwss-case-2011homeworkping9
 
59828293 sagsago-taxation-full-case
59828293 sagsago-taxation-full-case59828293 sagsago-taxation-full-case
59828293 sagsago-taxation-full-casehomeworkping4
 
Michigan Supreme Court Brief_Coalition
Michigan Supreme Court Brief_CoalitionMichigan Supreme Court Brief_Coalition
Michigan Supreme Court Brief_CoalitionPatrick Fitzgerald
 
SYNNEX CORPDEF14A_022007
SYNNEX CORPDEF14A_022007SYNNEX CORPDEF14A_022007
SYNNEX CORPDEF14A_022007finance32
 

Mais procurados (15)

Garrin v. commissioner
Garrin v. commissionerGarrin v. commissioner
Garrin v. commissioner
 
Pearce v. commissioner
Pearce v. commissionerPearce v. commissioner
Pearce v. commissioner
 
Claborn v. commissioner
Claborn v. commissionerClaborn v. commissioner
Claborn v. commissioner
 
Perkins v. commissioner
Perkins v. commissionerPerkins v. commissioner
Perkins v. commissioner
 
2. yap-v-commission-on-audit
2. yap-v-commission-on-audit2. yap-v-commission-on-audit
2. yap-v-commission-on-audit
 
Transcript of Order on DHHL
Transcript of Order on DHHLTranscript of Order on DHHL
Transcript of Order on DHHL
 
Bp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlement
Bp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlementBp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlement
Bp settlement final_order_and_judgment_on_economic_class_settlement
 
4. hilario-v-prudente
4. hilario-v-prudente4. hilario-v-prudente
4. hilario-v-prudente
 
Cfpb proposed modifications-mortgage-rules
Cfpb proposed modifications-mortgage-rulesCfpb proposed modifications-mortgage-rules
Cfpb proposed modifications-mortgage-rules
 
14 10-114-maintenance-spousal-support
14 10-114-maintenance-spousal-support14 10-114-maintenance-spousal-support
14 10-114-maintenance-spousal-support
 
Writing Sample Raines
Writing Sample RainesWriting Sample Raines
Writing Sample Raines
 
117834247 mwss-case-2011
117834247 mwss-case-2011117834247 mwss-case-2011
117834247 mwss-case-2011
 
59828293 sagsago-taxation-full-case
59828293 sagsago-taxation-full-case59828293 sagsago-taxation-full-case
59828293 sagsago-taxation-full-case
 
Michigan Supreme Court Brief_Coalition
Michigan Supreme Court Brief_CoalitionMichigan Supreme Court Brief_Coalition
Michigan Supreme Court Brief_Coalition
 
SYNNEX CORPDEF14A_022007
SYNNEX CORPDEF14A_022007SYNNEX CORPDEF14A_022007
SYNNEX CORPDEF14A_022007
 

Semelhante a Smith v. commissioner

Selph v. commissioner
Selph v. commissionerSelph v. commissioner
Selph v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
Selph v. commissioner
Selph v. commissionerSelph v. commissioner
Selph v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
Morris v. commissioner
Morris v. commissionerMorris v. commissioner
Morris v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
Slater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissionerSlater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
US Tax Procedures and Preparers (Wallwork, Osler)
US Tax Procedures and Preparers (Wallwork, Osler)US Tax Procedures and Preparers (Wallwork, Osler)
US Tax Procedures and Preparers (Wallwork, Osler)Adam Wallwork
 
Claim for Refund of Overpayment
Claim for Refund of OverpaymentClaim for Refund of Overpayment
Claim for Refund of Overpaymenttaxman taxman
 
Relief for Missed Portability Elections
Relief for Missed Portability ElectionsRelief for Missed Portability Elections
Relief for Missed Portability ElectionsAICPA
 
Taxes and Philex: CTA 2 d_cv_08284_d_2012jul30_ref
Taxes and Philex: CTA 2 d_cv_08284_d_2012jul30_refTaxes and Philex: CTA 2 d_cv_08284_d_2012jul30_ref
Taxes and Philex: CTA 2 d_cv_08284_d_2012jul30_refNo to mining in Palawan
 
Tops Markets bankruptcy court filing
Tops Markets bankruptcy court filingTops Markets bankruptcy court filing
Tops Markets bankruptcy court filingAdam Francis
 
Enforcing Adjudication Determinations
Enforcing Adjudication DeterminationsEnforcing Adjudication Determinations
Enforcing Adjudication DeterminationsResolution Institute
 
15 06-18 Top 10 Tax Preparer And Other Tax Penalties - Not Going To Jail But ...
15 06-18 Top 10 Tax Preparer And Other Tax Penalties - Not Going To Jail But ...15 06-18 Top 10 Tax Preparer And Other Tax Penalties - Not Going To Jail But ...
15 06-18 Top 10 Tax Preparer And Other Tax Penalties - Not Going To Jail But ...Bruce Givner
 
11-27-13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SWAMY
11-27-13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SWAMY11-27-13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SWAMY
11-27-13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SWAMYRichard Goren
 
SARRAF_EXPORT vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012
SARRAF_EXPORT  vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012SARRAF_EXPORT  vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012
SARRAF_EXPORT vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012suresh ojha
 
October 2015: New York Tax Update for Closely Held and Flow Through Entities
October 2015: New York Tax Update for Closely Held and Flow Through EntitiesOctober 2015: New York Tax Update for Closely Held and Flow Through Entities
October 2015: New York Tax Update for Closely Held and Flow Through EntitiesTimothy Noonan
 
Cash credit-28-dec-18
Cash credit-28-dec-18Cash credit-28-dec-18
Cash credit-28-dec-18Admin SBS
 

Semelhante a Smith v. commissioner (20)

Selph v. commissioner
Selph v. commissionerSelph v. commissioner
Selph v. commissioner
 
Selph v. commissioner
Selph v. commissionerSelph v. commissioner
Selph v. commissioner
 
Morris v. commissioner
Morris v. commissionerMorris v. commissioner
Morris v. commissioner
 
Slater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissionerSlater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissioner
 
S117590[1]
S117590[1]S117590[1]
S117590[1]
 
10000001203
1000000120310000001203
10000001203
 
10000001206
1000000120610000001206
10000001206
 
Rrb income tax letters
Rrb income tax lettersRrb income tax letters
Rrb income tax letters
 
US Tax Procedures and Preparers (Wallwork, Osler)
US Tax Procedures and Preparers (Wallwork, Osler)US Tax Procedures and Preparers (Wallwork, Osler)
US Tax Procedures and Preparers (Wallwork, Osler)
 
Claim for Refund of Overpayment
Claim for Refund of OverpaymentClaim for Refund of Overpayment
Claim for Refund of Overpayment
 
Relief for Missed Portability Elections
Relief for Missed Portability ElectionsRelief for Missed Portability Elections
Relief for Missed Portability Elections
 
Taxes and Philex: CTA 2 d_cv_08284_d_2012jul30_ref
Taxes and Philex: CTA 2 d_cv_08284_d_2012jul30_refTaxes and Philex: CTA 2 d_cv_08284_d_2012jul30_ref
Taxes and Philex: CTA 2 d_cv_08284_d_2012jul30_ref
 
Tops Markets bankruptcy court filing
Tops Markets bankruptcy court filingTops Markets bankruptcy court filing
Tops Markets bankruptcy court filing
 
Colin Harris and Mark Kenney
Colin Harris and Mark KenneyColin Harris and Mark Kenney
Colin Harris and Mark Kenney
 
Enforcing Adjudication Determinations
Enforcing Adjudication DeterminationsEnforcing Adjudication Determinations
Enforcing Adjudication Determinations
 
15 06-18 Top 10 Tax Preparer And Other Tax Penalties - Not Going To Jail But ...
15 06-18 Top 10 Tax Preparer And Other Tax Penalties - Not Going To Jail But ...15 06-18 Top 10 Tax Preparer And Other Tax Penalties - Not Going To Jail But ...
15 06-18 Top 10 Tax Preparer And Other Tax Penalties - Not Going To Jail But ...
 
11-27-13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SWAMY
11-27-13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SWAMY11-27-13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SWAMY
11-27-13 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS SWAMY
 
SARRAF_EXPORT vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012
SARRAF_EXPORT  vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012SARRAF_EXPORT  vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012
SARRAF_EXPORT vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012
 
October 2015: New York Tax Update for Closely Held and Flow Through Entities
October 2015: New York Tax Update for Closely Held and Flow Through EntitiesOctober 2015: New York Tax Update for Closely Held and Flow Through Entities
October 2015: New York Tax Update for Closely Held and Flow Through Entities
 
Cash credit-28-dec-18
Cash credit-28-dec-18Cash credit-28-dec-18
Cash credit-28-dec-18
 

Último

The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...Aggregage
 
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...Will Schroeder
 
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfIaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfDaniel Santiago Silva Capera
 
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureOpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureEric D. Schabell
 
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve DecarbonizationUsing IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve DecarbonizationIES VE
 
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdfUiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdfDianaGray10
 
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?IES VE
 
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarAI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarPrecisely
 
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-pyJamie (Taka) Wang
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7DianaGray10
 
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesLinked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesDavid Newbury
 
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a WebsiteCOMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Websitedgelyza
 
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioComparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioChristian Posta
 
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online CollaborationCOMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaborationbruanjhuli
 
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...DianaGray10
 
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024SkyPlanner
 
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just MinutesAI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just MinutesMd Hossain Ali
 
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1DianaGray10
 
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxCybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxGDSC PJATK
 

Último (20)

The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
The Data Metaverse: Unpacking the Roles, Use Cases, and Tech Trends in Data a...
 
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
Apres-Cyber - The Data Dilemma: Bridging Offensive Operations and Machine Lea...
 
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdfIaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
IaC & GitOps in a Nutshell - a FridayInANuthshell Episode.pdf
 
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability AdventureOpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
OpenShift Commons Paris - Choose Your Own Observability Adventure
 
20150722 - AGV
20150722 - AGV20150722 - AGV
20150722 - AGV
 
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve DecarbonizationUsing IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
Using IESVE for Loads, Sizing and Heat Pump Modeling to Achieve Decarbonization
 
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdfUiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
UiPath Solutions Management Preview - Northern CA Chapter - March 22.pdf
 
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
How Accurate are Carbon Emissions Projections?
 
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity WebinarAI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
AI You Can Trust - Ensuring Success with Data Integrity Webinar
 
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
20230202 - Introduction to tis-py
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 7
 
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond OntologiesLinked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
Linked Data in Production: Moving Beyond Ontologies
 
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a WebsiteCOMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
COMPUTER 10 Lesson 8 - Building a Website
 
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and IstioComparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
Comparing Sidecar-less Service Mesh from Cilium and Istio
 
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online CollaborationCOMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
COMPUTER 10: Lesson 7 - File Storage and Online Collaboration
 
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
Connector Corner: Extending LLM automation use cases with UiPath GenAI connec...
 
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
Salesforce Miami User Group Event - 1st Quarter 2024
 
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just MinutesAI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
AI Fame Rush Review – Virtual Influencer Creation In Just Minutes
 
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
UiPath Platform: The Backend Engine Powering Your Automation - Session 1
 
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptxCybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
Cybersecurity Workshop #1.pptx
 

Smith v. commissioner

  • 1. 133 T.C. No. 18 UNITED STATES TAX COURT SYDNEY G. AND LISA M. SMITH, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 9845-09. Filed December 21, 2009. 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.
  • 2. -2- OPINION KROUPA, Judge: 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 6707A1 penalties. We conclude that we do not. Background 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 1 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.
  • 3. -3- 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.
  • 4. -4- Discussion 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. 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). The Tax Court is without authority to enlarge upon that statutory grant. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 885, 888 (1989). We nevertheless have jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction. Hambrick v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 348 (2002); Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984); Kluger v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 309, 314 (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
  • 5. -5- section 6707A penalties, we turn now to the legislative history of section 6707A. 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 2 Sec. 1.6011-4(b), Income Tax Regs., defines “reportable transactions” to include “listed transactions” (e.g., a transaction the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has determined to be a tax avoidance transaction and has identified by notice, regulation, or other published guidance as a listed transaction).
  • 6. -6- 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,
  • 7. -7- 2007-1 C.B. 613. We turn now to petitioners’ liability for the section 6707A penalties. Tax Court Review of “Assessable 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 3 Secs. 6677(e) (failure to file information with respect to foreign trust), 6679(b) (failure to file returns, etc., with respect to foreign corporations or foreign partnerships), 6682(c) (false information with respect to withholding), 6693(d) (failure to provide reports on certain tax-favored accounts or annuities), 6696(b) (rules applicable with respect to secs. 6694, 6695, and (continued...)
  • 8. -8- 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) (distinguishing section 6672 penalties not subject to deficiency proceedings from section 6651 additions subject to deficiency proceedings); Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255 (1981) (this Court lacks jurisdiction to review previously assessed section 6672 penalties), affd. 742 F.2d 1446 (2d Cir. 1983); Judd v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651 (1981) (this Court lacks jurisdiction to review assessment of section 6652 additions to tax). “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, 264 F.2d 9, 15 (9th Cir. 1959). We conclude that section 6707A penalties are not included in the statutory definition of “deficiency.” See secs. 6671, 6211. Section 6707A penalties do not depend upon a 3 (...continued) 6695A), 6697(c) (assessable penalties with respect to liability for tax of regulated investment companies), 6706(c) (original issue discount information requirements), 6713(c) (disclosure or use of information by preparers of returns), 6716(e) (failure to file information with respect to certain transfers at death and gifts).
  • 9. -9- deficiency. They may be assessed even if there is an overpayment of tax. The IRS imposes the penalty for failure to disclose a reportable transaction. We note that this Court has never exercised jurisdiction over an assessable penalty that was not related to a deficiency, even absent Congress’ explicitly circumscribing our jurisdiction. See Williams v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 54, 58 n.4 (2008) (assessable penalties fall outside the deficiency notice regime of sections 6212 to 6214 and thus fall outside this Court’s deficiency jurisdiction). Moreover, most of the assessable penalty provisions4 that do not implicate deficiency proceedings concern a taxpayer’s failure to file a return or provide other information similar to failing to disclose a reportable transaction under section 6707A. 4 See secs. 6651 (failure to file a tax return or to pay a tax; the deficiency procedures apply only to the portion of the penalty attributable to the deficiency in taxes), 6677 (failure to file information returns with respect to certain foreign trusts), 6679 (failure to file returns, etc., with respect to foreign corporations or foreign partnerships), 6686 (failure to file returns or supply information by domestic international sales corporation or foreign sales corporation), 6688 (assessable penalties with respect to information required to be furnished under sec. 7654), 6690 (fraudulent statement or failure to furnish statement to plan participant), 6692 (failure to file actuarial report), 6707 (failure to furnish information regarding reportable transactions), 6708 (failure to maintain lists of advisees with respect to reportable transactions), 6710 (failure to disclose that contributions are nondeductible), 6711 (failure by tax-exempt organization to disclose that certain information or service available from Federal Government), 6712 (failure to disclose treaty-based return positions).
  • 10. -10- Here respondent issued a deficiency notice, which is a condition precedent to Tax Court jurisdiction. See Medeiros v. Commissioner, supra at 1260. The notice, however, did not determine the section 6707A penalties. Respondent assessed penalties based on his determinations that petitioners failed to report a listed transaction as required by section 6011. Sec. 6707A(a). The section 6707A penalty is not within our deficiency jurisdiction. See sec. 7442. Respondent may therefore assess and collect the penalty without issuing a deficiency notice.5 We accordingly conclude that we lack jurisdiction6 to redetermine the 5 The Court notes that the IRS is aware of the impact of the sec. 6707A penalties on taxpayers. National Taxpayer Advocate, 2008 Annual Report to Congress (Vol. Two), at 420 (2008). The IRS “believe[s] the imposition of such a large penalty on a taxpayer who entered into a transaction that produced little or even no tax savings and without regard to the taxpayer’s knowledge or intent raises significant * * * concerns.” Id. at 421. Though Congress may later determine that this Court should be given jurisdiction to review sec. 6707A penalties to address these concerns, we are constricted at this time. 6 Though this Court is currently without jurisdiction, petitioners may have other avenues for judicial review. Petitioners may pay the penalties and seek recovery in a refund court. See sec. 7422; 28 U.S.C. sec. 1346 (2006). In addition, we would presumably have jurisdiction to redetermine a liability challenge asserted by petitioners in a collection due process hearing. See sec. 6330(d)(1); Williams v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 54, 58 n.4 (2008); Callahan v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. 44, 48 (2008); D & M Painting Corp. v. United States, 103 AFTR 2d 2009- 1516, 2009-1 USTC par. 50,343 (W.D. Pa. 2009) (District Court dismissed case because taxpayer could still seek redress by either paying the tax or through obtaining a pre-levy hearing pursuant to sec. 6330).
  • 11. -11- section 6707A penalties and shall grant respondent’s motion to dismiss and to strike as to the section 6707A penalties.7 For the foregoing reasons, An appropriate order will be issued. 7 We maintain jurisdiction as to petitioners’ deficiencies and the accuracy-related penalties under secs. 6662 and 6662A.