FTP Book Clean Up - Restitution-Based Assessments (RBAs) (7/8/26)

In working on my 2026 editions of my Federal Tax Procedure Book for publication on SSRN in early August, I am trying to eliminate bloat accreted over the years from the text and the footnotes (particularly the footnotes). I conceive the text (as opposed to footnotes) to be directed to students of tax procedure for whom I provide the Student Edition without footnotes. I hope to shorten the text, but the major changes will be in footnotes. I feel that some of the eliminations I make in the footnotes have good discussions, so I will be posting on the Federal Tax Procedure Blog some of the eliminations (doing some clean-up).

I start today with a footnote on “restitution-based assessments” (“RBAs) under §§ 6201(a)(4) & 6213(b)(5). The discussion of RBAs is in the text discussing exceptions to the prohibitions on assessment arising from the general requirement in income and estate and gift tax cases that the IRS first issue a notice of deficiency. One of the exceptions is “restitution for tax in a criminal tax case which may be assessed despite the  prohibition (“restitution-based assessment, or “RBA”).” I eliminate from the footnote the discussion after citing the statute sections for the RBA, §§ 6201(a)(4) & 6213(b)(5). The eliminations are (as I have cleaned them):

Certain points about RBAs:

1. First, normally, tax restitution is not available for Title 26 offenses. However, courts may impose tax restitution for Title 18 convictions, such as the ubiquitous Klein / defraud conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §  371(a). See Daugerdas v. Commissioner, 171 F. 4th 924 (7th Cir. 2026) (holding that §  6201(a)(4)(A) authorizes the IRS to assess and collect tax restitution ordered in Title 18 convictions and the IRS collection measures do not have to be consistent with the restitution order for deferred payment of restitution).

2. In tax cases, in pleading guilty to a Title 26 offense, a defendant often agrees to “contractual” restitution in the plea agreement that the sentencing court then incorporates as a restitution order in the criminal judgment. Or, in imposing sentence for Title 26 offenses, a court may impose restitution as a condition for some benefit (such as supervised release for some period rather than incarceration).

3. The net effect of these statutory changes to the Code is that (i) the IRS can immediately assess the tax restitution as if it were a tax (the assessment acronymed RBA) and (ii) deploy the IRS collection tools for tax assessments. Carpenter v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. 202 (2020), aff’d 788 F. App’x 187 (4th Cir. 2019); and Reynolds v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-10 (also holding that the IRS can collect on the RBA even if the person has an agreement with DOJ for installment payment of the restitution). However, if the sentencing judge sets the terms of installment payment of the restitution, the Tax Court can consider those terms in a CDP proceeding contesting an IRS levy and the IRS should consider that as well. White v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-56 (remanding to IRS Appeals to consider).

CFC Invalidates GILTI Gap-Filling Regulation That Avoided Textual Statute Inconsistency (7/7/26)

In Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. United States, ___ Fed.Cl. ___ (7/2/26), the Court held invalid a Treasury Regulation designed to plug a gap in the statutory text. The opinion may be found: CFC here, TN here, GS here [to come].

The Court opens with this sentence projecting the outcome (Slip Op. 1):

When Chevron fell, so too did the presumption that statutory ambiguity favors the agency. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), overruled by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).

If that were not clear enough as to where it is going, the Court opens the next paragraph (bold face supplied by JAT):

This controversy relates to the Treasury’s self-inflicted fix of a mismatch between foreign subsidiaries with fiscal- or calendar-year tax filing requirements that Congress quietly built into the global intangible low-taxed income ("GILTI") statutory scheme.

And the next paragraph (bold face supplied by JAT):

The Treasury’s antipathy for this inconsistency resulted in the Secretary promulgating Regulation 1.951A-2(c)(5) ("the Regulation").

I won’t parse the quoted text any further (although my bold face may imply something).

The technical issue was whether Treasury could, by interpretive regulation, fix what appears textually to be a timing glitch producing materially different tax result based on differences in tax years between calendar year taxpayers and fiscal year taxpayers. As the Court says (Slip Op. 2): “Enactment of the TCJA created an inconsistency between treatment of certain taxpayers depending on whether they were fiscal-year or calendar-year filers.”

Basically, the taxpayer argued that it, as a fiscal year taxpayer, was entitled to a benefit that a calendar year taxpayer could not achieve. Without wallowing around in the details, it appears to me that an intuitive view of how Congress enacts tax legislation, one can fairly infer that Congress did not intend the result that the regulation sought to forbid and the Court blesses. Congress appears to have had no specifically articulated intent on the precise issue, but Congress generally does not make such distinctions to permit disparities between otherwise similarly situated taxpayers.