Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considers whether an IRS Appeals Officer conducting a collection due process hearing must verify compliance with the supervisory-approval requirement for penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6751(b)(1). The court holds that this requirement is an applicable law or administrative procedure covered by the verification mandate in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(1), even where the underlying liabilities and penalties were previously adjudicated. The court reverses the relevant Tax Court orders and remands for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(1) requires an Appeals Officer conducting a collection due process hearing concerning a tax lien or proposed levy to verify compliance with the written supervisory-approval requirement in 26 U.S.C. § 6751(b)(1), even when the underlying penalties and liabilities were previously adjudicated.
- Whether the Appeals Officer's failure to perform or establish that verification invalidated the approval of liens and proposed levies used to collect the penalties.
- Whether res judicata, claim-preclusion principles, or harmless-error considerations excused the failure to verify supervisory approval.
Holdings
- When § 6751(b)(1) applies to penalties that are the subject of IRS collection efforts, § 6330(c)(1) requires the Appeals Officer conducting a collection due process hearing concerning a lien or proposed levy to verify that the required written supervisory approval was obtained.
- The Appeals Officer's failure to verify compliance with § 6751(b)(1) invalidated the Appeals Office's approval of the liens and proposed levies used to collect the penalties, but did not invalidate the underlying penalties or overall tax liabilities.
- The prior adjudication of the taxpayers' underlying liabilities did not preclude their challenge to the Appeals Officer's compliance with the independent verification obligation in § 6330(c)(1).
Key quotations
“We interpret these provisions literally, as we are required to do, and hold that Section 6751(b)’s supervisory approval requirement is a “requirement[] of . . . applicable law or administrative procedure” encompassed by Section 6330(c)(1).” (3)
“Our decision affects only the use of Code-authorized liens and levies.” (23)
“We therefore conclude that, where Section 6751(b)(1) applies to the penalties that are the subject of the IRS’s collection efforts, Section 6330(c)(1) requires the Appeals Officer conducting a CDP hearing with respect to a lien or proposed levy to verify that Section 6751(b)(1)’s supervisory approval requirement was met.” (27-28)
Factual background
The six taxpayer entities participated in intermediary tax-shelter transactions from 1999 to 2003. The IRS determined that they owed millions of dollars in tax deficiencies, penalties, and accrued interest, and the Tax Court adjudicated or accepted those liabilities in earlier proceedings. After the taxpayers failed to pay, the IRS filed liens and issued proposed levies; during collection due process hearings, the Appeals Officer sustained the collection actions but did not verify or document compliance with the written supervisory-approval requirement for penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6751(b)(1).
Procedural history
The IRS assessed the taxpayers for deficiencies, penalties, and interest arising from tax-shelter transactions, and the Tax Court previously adjudicated or accepted those underlying liabilities. After the taxpayers failed to pay, the IRS issued notices of federal tax liens and intent to levy, and an Appeals Officer sustained the collection actions after collection due process hearings. The Tax Court ultimately granted the Commissioner's motions for summary judgment, holding that the Appeals Officer did not need to verify compliance with the supervisory-approval requirement in 26 U.S.C. § 6751(b)(1) because the penalties had previously been adjudicated. The Second Circuit reversed the relevant portions and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of the Appeals Officer's failure to verify compliance with § 6751(b)(1) and the resulting authority to use liens and proposed levies to collect the penalties.