Eleventh Circuit Holds Clear and Convincing Evidence Required for Section 6701 Penalty; Can Reasoning be Extended to FBAR Willful Penalty? (6/14/14)

In United States v. Carlson, ___ F.3d  ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11001 (11th Cir. 6/13/14), here, the issue was the plaintiff's liability for " aiding and abetting understatement of tax liability in violation of I.R.C. § 6701."  Section 6701 is here.  In relevant part, Section 6701 imposes the penalty upon a person:

(1) who aids or assists in, procures, or advises with respect to, the preparation or presentation of any portion of a return, affidavit, claim, or other document,
(2) who knows (or has reason to believe) that such portion will be used in connection with any material matter arising under the internal revenue laws, and
(3) who knows that such portion (if so used) would result in an understatement of the liability for tax of another person.

Section 6701 may be viewed as the civil penalty analog to the tax crime of aiding and assisting, Section 7206(2), here.

One issue on the appeal was the appropriate burden of  proof the Government must bear.  Carlson argued that it was by clear and convincing evidence; the Government argued that it was by a preponderance.  The Court held that the standard of proof is by clear and  convincing evidence.  Here is the Court's discussion:

I. The Government must prove violations of I.R.C. § 6701 by clear and convincing evidence. 

At trial, the parties disputed the correct standard of proof. Carlson contends the correct standard should be clear and convincing evidence while the Government contends the correct standard is a preponderance of the evidence. The district court agreed with the Government and instructed the jury that the Government must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that this instruction misstated the law. 

Under the Eleventh Circuit's longstanding precedent, the Government must prove fraud in civil tax cases by clear and convincing evidence. See, e.g., Ballard v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 522 F.3d 1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2008) ("The Commissioner has the burden of proving allegations of fraud by clear and convincing evidence."); Korecky v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 781 F.3d 1566, 1568 (11th Cir. 1986) ("The IRS bears the burden of proving fraud, which must be established by clear and convincing evidence."); Marsellus v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 544 F.2d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence); Webb v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 394 F.2d 366, 378 (5th Cir. 1968) (same); Goldberg v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 239 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 1956) ("The Commissioner has the burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence."); Jemison v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 45 F.2d 4, 5-6 (5th Cir. 1930) ("Fraud is not to be presumed, but must be determined from clear and convincing evidence, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case."). Our sister courts of appeals follow the same rule. See, e.g., Grossman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 182 F.3d 275, 277 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that a finding of fraud must be supported by clear and convincing evidence); Lessmann v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 327 F.2d 990, 993 (8th Cir. 1964) (same); Davis v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 184 F.2d 86, 86 (10th Cir. 1950) (same);Rogers v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 111 F.2d 987, 989 (6th Cir. 1940) ("Fraud cannot be lightly inferred, but must be established by clear and convincing proof."); Duffin v. Lucas, 55 F.2d 786, 798 (6th Cir. 1932) (same); Griffiths v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 50 F.2d 782, 786 (7th Cir. 1931) ("Fraud is never presumed but must be determined from clear and convincing evidence, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case.").

Procedural Predicates for Setoffs in Refund Suits (7/2/14)

In Lewis v. Reynolds, 284 U.S. 281 (1932), here,modified in 284 U.S. 599 (1932), the Supreme Court held that, in a refund suit, the Government can raise a previously unasserted basis for denying a taxpayer a refund.  The notion is that, in a refund suit, the issue is whether the taxpayer overpaid the tax and therefore is entitled to a refund.  If there is some other basis to conclude that the taxpayer did not overpay the tax, the taxpayer is not entitled to a refund.  The issue usually arises after the IRS has audited an issue and assessed a deficiency.  The taxpayer pays the assessed tax and sues for refund, asserting that the taxpayer does not owe tax with respect to that issue.  Lewis v. Reynolds holds that, in that refund suit, the Government can assert any other basis that shows the taxpayer is not entitled to a refund for that year or is entitled to less than the taxpayer assert.  This is often referred to as a setoff.

The setoff concept is important in tax practice.  One significant issue is what the Government must do to assert the setoff.  This issue arose in a recent case, Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, 973 F. Supp. 2d 591 (D. Md. 2013), where the Court addressed the pleading requirements for the Government to raise the setff as a defense.  In Lockheed, the Government pled the following under a caption titled "Second Defense":

Should the Court determine that Plaintiff raised a meritorious argument that would otherwise establish that Plaintiff overpaid its taxes, the United States is entitled to reduce that overpayment based on any additional tax liabilities that the Plaintiff may owe, whether or not previously assessed or alleged. The United States is entitled to such reduction because the redetermination of the Plaintiff's entire federal income tax liability for the litigated tax years is at issue in this refund suit.

Note that the Government pleads nothing except its theoretical right to the setoff.

Of course, the taxpayer in a refund suit does not want the Government to be able to assert the right to a setoff at all.  And, the theoretical assertion of the right may raise concern that the Government will use the refund suit litigation to re-audit in search of something to setoff.  So, in Lockheed, the taxpayer moved to strike that portion of the pleading, alleging that setoff should be pled like an affirmative defense, which, as Lockheed read the cases, would prohibit this type of conclusory pleading without a factual basis for the claim.  The Government argued that, although labeled a defense, it is not an affirmative defense at all, but merely goes to the issue of whether this taxpayer has proved that it is entitled to the refund the taxpayer claims.  The Court does not engage on this theoretical difference between a setoff and an affirmative defense, but treats the setoff as being subject to the affirmative defense pleading requirements.

Focusing on those pleading requirements for affirmative defenses, the Court notes that there is a split of authority over whether any notice of factual predicate for the legal claim is required to be pled.  The Court first identifies the split of authority and then turns to rationale for the majority and minority views as follows: