More on the Economic Substance Doctrine (ESD) and Relevancy in § 7701(o) (5/5/26)

In Kadau v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-37 (5/5/26), referred to as Kadau II, TC Case # 286-21 here at #216; GS here, the Court held that the taxpayer’s microcaptive insurance arrangement failed under the Economic Substance Doctrine (“ESD”) in § 7701(o) and was subject to the 40% penalty in § 6662(b)(6) and (i). Given the facts in Kadau II and its earlier opinion in Kadau v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-81 (referred to as Kadau I), at # 198 and GS here, the result is not surprising. The arrangement was smoke and mirrors to appear as a transaction with magic tax benefits.

Kadau II drew my attention because of its discussion of § 7701(o)’s requirement that the common law ESD be “relevant.” § 7701(o)(1) & (o)(5)(C). I have written on this issue before. See Liberty Global's Tax Scam Fails in Tenth Circuit (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 4/30/26), here; The Economic Substance Doctrine ("ESD")--the Common Law and § 7701(o) (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 3/31/26; 4/8/26), here; and Tax Court in Unanimous Reviewed Opinion Interprets and Applies the Accuracy-Related Economic Substance Penalty (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 11/12/25), here. I thought this might be a good point to offer further thoughts on § 7701(o) and the requirement that the common law ESD be “relevant.” (Actually, anticipating a theme below, my thoughts today may be a clarification of my earlier thoughts.)

Section § 7701(o), titled “Clarification,” states the general prongs of the common law ESD requirement—meaningful economic position effect and substantial nontax purpose. § 7701(o)(1). Then, in the balance of § 7701(o), some specific rules for applying the ESD are provided, such as that the nontax profit potential “be substantial in relation to the expected value of the net tax benefits that would be allowed if the transaction were respected.” § 7701(o)(2)(A). Those in the tax world for some time know precisely why that “clarification” was there—to foreclose taxpayer arguments that remote, unlikely profit potentials could still meet that prong of the common law ESD.

Kadau II addresses the term “relevant” in § 7701(o). Kadau II accepted the holding in Patel v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 10 (11/12/25) (reviewed unanimous) that § 7701(o) requires that the common law ESD must be “relevant” before § 7701(o) can apply. The Court in Kadau II did not need to address that predicate requirement because petitioners in briefing said (p. 4, emphasis supplied):

As the Court held in Patel III, a threshold determination must be made as to whether the economic substance doctrine is relevant. Because Petitioners formed a small captive insurance company, Petitioners acknowledge that section 7701(o) is applicable. The dispositive question is whether Petitioners’ transactions satisfy its requirements. Accordingly, we refrain from addressing any threshold determination issues and proceed directly to examination of the transaction by applying the foregoing elements outlined in section 7701(o)(1).

Liberty Global's Tax Scam Fails in Tenth Circuit (4/30/26)

In Liberty Global, Inc. v. United States, 174 F.4th 1208 (10th Cir. 2026), CA10 here, GS here, and CL here, using tax lingo and analysis, rejected Liberty Global’s tax scam. The panel majority correctly holds that Liberty Global’s farcical multiple steps did not pass economic substance doctrine (“ESD”) scrutiny.

The key issue upon which the majority of the panel and the dissenting judge differ is over what role, if any, § 7701(o)’s requirement that whether the ESD is “relevant.” § 7701(o)(1) & (o)(5)(C). So that readers can understand the statute’s textual context, I offer it here (with key word in red):

(o) Clarification of economic substance doctrine
    (1) Application of doctrine. In the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant, such transaction shall be treated as having economic substance only if—
        (A) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer’s economic position, and
        (B) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction.
* * * *
    (5) Definitions and special rules
    For purposes of this subsection—
    * * * *
        (C) Determination of application of doctrine not affected. The determination of whether the economic substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction shall be made in the same manner as if this subsection had never been enacted.

I have written previously on the issue of the term “relevant” in § 7701(o). The Economic Substance Doctrine ("ESD")--the Common Law and § 7701(o) (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 3/31/26; 4/8/26), here. I believe that ESD as the term is used both in the common law and in § 7701(o) means the same thing, except that § 7701(o) adds some specific rules that apply in applying certain features of the ESD. These specific rules address some taxpayer claims about how those features of the common law ESD work. For example, § 7701(o)(2) & (4) provide rules for applying the ESD requirement that a taxpayer have a non-tax profit potential. Section § 7701(o) rejects certain claims that taxpayers made in prior cases to avoid the ESD. Thus, I think that the threshold inquiry is whether the common law ESD applies (not that it is just relevant, but certainly, if ESD applies, it is relevant for purposes of § 7701(o) because the special rules of § 7701(o) may then apply).

Basically, what I am saying is that the panel majority gets it right and the dissent gets it wrong.

The Economic Substance Doctrine ("ESD")--the Common Law and § 7701(o) (3/31/26; 4/8/26)

In Royalty Management Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-26 (T.C. No. 3823-19, here, at #338 and GS here), Judge Lauber smacked down another bullshit tax shelter of the microcaptive insurance genre. This opinion is a follow-through from a prior opinion, Royalty Management Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-87 (GS here). I refer to the prior case as Royalty Mgmt 1 and the current case as Royalty Mgmt 2.

Royalty Mgmt 2 was required because Judge Lauber deferred resolving in Royalty Mgmt 1 the economic substance doctrine (“ESD”) issues (including the codified ESD in § 7701(o) and the accuracy-related penalty for shelters running afoul of the codified ESD in § 6662(b)(6), (i)). In the meantime, the Tax Court had decided Patel v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 10 (11/12/25), GS here, which I discussed Tax Court in Unanimous Reviewed Opinion Interprets and Applies the Accuracy-Related Economic Substance Penalty (11/12/25), here. In material part, Patel held that the codified ESD doctrine in § 7701(o) has a predicate “relevance” requirement. So, Judge Lauber in Royalty Mgmt 2 applied that requirement as a predicate for finding the petitioner liable for the accuracy-related penalty for lack of economic substance. The kerfuffle over whether § 7701(o) has a predicate requirement and precisely what the requirement is and how it may be applied is not relevant to the main body of this blog, so I will defer here and discuss that alleged predicate requirement in my comments below. I do point persons interested in the issue at Royalty Mgmt 2 at pp. 3-4.

Judge Lauber goes through (pp. 5-9) the standard ESD requirements—objective and subjective tests, both of which on the facts found, the petitioner flunked.

Having flunked the ESD test, petitioner drew the increased accuracy-related penalty in § 6662(b)(6), (i). (See pp. 9-11.)

JAT Comments:

Tax Court in Unanimous Reviewed Opinion Interprets and Applies the Accuracy-Related Economic Substance Penalty (11/12/25)

In Patel v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 10 (11/12/25) (unanimous reviewed opinion), the Tax Court (Judge Jones) applied the interpreted the requirements of the accuracy-related penalty for transactions that lack economic substance, § 6662(b)(6), which applies the economic substance doctrine as codified under I.R.C. § 7701(o). The Opinion (for which there is yet no Tax Court permalink, may be reviewed in the Tax Court docket entries for the lead case, here at # 421, dated 11/12/25, on my Google Drive here, on TN here, and on GS here. The transaction at issue was yet another captive insurance case, but addressed for the first time the economic substance accuracy-related penalty.

The Tax Court earlier had shot down the particular captive insurance on the substantive tax merits in Patel v. Commissioner (Patel I), T.C. Memo. 2020-133, here, and Patel v. Commissioner (Patel II), T.C. Memo. 2024-34, here. The new Patel opinion addresses penalty issues not resolved in the prior opinions.

The new Patel opinion offers a relatively straightforward application of the statutory text to a transaction that, in my opinion from the prior Patel opinions, lacked economic substance and was the type of transaction to which the penalty should apply. Indeed, I think the Court’s application of the principles of statutory interpretation, although I think wooden, are what the current judicial environment requires (including a bow to legislative history “For those who consider legislative history relevant.” (Slip Op. 18-19); as phrased, it is not clear whether Judge Jones for the Court felt legislative history was relevant).

Readers of this blog entry are directed to the opinion for the Court’s reasoning and steps.

JAT Comments/Musings:

I offer just the following comments that caught my specific attention as I wandered through the Opinion (in order as they arise in the opinion and not necessarily in order of importance):

1. A host of amici briefs were filed; they are identified at Slip Op. 2 n. 2. The Opinion identifies the amici briefs in the footnote but otherwise does not refer to them. The footnote does add: 

At respondent’s request, we ordered the parties to file briefs in response to the amicus briefs. At the parties’ request, we held oral argument on the issues raised by the briefs.

I have not seen the amici briefs but, since the Court does not refer otherwise to them, I am not going to speculate what effect amici briefs had to the outcome. I will say that I have known the Patels’ lead counsel for some time, he is a very good tax litigator, and assume that he covered the bases in the briefs on which his name appears.

2. The Opinion says (Slip Op. 3 n. 5): “We understand the interaction of section 6662(a) and (b)(6) to impose a single penalty. Because the Commissioner determined that penalty for multiple years (each of the tax years at issue), we will refer to it in the plural (penalties).” Think about that unexplained comment.