STJ Lewis (“His Name is His Fame”) Carluzzo has four iterations of the latest lore on the Section 6707A nondisclosure chop. For brevity’s sake, I’ll reference just one, Christopher A. Iames, Docket No. 10306-14L, filed 6/16/15.

And likewise, as a refresher, because Chris’ and his fellow-sufferers’ cases pivot thereon, check out my blogpost “The $100,000 Misunderstanding,” 9/15/14.

Now that you remember the case of Steven Yari, we can look at Chris and the others.

Chris petitions a NOD about a Section 6707A nondisclosure-of-listed-transaction chop, but only disputes underlying liability and offers no collection alternative, either at Appeals or in his petition.

Here’s the beef and counter-beef. Chris claims “…the underlying liability should be abated because, ‘the assessment is based upon, including but not limited to, an unexplained determination that the related transaction is a listed transaction and a provision of the Internal Revenue Code that is unconstitutional as a deprivation of due process.’ According to respondent’s motion, petitioner is precluded from challenging the existence or the amount of the underlying liability in this proceeding because he had a prior opportunity to do so. See sec. 6330(c)(2)(B).” Order, at p. 2.

Constitutional arguments in Tax Court are nonstarters: no jurisdiction. Pay and fight it out in USDC.

“The underlying liability was assessed… following a conference with respondent’s Appeals Office (Appeals). Relying upon section 6330(c)(2)(B), section 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs., and Lewis v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 48 (2007), which upheld the validity of that regulation, respondent argues that because Appeals had considered the underlying liability prior to petitioner’s request for section 6330 review, petitioner may not in this proceeding challenge the existence or the amount of that liability.” Order, at p. 2.

Anyway, Chris tries the Yari gambit. He argues “…Lewis is not controlling because: (1) the case was superseded, if not overturned, by Yari v. Commissioner, 143 T.C. __ (Sept. 15, 2014); and (2) the version of section 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2, Proced. & Admin. Regs. considered in Lewis has since been amended, and the version in effect here is invalid. For the following reasons, we disagree with petitioner on both points.” Order, at p. 2.

Yari went off on the proper method for computing the chop, not challenging it. Congress amended Section 6707A while Yari was percolating through Tax Court, so Tax Court had to consider a recalculation based on change in law. And because of the audible at the line of scrimmage, Appeals never got the chance to deal with the revised computation.

STJ Lew: “Here, there was no intervening change to the statute giving rise to the underlying liability. That liability was considered by Appeals prior to the section 6330 proceedings, and therefore, consistent with section 301.6320-1(e)(3), Q&AE2, Proced. & Admin. Regs., as construed in Lewis, petitioner has had a prior opportunity to challenge the existence or the amount of the underlying liability and he may not do so here.” Order, at p. 2.

Still, I think a Taishoff “good try, second class” should go to Chris’ attorney, Allen James White, Esq.