In Uncategorized on 03/01/2021 at 15:43

Years before Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves ascended to the Tax Court Bench, the Section 6751 (b) Boss Hoss sign-off was a hot topic. Today, Judge Tag Greaves has a full-dress T. C.

IRS once more is out, leg before wicket, in Brian D. Beland and Denae A. Beland, 156 T. C. 5, filed 3/1/21.

I’ll just quote the syllabus (that’s the case heading summary statement of facts and conclusions of law, for you civilians).

“R commenced an examination of a joint return filed by Ps. A revenue agent (RA) sent Ps a summons requiring their attendance at an in-person closing conference before the end of a soon-expiring limitations period on assessment. During the closing conference the RA provided Ps a completed, signed Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes, reflecting an I.R.C. sec. 6663(a) civil fraud penalty. Ps declined to consent to the assessment of the civil fraud penalty reflected in Form 4549 or sign Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, to extend the limitations period. Thereafter, the RA obtained written approval from her immediate supervisor for the civil fraud penalty and sent Ps a notice of deficiency determining the same.” 156 T. C. 5, at p. 1.

One can see the original error, before even getting the Boss Hoss out of the stable. If fraud is seriously on the table, why is there any SOL limitation? See Section 6501(c). And if it isn’t, why mention it before getting Section 6751(b) Boss Hoss sign-off?

True, this audit took place a couple years (hi, Judge Holmes) before Graev was decided, but Section 6751(b) had been enacted more than fifteen (count ’em, fifteen) years before.

It’s a quick summary J for Brian & Danae. Judge Tag Greaves does the usual drive-by past Clay, Belair Woods, and Oropeza, all of which I’ve blogged. IRS’ arguments that the SNOD, which issued after the meeting where both the 4549 was brandished and the 872 extender was proffered, was the real first intimation of the fraud penalty, because the 4549 was somehow incomplete, or not final, or could be appealed, or was not mailed (but rather personally delivered), get the treatment they deserve.

And Brian & Danae (and trusty CPA) were summoned to the meeting. Which IRS refused to adjourn even though Danae had just given birth to her second child.

“Petitioners sent a letter to RA R… requesting a postponement of the summons interview because petitioner wife had just given birth to petitioners’ second child. In response, respondent’s counsel sent a letter to petitioners… to compel their appearance before RA R…. The letter stated that ‘[l]egal proceedings may be brought against you in the United States District Court for not complying with [the] summons’…. Petitioners acquiesced and appeared with CPA B before RA R, GM P, and IRS Group Manager Y at the… meeting.” 156 T. C.5, at pp. 3-4. (Names omitted, although maybe I shouldn’t omit them. Howbeit, you could look it up.)

I most respectfully submit that this is exactly the sort of bullying and bludgeoning that Section 6751(b) was supposed to prevent.

Time for admins and legals?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: