Alder Properties, Inc., Docket No. 14805-23SL, filed 3/21/25, timely tried to e-file their 314 Forms 1099 for year at issue, but when stymied, snail-mailed them inside the due date. IRS hit the Alders with $25K for 250 ($100 each, per Section 6751(a)), and $150 each for the remaining 64. The cutoff for e-filing is over 250 forms.

The Alders went to Appeals, which abated the $25K, but kept in the $9600 ($100 each as aforesaid, and $50 each per Section 6723, the catch-all for reporting violations).

That’s enough for Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland to deny review of underlying liability on “Inconsequential Errors or Omissions” grounds, or the Alders’ OIC for doubt as to liability. Even if no petition from Appeals pre-NOD, a conference is an opportunity to dispute.

“An opportunity to dispute the underlying liability includes a prior opportunity for a conference with Appeals that was offered either before or after assessment of the liability unless the opportunity was prior to the assessment of a tax subject to deficiency procedures. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A-E2; see also Lewis v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 48, 61–62 (2007).” Order, at p. 4.

But the double-dip saves the Alders from summary J.

“… at the hearing, Alder presented evidence that the penalty at issue comprises multiple penalties assessed for each of the 64 returns that should have been electronically filed. If accurate, such assessments would violate the mandates set forth in Treas. Reg. §301.6721-1 (which dictates that ‘[n]o more than one penalty will be imposed…with respect to a single information return even though there may be more than one failure with respect to such return.”). See also, Treas. Reg. § 301.6721-1(b)(5), Example 3, as it existed at the time of Alder’s paper return filing. On the record before the Court, we cannot determine that the assessment was properly made (it appears not to have been) and properly verified. We cannot conclude at this time that AO C verified that the penalty at issue was assessed in accordance applicable law. Thus, there remains a issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment at this stage.” Order, at pp. 4-5. (Name omitted).