The IRS’s Aggressive Enforcement of Foreign Information Return Penalties Has Created Ethical Dilemmas For Practitioners (Part 2)

In today’s post, Megan L. Brackney.turns to the challenging issues that practitioners must confront when faced with a client or potential client’s failure to file foreign information returns. Les

Ethical Standards Related to a Client’s Non-Compliance With Foreign Information Reporting

In yesterday’s post, I discussed some common penalties for failing to file foreign information returns and the practical and legal challenges associated with establishing that a client is entitled to relief from those penalties. Today we focus on how this penalty regime raises difficult ethical issues for practitioners who want to zealously represent their clients but also want to practice in a way that is consistent with their responsibilities and duties.

Circular 230 governs attorneys, CPA’s, enrolled agents, and others who practice before the IRS. On the subject of a taxpayer’s error or omission, Circular 230, Section 10.21 states as follows:

A practitioner who . . . knows that the client has not complied with the revenue laws of the United States or has made an error in or omission from any return . . . must advise the client promptly of the fact of such noncompliance, error, or omission.” 

This section goes on to say that “the practitioner must advise the client of the consequences as provided under the Code and regulations of such noncompliance, error, or omission.”   It does not, however, require the practitioner to advise the client to self-correct. 

The Statements on Standards for Tax Services (“SSTS”),SSTS No. 6 contains a slightly different iteration of the duties concerning knowledge of a client’s error or omission:

A member should inform the taxpayer promptly upon becoming aware of an error in a previously filed return, an error in a return that is the subject of an administrative proceeding, or a taxpayer’s failure to file a required return.  A member also should advise the taxpayer of the potential consequences of the error and recommend the corrective measures to be taken.

In SSTS No. 6(13) (Explanation).  the AICPA explains, however, that the SSTS do not require CPAs to advise clients to amend if “an error has no more than an insignificant effect on the taxpayer’s tax liability,” a question which  “is left to the professional judgment of the member based on all the facts and circumstances known to the member.”

On the taxpayer’s side, it is generally understood that taxpayers do not have an obligation to file amended returns. As stated in Badaracco v. Comm’r, 464 U.S. 386, 393 (1984), “[t]he Internal Revenue Code does not explicitly provide either for a taxpayer’s filing, or for the Commissioner’s acceptance, of an amended return; instead, an amended return is a creature of administrative origin and grace.”)

It is also generally understood that a tax practitioner cannot advise a client not to file a return that is currently due.  There is no guidance on whether the same is true for a delinquent return once the filing deadline has passed.  Do tax practitioners have an unending obligation to recommend that their clients file delinquent returns? 


The IRS’s policy is to solicit unfiled income tax returns for the prior six years. See IRS Policy Statement 5-133, Delinquent returns—enforcement of filing requirements (IRM (08-04-2006) ( “Normally, application of the above criteria will result in enforcement of delinquency procedures for not more than six (6) years. Enforcement beyond such period will not be undertaken without prior managerial approval.”). This indicates that there may be some period of time after which we would not view a practitioner’s advice not to file a tax return as unethical but this is by no means a clear standard (Last season’s Form 1040? Ten years ago?). 

Another aspect of the practitioner’s ethical duties is the prohibition on basing advice on the likelihood of audit.  For purposes of advising a client on a return position, it is clear that the tax practitioner cannot consider the likelihood of audit but must instead determine whether the position is objectively reasonable.I.R.C. § 6694(a)(2); Circular 230 10.34; SSTS No. 1(4), (5).   Circular 230, Section 10.37(a)(2) states that “the Practitioner must not, in evaluating a Federal tax matter, take into account the possibility that a tax return will not be audited or that a matter will not be raised on audit.”See also Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, 79 FR 33685-01 (“Treasury and the IRS agree that audit risk should not be considered by practitioners in the course of advising a client on a Federal tax matter, regardless of the form in which the advice is given.” ).

Does this rule apply when advising on whether to correct a past failure to file? 

What Advice Can We Give? 

fter considering the above ethical standards, if we return to the example of the college student, we know it is highly likely that if she files the Form 3520, the IRS will impose the maximum penalty.  If she does not self-correct, given the low audit rates and the fact that her non-compliance was several years ago, there is a very strong chance that the IRS will never audit this tax year.  Are we doing this client a disservice by not providing her with this information when as she decides whether or not to file the Form 3520 now?  Do the ethical standards for tax practitioners actually require me to lead my client into financial ruin in order to correct a five-year old mistake that caused no actual harm? 

It is not clear how the ethical rules apply in this context.  Is a taxpayer who previously filed an income return but failed to file a foreign information return more like a taxpayer filing an amended return or filing a delinquent return?   Certain foreign information returns, like Forms 5471 and 8938, are attached to the income tax return. And, the IRS has instructed that when taxpayers file these returns late, they be accompanied with a Form 1040X, even if there are no changes to the income tax return.   

One could argue that a practitioner does not have an ethical duty to advise clients to file delinquent Forms 5471 and 8938 and other foreign information returns filed with the income tax returns because that would be the equivalent of filing an amended return. 

But what about Form 3520?  As the instructions provide, Form 3520 is not filed with the income tax return, but separately filed with the IRS Service Center in Ogden, Utah. Is filing a Form 3520 more like filing a delinquent income tax return?

I have difficult time believing that there should be different ethical rules for forms attached to the income tax return, such as Form 8938, and a free-standing form like the Form 3520.  That is slicing it a bit too thin.  And many practitioners would say that for a delinquent return, after the filing deadline has passed, the situation is similar to that of an amended return, and they are not obligated to recommend that the client self-correct.  I think that this is a reasonable interpretation of the ethical rules, and that the Circular 230 practitioner is not required to recommend self-correction but should fully advise the client on the potential penalties, and the CPA should recommend self-correction if the failure to file a particular foreign information return is material.

What about the likelihood that a taxpayer will be audited in the future, after the non-compliance has already occurred?  Is it unethical for a practitioner to advise the client in our example ho failed to file the Form 3520 five years ago that there is almost no chance that the IRS will audit this issue?  The statute of limitations for assessment does not close until the taxpayer files all required foreign information returns.  I.R.C. § 6501(c)(8).  The same is true for income tax returns, for which the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the return is filed, but nonetheless the standard advice for long-term non-filers is to just file returns for the preceding six years.              

As to discussing the likelihood of audits, this information is publicly available,and we should be able to discuss it if a client asks.  However, I would still not base my advice on the likelihood of audit, as even with the currently low rates, I cannot accurately predict whether a particular client will be audited.  However, we can advise our clients on the potential outcomes if they are audited so that they can weight the cost of voluntarily compliance versus waiting to be contacted by the IRS. 

I believe practitioners should be able to use their professional judgment to advise clients while still upholding their ethical obligations to the IRS and the tax system.  On the other side, the IRS should re-think its enforcement of these penalties in order to encourage, rather than punish, voluntary compliance, and, as the IRM provides, live up to its own obligations to ensure that penalties “encourage noncompliant taxpayers to comply,” and are “objectively proportioned to the offense.” I genuinely want to encourage tax compliance, but it is challenging when it is so harshly penalized.  The IRS could help tax practitioners, as well as taxpayers, by providing some reasonable options for correcting past failures to file foreign information returns.

The IRS’s Aggressive Enforcement Of Foreign Information Return Penalties Has Created Ethical Dilemmas For Practitioners (Part 1)

Today’s guest post is the first of a two-part series by Megan L. Brackney. These posts raise important questions about practitioners’ ethical responsibilities when confronting clients’ potential exposure to penalties for failing to file foreign information returns. Megan previously wrote a terrific series of posts considering problems with the IRS’s administration of these penalties, and in today and tomorrow’s posts Megan situates how these problems raise challenges for practitioners wanting to effectively and ethically represent their clients.

Megan is a partner at Kostelanetz LLP in New York who focuses her practice in civil and criminal tax controversies. She would like to thank Grace Hall for her assistance in researching this series.  Grace was a paralegal in the D.C. office of the firm and is now attending the University of Virginia Law School. Les

The IRS’s practice of assessing penalties against taxpayers who voluntarily attempt to get into compliance with their filing of foreign information returns puts tax practitioners in a difficult position.  Most practitioners understand that they have an obligation to the tax system and genuinely strive to comply with that obligation to assist their clients with compliance. And, indeed, most taxpayers believe in tax compliance.  See Comprehensive Taxpayer Attitude Survey, 2017 Executive Report, Practitioners also have duties to their clients to ensure that they are not recommending actions that will cause them to unnecessarily incur penalties.  In the past several years, as the IRS continues to impose the maximum level of penalties against taxpayers who file untimely or incomplete foreign information returns, it is getting harder for practitioners to recommend that clients should self-correct, as the outcome is the same if they do not self-correct and are later audited.  

Most of us would agree, for instance, that a young person who received a reportable (but nontaxable) gift from a foreign relative for the first time and who prepared her own return and did not know about the Form 3520 requirement at the time of filing, but then filed it 6 months after learning about the filing requirement should not have to pay a penalty of 25% of the foreign gift to the IRS.  The IRS, however, would assess this penalty without a second thought – and indeed does so with regularity.


Considering the example above, assume that your client has come to you for advice before she files the late Form 3520.  The client she tells you that she received the gift 5 years ago but has heard that the IRS could still assess penalties, and that she has limited financial resources such that a large penalty would be financially devastating to her.  If she asks whether you recommend filing the Form 3520 reporting the foreign gift now, knowing that this will immediately result in a penalty of 25% of the amount of the gift, and that if the client likely would not be able to satisfy the IRS’s interpretation of the standard for reasonable cause and thus  would likely be unsuccessful in challenging a penalty, what is your advice?  Do you have an ethical duty to advise the client to file the delinquent Form 3520 despite knowing what the outcome will be?  How do you balance your duty to tax system and ethical obligations under Circular 230 with your duty to obtain the best possible outcome for your client And can you consider the likelihood that the client will be audited in giving advice as to whether she should file the late Form 3520? 

Before discussing the practitioner’s ethical duties, we will briefly review the common foreign information return filing requirements and penalties to provide context for this discussion. 

Basic Background on Foreign Information Return Penalties – Types and Amounts of Penalties

Foreign information return penalties include penalties for failure to file a host of forms that report U.S. taxpayer’s foreign assets and transactions.  The forms for which we most commonly see the assessment of penalties are Form 5471 (Information Return of U.S. Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations), Form 5472 (Information Return of a 25% Foreign-Owned U.S. Corporation or a Foreign Corporation Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business), Form 3520 (Annual Return to Report Transactions with Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts), and Form 3520-A (Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust with U.S. Owner), and other forms. Forms 3520 and 3520-A were the subject of an IRS Large Business and International “Campaign,” which the IRS discontinued on February 28, 2022. (We note that there are several other foreign information returns, but this article focuses on the forms for which we see the most IRS penalty action.

This post focuses only on the Title 26 foreign information return penalties and does not address the IRS’s enforcement of penalties for failure to file FinCen Form 114 (the “FBAR”), as those are not assessed under Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code), but Title 31 (the Bank Secrecy Act). The rules for assessment and collection of FBAR penalties are contained in 31 U.S.C. § 5321..Failure to file Form 8938 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets) is also subject to penalties, but we have not seen the same level of enforcement of penalties as with the forms listed above.  This may change in the future, however, as the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has criticized the IRS for its lack of enforcement in this area.  Additional Actions Are Needed to Address Non-Filing and Non-Reporting Compliance Under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

The penalties for not filing Forms 5471 and 8938 are $10,000 for the initial failure to file the form, and an additional $10,000 for every 30-day period, or part thereof, after the IRS has notified the taxpayer of the failure to file, up to a maximum of $50,000, meaning that the IRS can assess penalties of up to $60,000 for each form.        Beginning with the 2018 tax years, the penalty for failure to file Forms 5472 increased to $25,000 per failure, an additional $25,000 with every 30-day period, or part thereof, after the IRS has mailed a notice of failure, with no outer limits. See I.R.C. §§ 6038, 6038A, 6038B, 6038C, 6039F, 6677

The penalty for not reporting a transaction with a foreign trust on Form 3520 is 35% of the “gross reportable amount,” increasing by $10,000 for every thirty days for which the failure to report continues up to the “gross reportable amount.”  As per Section 6677(c), the “gross reportable amount” is the transfer of any money or property (directly or indirectly) to a foreign trust by a U.S. person, or the aggregate amount of the distributions so received from such trust during such taxable year.

The penalty for failure to file Form 3520-A, results in penalties of 5% of the “gross reportable amount.” The gross reportable amount for this penalty is “the gross value of the portion of the trust’s assets at the close of the year treated as owned by the United States person.”  If the IRS notifies a taxpayer of a failure to file the Form 3520-A, and the taxpayer does not file the form within the next 90 days, there is an additional penalty of $10,000 for each 30-day period (or fraction thereof) during which the failure to file continues, up to the gross reportable amount. I.R.C. §§ 6048(b); 6667(b), (c).

These penalties are related to the failure to file, or the incomplete filing, of these foreign information returns, and are not related to any tax deficiency.  Accordingly, the IRS can – and frequently does – assess these penalties even where there is no tax due as a result of the failure to file or the incomplete form.  Despite the policy statement in the Internal Revenue Manual that penalties should “be objectively proportioned to the offense,”( see IRM (11-25-2011)) the IRS routinely assesses the maximum amount of foreign information return penalties even for short delays and where there is no tax due as a result of the late filing.

For all of the foreign information return penalties, reasonable cause is a defense.. The IRS applies the same standards for reasonable cause for failure to file income tax returns under I.R.C. § 6651 to failure to file foreign information returns, i.e., the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence. See e.g., Chief Counsel Advisory200748006. Many clients simply cannot meet this standard (at least as the IRS interprets it). These are taxpayers who were not willful and who did not intend to evade tax (and in many cases, there is no tax liability related to the late filing of the foreign information returns), but who may have been negligent or could have made a better effort at understanding their filing obligations.

In Notice 2022-36, the IRS recently provided some limited relief to taxpayers who had not filed, or had already been assessed penalties for late filing of, several different forms, including Forms 3520, 3520-A, and some Forms 5471. This relief is limited to the 2019 and 2020 tax years, and penalties “assessed by the campus assessment program” with respect to Forms 3520 and 3520-A (Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust with U.S. Owner).  The IRS also limited relief to taxpayers who were able to file their delinquent returns within the 37-day period between August 24, 2022, the date that IRS announced Notice 2022-36, and the September 30, 2022, deadline. In addition, Notice 2002-36 stated that the IRS will cancel penalty charges for those forms and years, and issue refunds, as appropriate. 

Notice 2002-36 provided cold comfort as it did not provide relief for earlier years and applied to a limited category of forms, and did not guarantee that the IRS would not assess penalties, only that they would not systematically assess them.  It is noteworthy that this limited relief was in no way a recognition of the harsh consequences to taxpayers from the systematic assessment of penalties.  The only stated reason for the relief was that there are better uses of IRS resources given its backlog after the pandemic and budget constraints, stating “[t]he Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the penalty relief described in this notice will allow the IRS to focus its resources more effectively, as well as provide relief to taxpayers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.”   Notice 2022-36 did not come close to alleviating the burdens on taxpayers who want to be compliant by filing delinquent foreign information returns. 

There are no other programs or procedures available for a taxpayer who has not understated their income to file a delinquent foreign information return without being subject to penalties.  Other than Notice 2022-36, which was of limited utility, the IRS has not offered a method of self-correcting with reduced penalties.  Instead, the only option for a taxpayer who wants to come into compliance is to file late and incur penalties.  Theoretically, a taxpayer could make a voluntary disclosure, but the penalty of 50% of the unreported offshore asset makes this option untenable, and the voluntary disclosure procedure is intended to apply in situations where the taxpayer has acted willfully and has concern about criminal liability, which is not the case where a taxpayer missed a filing deadline but does not owe any additional tax.

The IRS’s Streamlined Filing procedures are not available for taxpayers who do not owe any additional tax related to their non-compliance. This is an oddity of the current system – that a U.S. taxpayer who lives in the U.S., and has not reported income from a foreign asset is offered an opportunity to self-correct in exchange for payment of the tax and a reduced penalty of 5% of the value of the unreported foreign asset, while a taxpayers who lives in the U.S. and has not underreported their income will be subject to the maximum amount of penalties.

It is also important to note, as Les discussed in Tax Court To Consider IRS Procedure For Imposing Information Reporting Penalties, that foreign information return penalties are “assessable penalties,” meaning that they are “paid upon notice and demand” and are not subject to the deficiency procedures, and thus cannot be challenged in Tax Court (with one narrow exception under Collection Due Process if the taxpayer is not offered review by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals).Despite the IRM allowing for pre-payment review, the IRS sometimes initiates enforced collection before the taxpayers have completed their appeal, and frequently sends collection notices, including notices of intent to levy, before the taxpayers’ deadlines to submit a protest has even passed.  This means that the taxpayer will receive a notice and demand for the payment and will not have any pre-assessment right to challenge the penalty or raise any defenses. The taxpayer should receive Appeals review, and also has a right to pay the penalty and bring a claim for refund, and then bring a suit in district court or the federal court of claims if the IRS denies the refund. Full payment and the Flora rule can impose a significant barrier. Moreover, these procedures are burdensome, and also may not be successful, as the taxpayer will have the burden of providing reasonable cause, which is the only defense available if the penalty was otherwise properly assessed.

This article does not discuss these procedures or likelihood of success, but merely notes, for the purposes of the issue under discussion (i) other than the returns filed under Notice 2022-36, the IRS frequently systematically assesses penalties for late filing of certain foreign information returns; (ii) the burden is on the taxpayer to challenge the penalty and raise any defenses; (iii) it is unlikely that the IRS or Appeals will abate the penalty without a strong showing of reasonable cause; and (iv) for most taxpayers, the only possibility for judicial review will be after they pay the penalty in full and file a refund claim.

In tomorrow’s post, we will discuss the ethical standards that practitioners must address when faced with a client’s failure to comply with the information reporting obligations discussed today.

Polish Lottery Winner’s Son Sues Over Penalties For Failing To Report Foreign Gifts

The other day I read in Tax Notes the complaint in Wrzesinski v US. I usually do not write about cases at this stage but it is a head scratcher.

Wrzesinski involves a refund suit for a hefty penalty under Section 6039F for failing to file Form 3520, the Annual Return To Report Transactions With Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts.

Krzysztof Wrzesinski emigrated to the US from Poland in 2005 at the age of 19. About five years later his mom, who still lived in Poland, won the Polish lottery. She took the proceeds and made gifts to Krzysztof of $830,000 over the course of 2010 and 2011.


According to the complaint, prior to receiving the gift, Krzysztof consulted an accountant who told him he did not need to file any forms with his tax returns and that the gift proceeds were exempt from gross income. 

Fast-forward about 8 years and Krzysztof, now a Philly cop, wants to make a gift to his godson. Searching the internet about consequences of that re-gift, he discovers that when he received the gift from his mom, he was supposed to file a Form 3520 to report the foreign sourced gifts.  In 2018, he contacts a Philly tax attorney for assistance with filing the forms and uses the “Delinquent International Information Return Submission Procedures.” As per those procedures, he explained in the submission his earlier reliance on an advisor and claimed that he had reasonable cause for failing to file the forms for both years. 

About a year later IRS assesses penalties anyway; $87,500.00 and $120,000.00 for 2010 and 2011. He files a protest, hoping to get the matter to Appeals. The protest gets lost in the system, and he gets TAS to intervene to get the matter before Appeals. 

About another year later Appeals abated $70,000 of the $87,000 penalty assessed for 2010 and $96,000 of the $120,000 penalty assessed for  2011. The Appeals write up indicated: “Case resolution based on ‘Hazards of Litigation’”; the remaining $41,500 in penalties was sustained.

Krzysztof paid the balance, and filed refund claims for both years. In denying one of the years’ claims the denial referred to the claim as “frivolous.”

Assuming the facts are as they are alleged (and they were properly before Appeals), and the taxpayer’s accountant was competent, I am struggling to see why Appeals did not fully concede.  The IRS had another chance to make this right when it considered the refund claim. Under Boyle and subsequent cases, reliance on an advisor that is premised on a mistake of law relating to the need to file a return at all differs from a nondelegable  duty as to when a taxpayer needs to file a return. And Appeals abated 80% of the penalty initially, an indication that it knew its position is shaky.

According to the IRS “[p]enalties exist to encourage voluntary compliance by supporting the standards of behavior required by the Internal Revenue Code.” I struggle to see how leaving thousands of dollars of penalties on the books for what seems like a good faith mistake based on what an advisor told makes any sense. Luckily for Wrzesinski, he was able to fully pay the balance of the penalties; otherwise Flora would have prevented him from bringing a refund suit. Of course, there is always the option of pursuing the initial advisor for malpractice, but that has costs.

Lamprecht v Comm’r: Statute of Limitations, Qualified Amended Returns And The Issuance Of A John Doe Summons

The recent case of Lamprecht v Commissioner highlights some interesting nuances in applying the statute of limitations on assessment when a taxpayer files an amended return and the IRS uses a John Doe summons to gather information about taxpayers.

The Lamprechts came to the IRS’s attention as part of the government’s efforts to detect US citizens and residents who had Swiss and other jurisdictions’ bank accounts and income associated with those accounts that went unreported.


In 2010 the Lamprechs, Swiss citizens who had green cards and a residence in Tiburon, California, filed amended 2006 and 2007 returns that reported previously omitted income from their Swiss UBS accounts. IRS examined the returns and proposed accuracy-related penalties for both years.  The taxpayers timely petitioned to Tax Court, challenging the penalties on multiple grounds, including that that their amended returns were “qualified amended returns”, that any proposed assessment of the accuracy-related penalties for 2006 and 2007 would be barred by the statute of limitations, and the IRS did not receive proper supervisory approval for the penalties under 6751(b) (note I will not discuss the 6751 issue in this post).

The procedural posture that triggered this opinion involved cross motions for summary judgment. The motions focused on the substantial understatement of income tax penalty (the government’s answer had also alleged a fraud penalty but the government later conceded the fraud penalty).

Lamprecht involves a John Doe summons (JDS), a topic I have been discussing here lately (see First Circuit Finds Anti-Injunction Act Does Not Bar Challenge to IRS’s Use of John Doe Summons That Gathered Taxpayer’s Virtual Currency Transactions and which also is discussed extensively Saltzman and Book IRS Practice and Procedure in Chapter 13). The Lamprechts’ 2006 and 2007 original 1040’s were short by about $6 million in interest, capital gains and commissions that flowed through their UBS accounts. The amended returns included the previously unreported income.

The Lamprechts’ amended returns in 2010 came after the ex parte IRS 2008 filing in federal district court to allow use of the JDS process to get identifying information about US taxpayers with accounts at UBS or its affiliates. After getting authorization, IRS issued the JDS to UBS in July of 2008. After the government initiated a February 2009 enforcement proceeding, the government of Switzerland joined in the enforcement suit as amicus curiae. In August of 2009 the enforcement suit was resolved by two agreements. The first agreement established a process for the exchange under the US –Swiss treaty that included the Swiss Federal Tax Administration and would in its terms “achieve the U.S. tax compliance goals of the UBS [John Doe] Summons while also respecting Swiss sovereignty.” The second agreement provided that “the IRS would “withdraw with prejudice” the UBS John Doe summons after receiving information concerning bank accounts from UBS pursuant to the treaty request for administrative assistance.”

In November of 2010, when IRS obtained the information it sought, the IRS formally withdrew the JDS (as we will see below, these different dates matter for SOL purposes).

Against this background, as most readers know under Section 6501(a)(1) the time period for assessing additional tax is generally three years from the filing of a return. For “substantial omissions” from gross income (greater than 25% of the amount of gross income stated in the return) that period is doubled to six years.  In addition, when IRS serves a summons, and that summons is not resolved within six months of service, then the period of limitations for assessment is suspended from the six-month anniversary of service of the summons until its final resolution. 

The Lamprechts agreed that the omission with respect to their original returns was substantial, though they and the IRS differed on the application of the SOL in light of their amended returns and the summons suspension issue.

Qualified Amended Returns

Section 6662 provides that a “substantial understatement” is determined by reference to “the amount of the tax imposed which is shown on the return”. Regulations provide that a taxpayer who files a qualified amended return can use the amount of tax shown on those returns for determining whether the understatement is substantial. The regs, however, provide that an amended return is not a qualified amended return if the amended return was filed after the service of a JDS relating to a tax liability of a group that includes the taxpayer if the “taxpayer claimed a direct or indirect tax benefit from the type of activity that is the subject of the summons…”

There was no question that the Lamprechts’ amended return filing was after the service of the JDS; the Lamprechts, however, argued that their omission of the overseas income did not constitute a direct or indirect tax benefit.

The opinion rejected the Lamprechts’ position on a few grounds, essentially concluding that:

[t]he Lamprechts omitted all foreign source income from their original 2006 and 2007 tax returns, thereby substantially understating their gross income and corresponding tax liabilities, and in doing so they received the benefit of understated tax liabilities. Furthermore, during the examination of their 2006 and 2007 income tax returns, when the Lamprechts filed amended returns for 2006 and 2007 to report foreign income previously unreported, their representative asserted that Mr. Lamprecht “did not report his foreign source income and earnings on his originally filed returns because he thought that ‘everything Swiss was not taxable in the U.S.’”

The opinion went on to discuss how the omission of income directly led to their affirmatively claiming itemized deductions that would otherwise have been phased out, thus also undercutting the Lamprechts’ position that they failed to claim a benefit.

Impact of the Summons on the SOL

Once concluding that the understatement was substantial, the opinion went on to discuss whether the proposed assessment was timely given that the 2006 and 2007 were filed in April of 2007 and 2008 respectively and the IRS issued the notice of deficiency for both years more than six year later, in January of 2015.  The timeliness of the potential assessment turned on whether and when the running of the six-year limitations period was suspended by the service and final resolution of the UBS JDS.

The Lamprechts argued initially that there should be no suspension of the SOL because in its view the JDS was issued without a valid purpose, just to extend the SOL. The opinion swiftly brushed that aside, noting that there was no precedent for the use of a collateral proceeding against a taxpayer in the John Doe class to raise that challenge. Alternatively the court reasoned that under the liberal Powell standard they had not shown that the summons was issued for an invalid purpose.

That still left open precisely when the SOL was suspended. Under Section 7609(e) the service of the summons suspended the period of limitations for assessment once the summons had remained unresolved after 6 months from service; that six-month date was January 21, 2009.  The suspension ends on when the summons is finally resolved; the parties disagreed on when the matter was finally resolved.

The regs provide that a summons proceeding is  finally resolved “when the summons or any order enforcing any part of the summons is fully complied with and all appeals or requests for further review are disposed of, the period in which an appeal may be taken has expired or the period in which a request for further review may be made has expired.”

The Lamprechts claimed that the final resolution occurred in August of 2009, when the district court ordered dismissal of the government’s summons enforcement suit.

The government argued that final resolution occurred when IRS formally withdrew the summons on November 15, 2010, after it received the documents pursuant to the treaty and the matter was dismissed with prejudice. That over one-year difference mattered, because under the government’s position the SOL was suspended from January 21, 2009, to November 15, 2010 (i.e., for 664 days), with the six-year SOL for assessment for the 2006 and 2007 years thus still open when the IRS mailed the notices of deficiency in January of 2015, which further suspends the SOL.

The Tax Court agreed with the government, stating that the Lamprechts did “not assert (nor make any showing of) an earlier date by which UBS had “fully complied” with the summons and “all appeals or requests for review” had been “disposed of”.


This is an important government victory. This opinion is significant as it explores SOL issues in the context of aggressive IRS pursuit of taxpayers who have failed to report income in overseas accounts. The intersection of the qualified amended return rules and the somewhat unusual posture by which the government obtained documents pertaining to the Lamprechts on the surface make this a somewhat novel opinion. I suspect, however, that practitioners representing similarly situated taxpayers with overseas accounts, unreported income, amended returns and hefty penalties will carefully study this opinion.

Late Filing Penalty Relief for 2019 and 2020 Returns to Generate Automatic Refunds

Today the IRS issued a press release announcing extremely broad late filing penalty relief for the 2019 and 2020 taxable years. Importantly, relief is being applied automatically, and taxpayers do not need to take any action to receive a refund of penalties they paid.

Notice 2022-36 details the specific tax returns and penalties for which relief is provided. Returns must be filed by September 30, 2022 to qualify for relief.

The notice also explains the government’s rationale for providing relief, citing the President’s coronavirus pandemic emergency declaration as well as the pandemic’s impact on IRS operations and return processing backlog. The notice states, “the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the penalty relief described in this notice will allow the IRS to focus its resources more effectively, as well as provide relief to taxpayers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Kudos to the IRS for making relief automatic. The press release indicates that most refunds will be issued by the end of September.

Edited to add: the National Taxpayer Advocate blog has a very good summary of the relief provided.

No Reasonable Cause For Failing To Include $238,000 From Information Return Sent To Old Address

Back in 2013, I wrote about Andersen v Comm’r, a summary opinion where a taxpayer failed to include $28,000 of W-2 income but was not subject to a 20% civil penalty for substantially understating income. In Andersen, the Tax Court held that there was reasonable cause for the omission and the taxpayer acted in good faith.

These types of cases are notoriously fact intensive. Whether the taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith is made on a case-by-case basis. Courts, based on the regulations, examine the pertinent facts and circumstances, including the taxpayer’s knowledge, education, and experience, as well as the taxpayer’s reliance on professional advice.

In Andersen, the taxpayers were sympathetic, with a long history of tax compliance, a consistent recordkeeping practice, and a longtime competent tax preparer. The preparer testified about why he reasonably believed that his clients had retired and would not have had wage income. In finding that the taxpayers had established reasonable cause and good faith, the Tax Court acknowledged that it was an “exceptionally close case” but held that no penalties applied.

Contrast Andersen with last week’s LaRochelle v. Commissioner, another summary opinion involving a failure to include income reported on an information return.


The facts in LaRochelle were not nearly as sympathetic as Andersen. The amount at issue was $238,000 from an IRA distribution in 2017. In 2016, the taxpayers had moved from DC to Florida but still owned a DC residence. They set up US Postal Service mail forwarding. They recalled receiving the $238,000 IRA distribution but not the 1099-R, which had been sent to their DC address.

The husband was sophisticated; he was “professionally engaged in more than ten business partnerships”, including one where he was in charge of day to day operations, including recordkeeping.  The taxpayers used a tax return preparer ( I assume a lawyer, though not clear from the opinion), who also represented the taxpayers in Tax Court (uh oh, see below).

The opinion itself is fairly straightforward. After discussing why the substantial understatement penalty is “determined by an IRS computer program without human review” and “automatically calculated through electronic means” it held that under Tax Court precedent it is exempt from the Section 6751 written supervisory approval requirement (for a different view on that, see Caleb’s discussion in Walquist Harms The Poor: Revisiting Supervisory Approval For Accuracy Penalties.)

The summary opinion also concludes that the taxpayers had not established that they were entitled to a reasonable cause good/faith defense. Failure to receive an information return is not enough to insulate a taxpayer from a penalty, especially when, as here, the taxpayer admits to recalling having received the money, especially a lot of money.

The taxpayers also argued that their use of a preparer justified excusing the penalty. The use of a preparer alone is not enough to establish that the taxpayers’ reliance amounted to good faith/reasonable cause:

Mr. LaRochelle did not explain what was meant by petitioners’ relying upon Mr. Lander to handle their tax return

Moreover, as the opinion notes, a failure to provide necessary information is fatal to a good faith/reasonable cause defense predicated on reliance on a competent tax return professional.

Concluding Thoughts

Tax Court Rule 24(g)(2)(A) generally provides that “[c]ounsel may not represent a party at trial if the counsel is likely to be a necessary witness within the meaning of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.” The opinion notes that Judge Leyden apprised the parties of the rule, and that the taxpayers stated that their preparer was not likely to be a necessary witness.  While it would not have mattered in this case had the preparer testified, it is almost always a bad idea, and a conflict of interest, to have the taxpayers’ return preparer represent the taxpayer at trial.

For taxpayers with numerous information returns, it would be prudent to set up an online account with IRS. On extension, the preparer and taxpayer can easily access all of the information returns, even those that a taxpayer may not have physically received.

Of course, all of this nonsense could be avoided if the IRS provided taxpayers with a government sourced online filing platform that could access information that the IRS has received from third parties. That day may be coming, as I discussed this past May in Momentum Possibly Building for IRS To Provide Online Filing Options For Taxpayers, but for now we have a back end process where a taxpayer who omits an item has to go through a post filing automated underreporter program and possible disputes as to whether there is enough justification to avoid a penalty. Sad.

Hat tip on this case to Ed Zollars, whose post in Current Federal Tax Developments alerted me to this case. Ed’s work is terrific, and I recommend readers subscribe. As Ed notes, many taxpayers mistakenly believe that the hiring of a preparer means that taxpayers can avoid responsibility.

Ed notes the responsibility that preparers have to correct clients about that misperception:

But tax professionals need to be aware of this belief on the part of their clients that merely hiring the professional and dropping off the documents they decided were relevant means the return they get back will contain no errors. It is important to remind clients that it is their responsibility to provide all relevant information for their return and to make use of tools the professional may provide…

Honest Mistakes Happen, But a Two Million Dollar Difference in Mortgage Interest Will Likely Trigger An Accuracy-Related Penalty

Busch v Commissioner, a small tax case issued as a bench opinion, involves a couple who claimed to have made an honest mistake on their self-prepared tax return.  According to the Busches, when using their tax return prep software, the software did not allow them to enter cents when recording the mortgage interest paid in a year. The Busches paid $21,201.25 in deductible mortgage interest and entered $21,201.25 line for their mortgage interest, but the software, kicking out the cents, recorded the deduction as $2,120,125 instead. The couple of million dollar difference led IRS to likely discover the error automatically via document matching.

What followed was likely mismatch virtual audit, a notice of deficiency that adjusted for the underpaid tax, and for good measure, a proposed 20 per cent substantial understatement accuracy related penalty under Section 6662(a). The Busches filed a petition, conceding the extra tax but challenging the penalty.


The issue in the case was whether the taxpayers could establish that they acted with reasonable cause and in good faith under Section 6664(c) and thus be excused from the penalty.

The brief opinion notes that the taxpayers urged the court to find that the error was an “honest” mistake, and, as such, they should not be penalized for that mistake. The opinion shows some sympathy for the taxpayers and more generally to how it is possible that taxpayers may foot fault when using software:

[The taxpayers] ask the Court to recognize, as they point out that honest mistakes are sometimes made. As a general proposition of life, we agree with petitioners on the point, and we further agree with petitioners’ suggestion that not every mistake made on a Federal income tax return should result in the imposition of an accuracy-related penalty. A person preparing a return might understandably get distracted while doing so and enter the wrong amount for an item, or if not distracted, when transferring numbers from one document to another, transpositions often occur. If a computer-based software program is being used in the process, the limitations and requirements of a software program might not be fully appreciated by the user. Any number of situations could cause an “honest” mistake to be made when amounts are incorrectly reported on a Federal income tax return. 

The problem with the taxpayers’ argument though was that the taxpayers had an obligation to review the return. The two-million dollar difference between the deduction on the return and interest actually paid should have triggered greater inquiry into the matter:

But petitioners’ focus on the erroneous entry as the “mistake”, and their explanation describing how the mistake occurred, misses the point. The mistaken entry is not the real problem. Their mistake was failing to review the return carefully enough to have recognized the erroneous entry before the return was filed. After all, it should go without saying, that a taxpayer’s obligation to prepare and file a Federal income tax return includes the duty to review that return to ensure that the information reported or shown on the return is accurate before the return is filed.

The opinion notes that the “deduction for mortgage interest shown on the return occupies at least two additional columns” on the same page as where the deduction appears on the return:

Looking up and down the columns showing other items reported on the return, the mortgage interest deduction sticks out, as the saying goes, “like a sore thumb”. A careful review of the return after it was prepared would most certainly have caught the error; actually, even as little as a quick glance at the return probably would have done so.


This is another in the line of cases that holds that the use of tax software by itself is not sufficient to establish a defense to an accuracy-related penalty. As Bryan Camp noted in Lesson From The Tax Court: The Turbo-Tax Defense in Tax Prof a few years ago, there is dicta in a Tax Court opinion that suggests that the use of software can help establish reasonable cause/good faith. But hiding behind “the software made me do it” is not enough to insulate all taxpayers from penalties.

To succeed in blaming the software, taxpayers will generally achieve better results if the software issue involves a question of the proper tax treatment of the item as opposed to a clerical type mistake any taxpayer could pick up by reviewing the return.  The taxpayers discussed in post by Bryan Camp were sophisticated yet the Tax Court, in dicta, expressed sympathy with their plight.  Similarly, former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had a problem reporting his income from the World Bank that he blamed on the tax prep program.  His excuse worked to get him out of a confirmation pickle.  Where the defense of the computer made me do it fails is in cases in which any reasonable taxpayer should recognize the mistake if they took care.

Taxpayers can generally rely on a paid preparer to insulate them from the penalty when taxpayers give the paid preparer all of the information necessary and the preparer makes a mistake; however, just having a paid preparer doesn’t necessarily insulate a taxpayer from the duty to review the return and catch obvious mistakes.  Taxpayers could not easily escape penalty where a return contained an obvious mistake just by saying they relied on the accountant to add the numbers properly and if the accountant said 1 + 1 + 3 the taxpayer had no duty to correct the mistake. 

Courts seek to build on decades of case law involving human paid preparers as they analyze situations in order to decide the appropriateness of penalizing someone relying on digital paid preparers.  Taxpayers choosing the do it yourself route can put some blame on their digital preparer but must assume some responsibility to check to make sure the resulting return makes sense.  Had the taxpayers here checked, they would have concluded the return did not reflect the correct tax result.  The Busches bore responsibility to at least check for a return that made sense.

No Reasonable Cause When Tax Return Preparer Fails to E-file Extension

A recent district court opinion addresses the inability to establish reasonable cause for a late filing penalty even if a longtime preparer promised but failed to e-file an extension of time to file a 1040.  The case, Oosterwijk v United States, brings in interesting reasonable cause issues and highlights the limits of the IRS First Time Penalty Abatement policy.

In 2017, taxpayers Erik and Aspasia Oosterwijk sold for many millions of dollars a Baltimore based wholesale meat business that they had run for decades. When it came time to file their 2017 tax return on Tuesday April 17, 2018 (Monday April 16, 2018 was Emancipation Day in DC), the taxpayers expected their longtime preparer to e-file an extension and instruct IRS to apply a payment of about $1.8 million in taxes.  The taxpayers made sure they transferred money to their checking account, and kept looking to see when the tax payment would hit the account.

By April 25, when the money was still not debited from their account, the taxpayers emailed their longtime CPA tax return preparer, who told them to wait until April 30, and if the money were still in their checking account at that date he would follow up with the IRS.

On April 29 the now concerned taxpayers emailed their CPA again saying that the money was still in their account. The preparer checked his records and……


You guessed it. The preparer realized that that he failed to e-file the extension and had not given instructions to IRS to debit the payment.

What happens next compounds the original problem.

The preparer advised the Oosterwijks that if they immediately filed a six-month Extension Request on Form 4868, they would have until October 15, 2018, to file their tax return, and the penalties for late filing would stop accruing..
The taxpayers followed the advice and immediately mailed in the Form 4868 and a check for $1.8 million, which IRS processed on May 4, 2018.

On June 29, 2018 the Oosterwijks’ CPA e-filed their 2017 return. Upon processing the return, IRS assessed failure to pay penalties of about $8,860 for the one month non payment delinquency period that ran April 17 to May 4, 2018. IRS assessed failure to file (FTF) penalties of about $259,000 for the three month late filing period that ran from April 17 to June 29th 2018, the date that Oosterwijks’ CPA e-filed their return on their behalf.

The Oosterwijks (and their CPA) were surprised that the IRS assessed a FTF penalty for the two-month period that ran from May 15 to June 29th. Based on their CPA’s advice, the taxpayers had incorrectly believed that by paying their taxes, submitting the Extension Request on May 4 (during the first month), and filing the return before October 15, they would halt the accrual of any FTF penalties beyond the first monthly delinquency.
Well, as you likely know, the CPA and his clients were mistaken. A late filed extension to file does not excuse FTF penalties for any subsequent filing.

In November 2018, after the IRS assessed both delinquency penalties, the taxpayers’ CPA requested penalty relief based on reasonable cause. The IRS denied the relief, and the CPA appealed administratively on behalf of his clients. The Appeals Officer agreed to abate about 50% of both delinquency penalties.
Despite the 50% abatement, the taxpayers were not happy with the result. By March of 2019, the taxpayers sent in another letter to IRS stating that they believed they should be relieved of all the penalties, raising the issue of their reasonable cause for late filing due to their CPA’s failure to e-file the extension and his incorrect substantive advice about how to halt the FTF penalty’s accrual.

IRS did not respond, and the taxpayers paid the balance due and filed a refund claim. After six months passed they then filed a refund suit in federal district court, claiming that they had reasonable cause for the delinquency due to both the mistaken belief that the extension were filed and the reliance on substantive advice that a late filed extension excused a portion of the FTF penalties.

Following the complaint, the government filed a motion to dismiss, which the court treated as a motion for summary judgment.

As a threshold matter, why didn’t the taxpayers avoid having to file a suit and request administrative relief under the IRS’s First Time Abatement policy? To add insult to injury the Oosterwijks were not eligible, because their decades long history of tax compliance was tainted by a $7 late payment penalty from the 2014 tax year and the first time abatement for delinquency penalties requires a clean past three years of tax compliance.

With that out of the way the opinion first addressed a variance issue because the formal refund claim addressed reasonable cause relating to the mistaken belief that the extension was filed and did not mention the advice the CPA gave about limiting penalty accrual by filing a 4868 after the due date of the return. The opinion concluded that the claim and communications with IRS were sufficient to put IRS on notice about the full extent of the reasonable cause argument. (as an aside the opinion also seems to mix up the SOL issues in 6511 and 6532).

That gets to the merits of the reasonable cause defense. The taxpayers argued that the FTF penalties should be completely excused because they had reasonable cause for filing late, specifically that their accountant failed to e-file their extension request and their personal e-filing access was limited.

Boyle and Non Delegable Duties

This of course brings in the Boyle case and its applicability to failures to e-file, which we have discussed in Delinquency Penalties: Boyle in the Age of E-Filing and more recently in Possible Opening in Defending Against Late Filing Penalty When Preparer Fails to E-file Timely. To date, even when a taxpayer is relying on an agent to e-file, courts have been unwilling to distinguish Boyle and have held that reliance on a third party to file a return does not establish reasonable cause because “[i]t requires no special training or effort to ascertain a deadline and make sure that it is met.”

The Oosterwijk opinion cites to the opinion in Boyle, and also to Justice Brennan’s concurring opinion, where he “stressed that the ‘ordinary business care and prudence’ standard applies only to the “ordinary person.” That is, the standard exempts individuals with disabilities or infirmities that render them physically or mentally incapable of knowing, remembering, and complying with a filing deadline.”

The Oosterwijks argued that “Boyle does not apply to electronic filing, because a taxpayer cannot personally confirm that an accountant has e-filed as promised.”

The Oosterwijks essentially argued that the placement of a third party (the preparer) “between the taxpayer and the IRS, and the Oosterwijks’ inability either to e-file on their own or to confirm the e-filing’s transmission put the filing beyond their control according to Justice Brennan’s concurrence.”

The opinion disagreed, noting that the taxpayers were free to paper file an extension (and in fact did so):

The specialized technology and professionals-only availability of e-filing need not have been a barrier to the filing of an Extension Request; the same means available to the Boyle taxpayer in 1979 were available to the Oosterwijks in 2017, even if the IRS encourages e-filing.

Moreover, the opinion notes that Justice Brennan’s Boyle concurrence “contemplates differently abled taxpayers who are physically or mentally incapable of meeting filing deadline. The Oosterwijks do not fall under this exception.”

What About The CPA’s Substantive Advice?

Boyle does not prevent a finding of reasonable cause when a taxpayer’s non or late filing was due to erroneous substantive legal advice as compared to just an agent’s failure to file a return or extension. To that end, the Oosterwijks argued that the penalty period after the first month should be excused because their preparer mistakenly believed and advised them that if they mailed an extension after the due date of the return so long as they paid any balance due and filed the 2017 return by October 15, 2018 they would only be subjected to one-month FTF penalty. This, they argued, amounted to substantive legal advice.

A. Is The Penalty Divisible

As I mentioned above, that advice was wrong; the FTF penalty is based on the net tax due as of the due date of the return, and the delinquent extension provided no benefit. But should the taxpayer be expected to second-guess their preparer?

The court’s inquiry focused on timing. Does it matter if the substantive advice arises after the due date of the return? The opinion notes that the reasonable cause inquiry looks to the due date, and while the due date (and thus inquiry time) could be extended if the taxpayer timely filed an extension, actions beyond the due date are not determinative.

To be sure, the opinion notes that reasonable cause at the due date does not mean that there is reasonable cause for the entire delinquency period, citing to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals case from 2013, Estate of Liftin v US.

The government argued that any advice that the Oosterwijks’ preparer gave after the April 17 due date was irrelevant if as of the original due date the taxpayer did not establish that it had reasonable cause (and as discussed above there was no reasonable cause as of April 17).

The taxpayers essentially argued that the FTF penalty was divisible, or that whether a taxpayer has reasonable cause should be evaluated on a monthly basis given that the penalty amount is triggered by each monthly delinquency period:

To the Oosterwijks, the core issue is whether reasonable cause arose as to parts of the penalty incurred in later months when, after the deadline had already passed, they relied on their tax professional’s bad substantive advice about what actions would stop the accrual of a tax penalty. They say that this would leave intact the April 2018 penalty but would require removal of the penalties for May and June 2018, the months after [the CPA’s] incorrect April 30 advice. The Oosterwijks focus on the distinction between relying on a tax professional to perform the ministerial (and non-delegable, under Boyle) duty of filing an extension return, as compared to the tax professional’s erroneous substantive advice about what actions would halt the penalty’s accrual.

On divisibility, the court examined case law which suggested that the FTF penalty was divisible but distinguished those circumstances. Those cases mostly involved erroneous “legal advice about the availability of second extensions after the taxpayer had already timely filed and obtained a first extension.”

In those cases there was reasonable cause at the original due date but not later:

These second-extension cases are distinct from the Oosterwijks’. The taxpayers in these cases were erroneously advised by their attorneys before their (first extended) deadlines had passed, meaning they could still have had reasonable cause under § 6651. The fact that they received erroneous advice after their original deadlines is immaterial, because their reasonable cause evaluation was governed by their first extended deadline. In contrast, the Oosterwijks received their erroneous advice after the deadline had passed and therefore after the door had closed on reasonable cause for late filing.

Similarly, the opinion distinguished Estate of Liftin, where a taxpayer had reasonable cause at the date of filing based on erroneous advice about not needing  to file an estate tax return until after the taxpayer’s spouse had become a citizen.  In Liftin, the reasonable cause defense did not apply to the FTF penalty when circumstances changed and the spouse became a citizen, but there was still an additional 9-month delinquency prior to filing:

Liftin shows that although the penalty is not entirely indivisible for the purposes of the reasonable cause exception, it is not divisible in the way the Oosterwijks hope. They, unlike the Liftin taxpayer, failed to meet the initial requirements of reasonable cause. The purpose of encouraging timely filing is best served by reading the statute to allow reasonable cause to expire based on a change in circumstances at some point in the delinquency but not allowing it to materialize where the taxpayer had none at the time of filing.

B. Even if the Penalty Were Divisible the Advice Was Not Reasonable

For good measure, the opinion notes that even if the penalty were divisible in the way the Oostwerwijks argued they still would not qualify for relief because the advice they received was not reasonable given the explicit text of Form 4868. In so concluding the opinion cites to Baer v US, a 2020 Court of Federal Claims opinion that considered a CPA’s failure to file a 4868 because he believed that any extension had to be accompanied by a taxpayer payment. While Baer held that the CPA’s actions were not advice and thus could not justify a taxpayer’s reliance, it also held that if it did amount to advice it was not based on a “reasonable factual or legal assumption.” That was because the text of the extension form directly contradicted the CPA’s mistaken belief, that it could not file a 4868 a scenario analogous to the Oosterwijk’s situation where the form itself stated that the taxpayer must file the 4868 by the due date to receive the extension.

In contrast in La Meres v Commissioner, one case where a taxpayer was able to establish that mistaken advice as to an extension was reasonable cause, the opinion notes that the advice concerned the advisor’s mistaken belief that the taxpayer was entitled to two extensions of time to file an estate tax return, an issue not addressed in the form itself but only  “toward the end of the relevant estate tax regulation” and one in which the IRS actions misled the taxpayer into thinking a second extension was valid.

Concluding Thoughts

The court signs off by acknowledging that it is “sympathetic to the Oosterwijks, who were not willfully neglectful but rather appear to have relied on the advice of a trusted professional, intending to fulfill their obligations under the tax laws.”

Yet the court also acknowledges that the government was not at fault and did in fact abate about half of the penalties. 

I am not sure I accept that there is no government fault here.  Even though I suspect the taxpayers’ longtime preparer will likely reimburse the taxpayers in light of a possible malpractice suit (though maybe Congress should consider directly penalizing the preparer rather than forcing the taxpayer to seek reimbursement from the preparer), the case leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Apart from my belief that courts (and the IRS) should distinguish Boyle when e-filing makes it difficult to monitor an agent’s actions, the policy underlying the imposition of civil penalties and the first time abatement policy itself suggest that the IRS should have exercised discretion and abated the FTF penalty in full.

Recall that the taxpayers had a long history of tax compliance, save for a 2014 $7 delinquency penalty. Under the First Time Abatement policy, the IRS will abate a delinquency penalty if a taxpayer

  • Didn’t previously have to file a return or have no penalties for the 3 tax years prior to the tax year in which the taxpayer received a penalty;
  • Filed all currently required returns or filed an extension of time to file; and
  • Has paid, or arranged to pay, any tax due.

As the IRS acknowledges, “penalties should relate to the standards of behavior they encourage. Penalties best aid voluntary compliance if they support belief in the fairness and effectiveness of the tax system.” IRM (11-25-2011) Encouraging Voluntary Compliance.

While perhaps the IRS has the power to penalize taxpayers like the Oosterwijks, the taxpayers’ de minimis $7 delinquency penalty is all that stood in the way of a full abatement. The IRS should apply the First Time Abatement policy by ignoring a de mininimis assessment during the three-year period. Even if the policy were not changed to have a deminimis carveout, when a taxpayer has a long history of compliance and the delinquency is directly attributable to preparer error, perhaps the government should show mercy. After all, as Shakespeare wrote, mercy can have an effect that is “twice blest.” It is needed more so these days as trust in our public institutions and IRS in particular seems to be eroding.

Sometimes doing the right thing means the IRS looking the other way. Even if the law is on its side.