Tax Court Holds that IRS Must Prove Return Fraud After a Convicted Spouse is Convicted for Tax Evasion (5/30/26)

In Li v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-42 (T.C. Case 12133-23 at #35, here, at #35, and GS here [to come], the Court addressed proof issues for applying the unlimited statute of limitations for a joint return spouse (“unconvicted spouse”) after the other spouse was convicted of tax evasion (“the convicted spouse”). Of course, as to the convicted spouse, collateral estoppel will apply to establish fraud for the unlimited statute of limitations (§ 6501(c)(1)) and the civil fraud penalty (§ 6663). Li addresses the issue of the effect of the convicted spouse’s conviction on the unconvicted spouse’s statute of limitations (§ 6501(c)(1)),

The background is the Allen issue. In Allen v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 37 (2007), the Court held that fraud on a return by a return preparer without the taxpayer’s personal fraud invoked the unlimited statute of limitations in § 6501(c)(1). The issues Allen raises are discussed in several blog entries over the years, but I think they are presented in my most recent blogs: Update on Murrin Petition for Cert re Unlimited Civil Statute of Limitations for Non-Taxpayer Fraud Reported on Tax Return (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 5/19/26), here; and Further on Murrin and Allen and the Unlimited Statute of Limitations for Fraud on the Return (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 4/30/26), here.

Stripped down to basics, the current status of the Allen issue is as follows:

• for courts applying the Allen holding (that the preparer’s fraud alone will suffice to the unlimited statute of limitations; the taxpayer’s fraud is not required). This includes all courts addressing the issue except the Federal Circuit.
• the Federal Circuit held that the taxpayer’s fraud is required, at least in a context where the fraud on the return was not the preparer’s fraud (although the Federal Circuit did not intimate that preparer fraud would suffice).

Li dealt with the unlimited statute of limitations for the unconvicted spouse after the convicted spouse’s tax evasion conviction. The holding was that, as to the unconvicted spouse, the IRS must prove fraud on the return by clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the return (which need not necessarily be the unconvicted spouse’s personal fraud). In the Li facts, that means that the unconvicted spouse is not subject to collateral estoppel for the convicted spouse's conviction. Li does not address the issue I discuss in the first blog above as to whether fraud on the return committed by others than the tax return preparer (e.g., tax shelter promoters) will suffice.

I have synthesized the Li Opinion in my working draft for the Federal Tax Procedure Editions for 2026 (to be published in early August). I offer that synthesis here in the paragraph after discussing the Allen issue (note that the footnotes are presented after the text; the numbering on the footnotes will not be the same in the working draft or the final 2026 Practitioner Edition):

Tax Court (Lauber) Rejects Bullshit Syndicated Conservation Easement (BSSCE) Valuation Claim (2/19/26; 5/21/26)

Today, Judge Lauber called out yet another bullshit syndicated conservation easement (“BSSCE”). North Donald LA Property, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-19 T.C. No. 24703-21, here, at # 476; TN here; and GS here.The BSSCE claimed a charitable contribution of $115,391,000. The flaw that swung the case against BSSCE was, as Judge Lauber held in the opening (Slip Op. p. 3):

We conclude here, as we did in J L Minerals, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-93, at *3, that the valuation of the conservation easement “was an outrageous overstatement,” wholly untethered from reality. Employing the comparable sales method, as backstopped by the price actually paid to acquire the property in March 2016, we find that its “before value” was $2,975 per acre and that its “after value” was $2,300 per acre. The delta between these figures—the reduction in value attributable to the easement—is $675 per acre. The value of the easement—and hence the allowable charitable contribution deduction—is thus $175,824 ($675 × 260.48 = $175,824).

For those who are valuation enthusiasts, I suppose there is a lot to chew on. 

There are some interesting snippets in the opinion. I will list them in my numbered further comments below. The main things I want to write on are (i) the bottom-line valuation and (ii) the rejection of the civil fraud penalty for bullshit valuations. At trial, despite claiming a $115,391,000 value on the return, North Donald’s simultaneous opening brief (pp. 6, 124 & 202) described the valuation as:

5. Whether the value of the Easement Donation, as determined by Petitioner’s expert (Mr. Catlett), is $61,235,000?

* * * * 

824. The value of the Easement Donation is as determined by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Catlett, $61,235,000. Entire Record.

* * * * 

Because the Catlett Appraisal is the only appraisal before the Court that considered the relevant, available data regarding the quantity and quality of the clay reserves on the NDLA Property, the Court should adopt Mr. Catlett’s determination that the value of the Conservation Easement is at least $61,235,000.

So, after trial, North Donald conceded $54,156,000 of the amount it claimed on the return. More importantly, after trial, North Donald still claimed a value of $61,235,000. Judge Lauber found that the actual value was $175,824, which is 0.29% of the value North Donald claimed at trial. North Donald presented a gross overvaluation at trial by presenting, I guess with a straight trial face on, a valuation methology—described by Judge Lauber as the “Income Approach”—that has repeatedly been rejected by the Tax Court, as Judge Lauder notes (Slip Op. 54-59.)  Some interesting points of Judge Lauber’s analysis of petitioner’s claimed valuation:

Tax Court in Order Denying Petitioner's Hail Mary § 6751(b) Pass Cautions Counsel About Speculative Claims, Particularly Those Impugning IRS Counsel (2/3/26)

I write again on another “Hail Mary” attempt by a taxpayer to get out of penalty to avoid the consequences of their own conduct/misconduct. The setting is the ubiquitous issue in penalty cases as to whether the IRS foot-faulted in the written supervisor approval requirement in § 6751(b). Not surprisingly, the setting is a conservation easement case with what appears to have been an excessive valuation claim—$44,937,000. (It is not clear from the Order whether it is a syndicated conservation easement, but that makes no difference for excessive valuation claims.) Usually, in those cases, a fair inference is that the promoters and those reporting the claim knew the valuation was excessive and thereby intended to report fraudulently within the meaning of § 6663 civil fraud penalty.

In Palmwood Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. No. 17489-23, here, Order at # 54 dated 2/3/26), the IRS asserted the civil fraud penalty, § 6663, in the Answer to the Petition. Judge Urda briskly goes through the relevant facts that compel rejection of the petitioner’s Hail Mary pass. Judge Urda rejects petitioner’s wild speculations about some of the proffered summary judgment record. Judge Urda concludes (Slip Op.  4-5) with this cautionary advice directed to the tax matters partner's (Investment's) Counsel):

          We have time and again rejected the argument that penalties in fact [*5] recommended by the relevant IRS official were in substance determined by someone else. See, e.g., Sand Valley Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-74, at *7–8; Cattail Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-17, at *9–11. The “‘initial determination’ of a penalty assessment” is a formal action directed to a particular taxpayer. See Frost v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 23, 32 (2020) (quoting Belair Woods, 154 T.C. at 15). The word “determination” has “an established meaning in the tax context” and denotes an action “with a high degree of concreteness and formality.” Nassau River Stone, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-36, at *6 (quoting Belair Woods, 154 T.C. at 15). The record before us conclusively establishes that Mr. Wooldridge made the “initial determination” to assert the fraud penalty set forth in that pleading. Communications three years prior, even if they involved this case, would be neither here nor there.

Two Updates on Syndicated Conversation Easements (10/26/20)

I report in brief two recent developments in syndicated easement cases that have been the focus of so much IRS audit and investigation activity and Tax Court cases.

First, In Pine Mountain Preserve, LLLP v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. 2020), here, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the Tax Court and held “(1) that the 2005 and 2006 easements satisfy § 170(h)(2)(C)’s granted-in-perpetuity requirement, (2) that the existence of an amendment clause in an easement does not violate § 170(h)(5)(A)’s protected-in-perpetuity requirement, and (3) that the Tax Court applied the wrong method for valuing the 2007 easement.”  I will not dive into the legal issues in those holdings since they do not involve tax procedure (independent of the underlying substantive tax law issues).  

The valuation issue is interesting, though, because the Eleventh Circuit said that the Tax Court appeared to just "split the baby" on valuation.  (See Slip Op. pp. 9 & 21-24.)  At least, the myth is that courts having to deal with tough valuation issues often just split the baby (choose a mid-point between the parties' valuation positions) or come close to the midpoint with a variance masking that, really, they did just split the baby.  In valuation lingo, that looks like the fact finder (courts here) are in equipoise on some range of values around that mid-point.  See John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges—An Update, 73 Tax Lawyer 389 (2020), available here on SSRN.

The Eleventh Circuit required that, on remand, the Tax Court value the easement contribution based on the regulations in  § 1.170(A)-14(h)(3)(i) which, as I understand in the case will require that the contribution be valued as follows: (i) value the whole property on the date of the contribution; (ii) value the taxpayer’s remaining interest in the property (as burdened by the easement), and (iii) deduct the difference.  In many of the conservation easement cases and certainly the abusive ones, the devil is in the valuations.  Taxpayers often overstate the “before” value and understate the “after” value resulting in inappropriate charitable contributions.  (That is setting aside unique abuse in unique methodologies other than the methodology in the regulations.)

Second, in AM 2020-010 (10/5/20), here, the IRS attorney gave advice on the following subject:  Determining the Fraud Penalty in TEFRA Syndicated Conservation Easement Cases.  The TEFRA audit and litigating regime has been replaced for years beginning in 2018 by the centralized partnership audit regime enacted in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, but there are still plenty of TEFRA cases in the audit and litigation pipeline that can be subject to the analysis in the memorandum.  The summary conclusion is:

District Court Sustains FBAR Willful Penalty But Rejects Fraudulent Failure to File Penalty for Income Tax (9/1/20)

 In United States v. DeMauro (D. N.H. Dkt. 17-cv-640-JL Order and Verdict After Bench Trial dtd. 8/28/20), CL here, the Court sustained the FBAR willful penalty but rejected the fraudulent failure to file penalty.  In both cases, in broad strokes the conduct penalized is the same.  If that statement is correct, the difference in outcome is based on the differing burdens of persuasion.  The Government must prove application of the FBAR willful penalty by a preponderance of the evidence; the Government must application of the fraudulent failure to file penalty by clear and convincing evidence.

The willful FBAR penalty requires that the conduct penalized (failure to report) be willful.  In the FBAR civil penalty context, the Courts have held willfulness is (i) specific knowing failure to file (more or less the Cheek standard) or (ii) willful blindness or reckless disregard of the obligation to report.

The fraudulent failure to file penalty, like the civil fraud penalty for filed returns companion in § 6663, requires fraud.  The following is from my Federal Tax Procedure Book in discussing civil fraud under § 6663, but the same applies for the fraudulent failure to file:

The Code does not define fraud, but it may be viewed as the civil counterpart of criminal tax evasion in § 7201. n1 Examples of how courts have stated civil fraud under § 6663 are:  (i)  civil fraud requires “intentional commission of an act or acts for the specific purpose of evading tax believed to be due and owing”; n2 and (ii) civil fraud requires that “the taxpayer have intended to evade taxes known to be due and owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead or otherwise prevent the collection of taxes and that is an underpayment.”n3  In making the determination, as with criminal cases, courts will often look to certain common patterns indicating fraud–referred to as badges of fraud, such as unreported income, failure to keep adequate books, dealing in cash, etc.n4  The key differences between the two is that § 6663 is a civil penalty and has a lower burden of proof (clear and convincing rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) as I note later.
   n1 Anderson v. Commissioner, 698 F.3d 160, 164 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied 133 S. Ct. 2797, 133 S. Ct. 2797 (2013) (“the elements of evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 6663 are identical.”).
   n2 Erikson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-194.
   n3 Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-49; Zell v. Commissioner, 763 F. 2d 1139, 1142-1143 (3rd Cir. 1985) (“Fraud means "actual, intentional wrongdoing, and the intent required is the specific purpose to evade a tax believed to be owing.”); and Fiore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-21 (“Fraud is the ‘willful attempt to evade tax’” and using the criminal law concept of willful blindness to find the presence of civil fraud; note that, in the criminal law, the concept of willful blindness goes by several names.)
   n4 E.g., Kosinski v. Commissioner, 541 F.3d 671, 679-80 (6th Cir. 2008).  For use of a negative inference from assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in concluding that the IRS had met its burden of proving civil fraud by clear and convincing evidence, see Loren-Maltese v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-214.

Criminal Tax Evasion and Civil Fraud–If Found by the Trier, Can There be a Reasonable Cause/Good faith Defense (1/16/20; 1/17/20)

I have blogged several times on my Federal Tax Crimes Blog about how the “good faith” defense is subsumed in the definition of willfulness for tax crimes.  Willful is the intentional violation of a known legal duty.  If a trier of fact determines that the defendant intentionally violated a known legal duty, then per se that person did not have a good faith defense.  Accordingly, if the trial court in a criminal case where willfulness is an element of a tax crime properly instructs the jury on the willful element, the fact that the judge did not separately instruct the jury that good faith (such as reliance on tax professional) is a “defense” is not error or, at least not reversible error.  Simply put, proof of willfulness negates the good faith defense.  The defendant cannot have intended to violate a known legal duty and then have reasonable cause/good faith in violating that known legal duty.  Accordingly, for example, consider the following:  "[T]o prove willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt, the Government would have to negate the taxpayer's claim that he relied in good faith on the advice of his accountant.”  United States v. Stadtmauer, 620 F3d 237, 257 n. 22 (3d Cir. 2010).

Now I want to move this concept to the civil arena.  Section 6663, here, imposes a civil fraud penalty.  The conduct penalized under § 6663 is “fraud.”  Basically, the conduct penalized under § 6663 is the same conduct that is tax evasion in the criminal context – intentional violation of a known legal duty.  (There may be different verbal formulations, but that is the essence of it in both the criminal and civil arenas.)  So, if proof of tax evasion negates a reasonable cause defense, one would think that proof of civil fraud negates a reasonable cause defense.

Although I think this logic is irrefutable, some courts nevertheless act like they believe otherwise.  For example, in Purvis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-13, at *33-*48, here, the Tax Court found that the taxpayers committed civil fraud subject to the penalty under § 6663.  The Court concluded after 15 pages analyzing the evidence (*48):   “Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are liable for the section 6663(a) fraud penalties for the years at issue.”

The Court then  (at *49-*50) considered the reasonable cause defense.  But why did the Court do that after the Court found that the taxpayer had intended to violate a known legal duty?

One reason is the way the statutory provisions are written.  Specifically, § 6663 imposes the penalty for fraud but then, § 6664(c)(1), here, states (emphasis supplied): “No penalty shall be imposed under section 6662 or 6663 with respect to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that there was a reasonable cause for such portion and that the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to such portion.”  But, as established in the criminal context, the taxpayer (called defendant in a criminal context) cannot have intended to violate a known legal duty if he had a reasonable cause/good faith defense.  That surely must be true in the civil context as well.

I would appreciate readers view on this issue.  Specifically, is it possible for the Government (the IRS in a Tax Court case) to prove civil fraud by clear and convincing evidence and the taxpayer then establish a reasonable cause/good faith defense?

One other thought.  The regulations for the reasonable cause defense under § 6664 on only address the accuracy related penalty under § 6662.  See Regs. § 1.6664-4, titled "Reasonable cause and good faith exception to section 6662 penalties." I suspect that this analysis is the reason.  The reasonable cause defense is an oxymoron if § 6663 civil fraud is proved.  But § 6664(c) is not the only time that Congress has legislated an oxymoron.

Addendum 1/17/20 12:00pm:

More on Litigation and IRS Raising Civil Fraud New Matter (7/11/19)

My last post involved the IRS raising the civil fraud penalty as new matter by amended answer and prevailing. IRS Raises Fraud In Tax Court Amended Answer and Prevails (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 7/9/19), here.  The key point of the blog entry was the danger of unspotted issues after an audit and the risks of petitioning the Tax Court for redetermination. 

First, on that issue, I offer the relevant portion of the working draft of my Federal Tax Procedure Book will be published on SSRN in early August 2019 (footnotes omitted):

New Matters [In the Tax Court]. 

The IRS can raise new issues in its answer that seek to increase the amount of the deficiency on a basis not asserted in the notice of deficiency or to justify the deficiency asserted (or part thereof) on some basis not asserted in the notice of deficiency.  Jurisdictionally, the Tax Court case is a case to redetermine the correct amount of tax liability for the year(s) involved, thus permitting it to determine a higher deficiency amount or an overpayment.  § 6214(a) & 6512(b). So the IRS can seek additional taxes and penalties not previously asserted.  The statute of limitations will be open because, to reprise what we learned earlier, the statute is suspended during the period the Tax Court case is pending.  §§ 6213(a) and 6503(a).   This is one of the dangers in proceeding in the Tax Court where the IRS has not previously spotted an issue.  Since the statute of limitations is suspended upon issuance of the notice of deficiency (§ 6503(a)), all new matters may be raised, assuming that the statute of limitations did not bar the notice of deficiency in the first place. 

The IRS's ability to raise new issues after its original answer is, however, limited by rules of fairness.  If the IRS does assert new matters after filing its original answer, it will formally do so by moving to amend the original answer.  The Tax Court rules, like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable in district courts and the Court of Federal Claims' Rules, permit amended pleadings, usually requiring the approval of the Court which is liberally granted to promote justice on the underlying merits. New issues cannot be inserted too late in the process so as to deny the taxpayer the effective opportunity to respond.  And, as to “new matters,” the IRS bears the burden of persuasion.  (Of course, if the new matter is the civil fraud penalty not asserted in the notice of deficienty, the IRS would have the burden of persuasion anyway to prove civil fraud by clear and convincing evidence, so asserting civil fraud as a new matter has no affect on the burden of persuasion.) 

The IRS is allowed to raise a new theory or ground in support of an issue raised in the notice of deficiency without the theory or ground being a new matter.  Depending upon how much variance the new theory or ground has with the notice of deficiency, the variance might be considered a new matter subject to the foregoing new issues discussion.  Certainly, if it is raised so late that the taxpayer cannot fairly respond with evidence addressing the new issue, the Court should deny the IRS’s attempt to assert the new issue. 

If the IRS asserts an affirmative defense (such as estoppel), it will be deemed denied and the taxpayer need not file a responsive pleading, which is usually called a “reply.”  If, however, the IRS raises “new matter” either in an answer or an amended answer, the taxpayer should file a reply providing the IRS notice as to the taxpayer's position on the new matter.  This is frequently done via a simple denial of the various matters pled with respect to the new matter. 

I think it would be helpful to illustrate the new matter issue.  Recall that § 6662 provides a 20% substantial understatement penalty that is then increased to 40% if the understatement is attributable to a gross valuation misstatement.  If the notice of deficiency asserted the 20% penalty but, in its answer, the IRS asserts the 40% penalty, the IRS will have the burden of proof on the increase in the penalty.  That seems to be the straight-forward reading of the rule shifting the burden of proof to the IRS.  But, let’s focus on one issue raised in this setting.  The taxpayer can avoid the accuracy related penalties if there was reasonable cause for the position on the return.  This is like an affirmative defense to the penalty.  Thus, as to the 20% penalty asserted in the notice and contested in the petition, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving reasonable cause even after the IRS meets its production burden under §7491(c); as to the increased 40% penalty, however, the IRS bears the burden of proof, including establishing absence of reasonable cause. 

Finally, an even worse case for the taxpayer who improvidently petitions for redetermination is that the IRS can raise as new matter a civil fraud penalty.  Say in the above example, the notice of deficiency asserted either the 20% or 40% accuracy related penalty in § 6662 and then in the answer (or amended answer), the IRS asserts the 75% civil fraud penalty in § 6663.  Note in this regard that, if the IRS raises the civil fraud penalty as a new matter, its burden of proof is not affected because, as to civil fraud, the IRS bears the burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence anyway, just as it the civil fraud penalty had been asserted in the notice of deficiency.  So,  if the IRS prevails, the taxpayer will be even worse off for having filed a petition for redetermination.  Thus, taxpayers and practitioners should think carefully about unspotted potential issues before filing a petition for redetermination in the Tax Court.

Now let's work this a little more.  This IRS favorable result works because the statute of limitations is still open in Tax Court proceedings.

IRS Raises Fraud In Tax Court Amended Answer and Prevails (7/9/19)

In Wegbreit v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-82, here, the taxpayer husband went through some deceptive shenanigans to hide the income from the sale of his interest in a business.  There were some other issues.  The numbers are large.  I won't get into the detailed facts, but what caught my eye was this (slip op., at 2-3, 44-45):

After the petitions were filed, respondent filed an amended answer asserting that Samuel Wegbreit (S. Wegbreit) and Elizabeth J. Wegbreit (E. Wegbreit) were each liable for penalties for fraud pursuant to section 6663 for 2005 through 2009. 

See also slip op. 44-45 for some more detailed on the amended answer allegations of fraud.

The Opinion section starts with general discussion and swings to the fraud issue as follows (slip op. 47-49):

The Commissioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that (1) an underpayment exists for the year in issue and (2) some portion of the underpayment is due to fraud. See sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b). The Commissioner also has the burden of producing evidence in relation to other penalties. Sec. 7491(c). Thus in analyzing the evidence in this case we have considered whether it is clear and convincing as to the elements of underpayment of tax for each year and of fraudulent intent. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient under that standard. 

Many of the critical documents in the record reflect “effective as of” dating and do not reveal when they were executed. Most of the documents were also prepared or notarized by Palardy. Palardy admitted that at Agresti’s request she would backdate documents and notarize documents stating incorrect dates. That any backdating occurred suggests a willingness to manipulate the relevant chronology in a way that undermines the credibility of petitioners Wegbreit’s evidence. 

The “effective as of” dating and the backdating of relevant documents also impede our review of the substance of the transactions involving SWTF, Threshold, and Acadia and lead us to conclude that the chronology reflected in those documents is not credible. The number of documents in the record that are on their face unreliable has made this case considerably more difficult. Our chore is compounded because the parties included numerous duplicate copies of key documents without explanation or analysis. Notwithstanding the Court’s comments and directions at the conclusion of the trial, the briefs of the parties failed to focus on the material facts. Respondent’s proposed findings of fact merely summarize testimony and documents and generally fail to analyze the transactions and entities involved. See Rule 151(e). Respondent continues to use the shotgun approach to theories of the case rather than selecting the strongest arguments and focusing on them. Petitioners Wegbreit’s briefs misstate the record and are unreliable. After dealing directly with the record with little aid from the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the reliable evidence is clear and convincing as to unreported income and fraudulent intent.

Well, the IRS prevailed despite the shortcomings of the cohort of IRS lawyers.

General Lesson

The obvious general lesson from a case like this is to remember that filing a case in the Tax Court can open upon issues not previously set up by the IRS in the notice of deficiency.  This can be substantive issues involving additional tax or can be penalties, both of which, if asserted as new matter, can draw interest from the due date of the return.

Beyond the General Lesson

There is more in the details as lessons to trial counsel.  As noted above, the Court found that the "Petitioners Wegbreit’s briefs misstate the record and are unreliable."  Presumably those briefs were submitted by their trial counsel.

Moreover, beyond misstating the record, the case should remind trial counsel to vet the evidence the taxpayer introduces through the lawyer (or if by testimony, upon cross-examination).  Let's go back to the opinion.

Yet Another BullShit Tax Shelter Goes Down Flaming (1/25/14)

In NPR Investments, LLC v. United States, 740 F.3d 998 (5th Cir. 2014), here, following the Supreme Court's lead in United States v. Woods, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 557 (2013), here, the Fifth Circuit applied the 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty to the partnership's bullshit tax shelter (the Son-of-Boss (SOB) type shelter).  For discussion of Woods, see Supreme Court Applies 40% Penalty to Bullshit Basis Enhancement Shelters (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 12/3/13), here. The 40% penalty will, of course, be applied to the partners, which will then permit them to assert in a separate refund proceeding any partner level defenses they may be entitled to.

I could perhaps leave it at that, but there are some interesting features of the case.

Let's start with some the facts recounted by the Court:

Harold Nix, Charles Patterson, and Nelson Roach are partners in the law firm of Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP. They represented the State of Texas in litigation against the tobacco industry and in 1998 were awarded a fee of approximately $600 million that is to be paid over a period of time. They also received fees totaling approximately $68 million in connection with tobacco litigation in Florida and Mississippi. Nix, Patterson, and Roach share the fees 40%, 40%, and 20%, respectively. 

Nix and Patterson have participated in at least two "Son-of-BOSS" tax shelters. BOSS stands for "Bond and Options Sales Strategy." Courts, including our court and the district court in this case, have described a Son-of-BOSS transaction as "a well-recognized 'abusive' tax shelter." Artificial losses are generated for tax deduction purposes. 

Before creating NPR and engaging in the transactions at issue in this appeal, Nix and Patterson invested in another Son-of-BOSS tax shelter, known as BLIPS. It involved sham bank loans, and our court considered various tax issues related to Nix's and Patterson's transactions with regard to that shelter in Klamath Strategic Investment Fund ex rel. St. Croix Ventures v. United States.

Further, here is a critical fact conceded apparently for strategic reasons:

The joint pre-trial order in the district court reflects that NPR, Nix, Patterson, and Roach conceded that NPR lacked a profit motive during 2001.

 All of the "investors" in SOB shelters claimed that their profit motive inhered in some long-shot investment razzle-dazzle which they called the "sweet spot," wherein the economic circumstances would line up to generate a profit from the adventure. Some of the taxpayers involved, although having large otherwise uncovered income, claimed that they did not consider the tax consequences at all but focused instead solely on the sweet spot opportunity.  However, the taxpayers in NPR (the ultimate taxpayers were involved by the attorney R.J. Ruble (since convicted of tax crimes for his participation in tax shelters, including SOB shelters) apparently did consider the tax consequences (duh!):

Court of Federal Claims Holds that Unlimited Civil Statute of Limitations Requires Taxpayer's Fraud (10/3/13)

In BASR Partnership et al. v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 181 (2013), here, the Court of Federal Claims (Judge Susan G. Braden), in a partnership TEFRA proceeding, held that Section 6501(c)(1), here, required the taxpayer's fraudulent intent in order for the unlimited statute of limitations to apply.  In so holding, the Court rejected the reasoning and holding of Allen v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 37, 40 (2007), here, and of the Second Circuit in City Wide Transit, Inc. v. Commissioner, 709 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013), here.  (Note:  I think the is Judge Braden's bottom-line holding, although one has to work through the TEFRA context and special Section 6229 rules to get there; see the TEFRA summary at the end of the blog.)

In BASR, the partnership reported a fraudulent tax shelter item that, under the partnership reporting rules found its way to the ultimate taxpayer's returns in a way that was less visible to the IRS.  Apparently in order to test the legal position that Section 6501(c)(1) applied at the partnership level solely by virtue of the return finding its way to individual taxpayer's return, the IRS did not urge that the taxpayers signing the ultimate returns had the required fraudulent intent.  Hence, the only issue was whether the reporting of a fraudulent item on the ultimate taxpayers' returns was alone sufficient to invoke Section 6501(c)(1).

The statutory text at issue is as follows (Section 6501(c)(1)):

(1) False return. -- In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.

Textually, there is no requirement that the requisite intent be the taxpayer's intent.  Read literally, therefore, fraud on the return will invoke Section 6501(c)(1).  Essentially, that is the holding of the Judge Kroupa in Allen.  Judge Kroupa in Allen just could not find any other persuasive interpretive sources that could permit her to say that the statute should be read to limit the "intent" to the taxpayer's intent.

A literalist or strict constructionist such as Justice Scalia would, I project, have reached the same conclusion as Judge Kroupa.  The statute appears plain on its face and contains no explicit or implicit ambiguity regarding who must be the author of the fraud that is on the return.

The question is whether there are other sources for interpretation that would permit a court to hold that a limitation that it be the taxpayer's fraudulent intent can be read into the text (meaning, I supposed, that the text is not so plain when the other sources are consulted).  When and how courts undertake such an extra-textual inquiry is a broad subject in the law, so I cannot do little more than say that it is undertaken if the reviewing court finds the text itself not to be plain.  It all depends upon what plain is.  That is the process that Judge Braden undertook.

Judge Braden started her analysis with Section 6501(a) which states the general rule that the assessment statute of limitations is three years from the date the return is filed.  Judge Braden noted the following text in Section 6501(a) that the return in question is  "the return to be filed by the taxpayer (and does not include a return of any person from whom the taxpayer received an item of income gain, loss, deduction, or credit)."  In other words, for example, a partnership return does not affect the application of Section 6501(a) to the partner's return even though the partner reports partnership items.  That is an unstartling proposition.

Taxpayer Judicially Estopped from Refund For Taxes Admitted in Plea Agreement (9/25/13)

In Mirando v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135659 (ND OH 2013), the taxpayer pled guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion.  The plea agreement stated that the parties:

agree and stipulate that the following facts would have been established beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial in this matter: . . . after Mirando's release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, the IRS assessed tax, interest and penalties for Mirando's taxes due for the 1995 and 1996 tax years as well as for unpaid liabilities for the 2000 and 2004 tax years. As of June 29, 2007, the total tax liability, including interest and penalties, amounted to $448,776.13.

The taxpayer paid and sued for refund.

As I note in the comments below, there was no basis in the normal judicial doctrines of res judicata [claim preclusion] and collateral estoppel [issue preclusion] to prevent the taxpayer from asserting that the tax was less than stipulated in the plea agreement.  And, apparently this plea agreement was not specific that it was intended to contractually bind the taxpayer to the amounts -- even as minimum amounts -- in any subsequent civil tax case.  So something else would have to apply if the taxpayer were going to be bound.

The Court applied judicial estoppel [issue preclusion].  Here is the reasoning (footnotes omitted):

The Court finds judicial estoppel prevents Plaintiff Mirando from bringing his refund claim. First, Mirando's position that he is entitled to a refund for overpaid taxes for the years 1995, 1996, and 2000 is directly contrary to his plea agreement in his 2007 criminal case. Recall Mirando's 2007 plea agreement states that the parties: 

agree and stipulate that the following facts would have been established beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial in this matter: . . . after Mirando's release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, the IRS assessed tax, interest and penalties for Mirando's taxes due for the 1995 and 1996 tax years as well as for unpaid liabilities for the 2000 and 2004 tax years. As of June 29, 2007, the total tax liability, including interest and penalties, amounted to $448,776.13. 

Because Mirando initialed the page on which the total tax liability was determined and signed the entire document, Mirando specifically agreed he owed $448,776.13. Mirando cannot now dispute these figures and demand a refund from the IRS after the court accepted his plea agreement. 

Moreover if Mirando was allowed to proceed in this action, he would gain an unfair advantage. By pleading guilty to tax evasion and specifically agreeing to a total tax liability of $448,776.13, Mirando avoided the possibility of a longer sentence and the United States agreed not to prosecute Mirando's ex-wife or two children.37 After obtaining this benefit from the United States, Mirando cannot turn around and sue the United States for a refund. 

Plaintiff Mirando relies on United States v. Hammon [277 F. App'x 560 (6th Cir. 2008)] for its position that his refund claim is not barred by estoppel. In Hammon, the Sixth Circuit held that the defendant was not collaterally or judicially estopped from denying the accuracy of the government's assessments despite pleading guilty to tax evasion and agreeing to pay $2.39 million in restitution. However, the present case can be distinguished from Hammon. In Hammon, the plea agreement only stipulated that the defendant willfully attempted to evade taxes assessed by the government in "the amount of approximately $2.39 million." Since the plea agreement was ambiguous as to whether the defendant admitted that the $2.39 million assessment was correct, the defendant was not estopped from challenging the accuracy of the tax assessment. In contrast, Plaintiff Mirando specifically agreed in his 2007 plea agreement that "beyond a reasonable doubt ... [a]s of June 29, 2007, the total tax liability, including interest and penalties, amounted to $448,776.13." Consequently, Hammon is not controlling, and judicial estoppel prevents Mirando from bringing his refund claim.

Tax Court Applies Willful Blindness to Find Civil Fraud by Clear and Convincing Evidence (1/19/13)

I have posted a discussion on this topic on my Federal Tax Crimes blog.  The title is the same, Tax Court Applies Willful Blindness to Find Civil Fraud by Clear and Convincing Evidence (1/19/13), here.  That gravamen of my discussion is that (i) in Fiore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-21, the Tax Court applied the criminal law concept of willful blindness to find that the IRS had proved civil fraud to hold the taxpayer liable for the civil fraud penalty under Section 6663; and (ii) the Court's discussion of the concept of willful blindness is confusing.  Since willful blindness is a criminal law concept that certainly is not -- at least not yet -- mainstream in its application to the tax civil fraud discussion, I do not repeat the discussion here and just review readers to the discussion.

Render Unto Caesar -- Another Intersection of Alleged Religion and Tax (10/9/12)

In Hovind v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-281, here, the Tax Court decided decided that the taxpayer had "had unreported Schedule C income and expenses (collectively, net profit) attributable to Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) and Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL) for each of the years at issue; " (ii) that the taxpayer whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for failing to timely file her income tax return for each of the years at issue; and (3) and that the taxpayer is liable for the fraud penalty under section 6663(a) for each of the years at issue.

The following is from the opinion and gives a good introduction (footnotes omitted):\

Mr. Hovind established CSE in 1989. CSE purported to be a nondenominational religious organization that advocated the message of creation science and opposed the theory of evolution. CSE promoted its message through live lectures by Mr. Hovind and Eric Hovind. Mr. Hovind frequently traveled, domestically and internationally, for speaking engagements, and petitioner occasionally accompanied Mr. Hovind on these trips.

The Ministry then somehow developed, with various revenue generating projects.  The Court then continued (some footnotes omitted):

Case on Collateral Estoppel [Issue Preclusion] as to Civil Fraud (9/9/12)

I have just posted on my Federal Tax Crimes Blog a short discussion of the recent case of Anderson v. Commissioner, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18831 (3d Cir. 2012), here.  The blog entry for that discussion is Walter Anderson Re-Appears But Unsuccessfully (9/9/12), here.  Anderson involves the collateral consequences of a conviction for tax evasion.

We study in Tax Procedure two key collateral civil tax consequences of a conviction of tax evasion.  These consequences both flow from the taxpayer convicted of tax evasion under Section 7201, here, being collaterally estopped [precluded by issue preclusion] as to civil fraud, an estoppel which invokes the 75% civil fraud penalty in Section 6663, here, and the unlimited statute of limitations in 6501(c)(1), here.   The statute of limitations consequence is straight-forward.  The application for the civil fraud penalty is a little more complex.

The amount subject to the civil fraud penalty must be quantified.  The conviction for tax evasion does not necessarily establish the amount subject to the 75% civil fraud penalty.  Unless the taxpayer stipulates the amount in the plea agreement, all a conviction will establish is the elements of the crime of tax evasion -- (i) willfulness, (ii) some amount of tax due and owning (most courts required it to be significant but not quantified), and an affirmative act of evasion.

Section 6663(b) provides a sequential burden of proof requirement in order to impose the civil fraud penalty.  First, the IRS must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the taxpayer committed fraud as to some portion of the underpayment.  The conviction will be collateral estoppel [issue preclusion] as to this IRS burden.  Second, once the first step is met, all of the underpayment is deemed attributable to fraud except for the portion that the taxpayer shows by a preponderance of the evidence is not due to fraud.

Does the Preparer's Fraud Invoke the Unlimited Statute of Limitations? (8/5/12)

In Allen v. Commissioner, 128 T.C. 37 (2007), here, the Tax Court (Judge Kroupa) held that Section 6501(c)(1) imposes an unlimited statute of limitations for the preparer's fraud in preparing the tax return.  This blog asserts that that holding is incorrect.  I should note that the opinion has only sporadically been referred to and there are no authoritative decisions other than Allen to test the validity of its analysis or my arguments for that analysis being incorrect.

The background is straightforward and known to most readers of this blog.  Section 6501(a), here, creates a general rule that the statute of limitations is three years from the date of filing the return.  Section 6501(c) creates certain exceptions, the pertinent of which is:

(1) False return.  In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.

The other significant civil consequence of fraud is the 75% civil fraud penalty in 6663(a), here.  That statute is:

(a) Imposition of penalty.  If any part of any underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return is due to fraud, there shall be added to the tax an amount equal to 75 percent of the portion of the underpayment which is attributable to fraud.

The Allen Court read Section 6501(c)(1) according to what it claimed was a "plain meaning analysis."  The statute does not limit the fraud to the taxpayer's fraud.  If the return is fraudulent, the unlimited statute applies regardless of whose fraud is involved.  The preparer's fraud suffices.

In my view, the Allen Court is wrong.  First, one consequence of reading this statute literally, would logically mean that the fraud penalty applies when the preparer's rather than the taxpayer's fraud was involved.  The IRS did not assert the fraud penalty in Allen, so the Tax Court did not have to come to grips with this issue.  However, there is nothing in the bare text of the civil fraud penalty that limits the term "fraud" on the return to the taxpayer's fraud.  Of course, the taxpayer's own fraud has always been required for the civil fraud penalty.  (Cf. Section 6663(c) ("In the case of a joint return, this section shall not apply with respect to a spouse unless some part of the underpayment is due to the fraud of such spouse.").)  Still, so far as we can tell, Allen was the first time the IRS urged that a nontaxpayer's fraud with respect to a return can open the statute of limitations under Section 6501(c)(1), so it is not inconceivable that the same analysis might apply to the civil fraud penalty.  In this regard, the IRS wisely did not assert the civil fraud penalty.  I say wisely because such heavy handedness might have caused it to lose the statute of limitations issue.  Still, as I shall note, given the correlation of the two consequences of fraud, it seems to me illogical to treat the two consequences differently.  I think that given the choice of both to apply or neither, the only logical one from a tax policy standpoint is that neither should apply.