Tax Court Calls Out Yet Another Bullshit Tax Shelter But Relieves Taxpayer of 6662 Penalties (2/24/26 as corrected; 2/27/26)

Major Correction: I made an error in the original blog post, by misreading the court's application of the 40% Substantial Valuation Misstatement and Gross Valuation Misstatement Penalties in § 6662(e)(1)(A) and I.R.C. § 6662(h) but not picking up that the reasonable cause defense it sustained effectively wiped out all 6662 penalties.

Yesterday, the Tax Court (Judge Weiler) decided Otay Project LP v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-21, TC Dkt here at # 349, TN here, and GS here, tanking another bullshit tax shelter. There is no indication that this is a syndicated shelter creating basis and thus deductions out of thin air in complex structures taxed as partnership; as presented it seems like “one-off” imagined by creative minds and blessed by firms that have played prominently in tax sheltering—E&Y and McKee Nelson LLP; moreover, I suspect (suspicion only) that variations on the shelter were promoted on and opined upon on other occasions.

I find it a bit odd that, although Judge Weiler says he read the those firms’ opinions (Slip Op. 45), but he does not identify the persons signing the opinions. Oh well, let’s move on to the main points for tax procedure enthusiasts.

On the Merits of the Complex Machinations:

The actual bottom-line tax costs of the shelter failing must await the Rule 155 computation, but the Court concludes on the merits (other than penalties) (Slip Op. 31):

In sum, we determine petitioner has not met its burden here and has failed to correctly establish the Basis Deduction under section 743(b), as claimed on OPLP’s 2012 Form 1065. Accordingly, we will sustain respondent’s disallowance of $713,759,615 of a more than $743 million claimed Basis Deduction reported on OPLP’s 2012 Form 1065 for the 2012 tax period. 

I believe it would not be helpful to most tax procedure enthusiasts to wade into the complex facts and partnership tax law discussed in the opinion. Although this appeared not to be one of the abusive shelters of the late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., BLIPS or variants used by different accounting and law firms), I suspect that some of the fanciful notions asserted in those earlier versions were deployed here in a more complex and “engineered” (Slip Op. 30-32) journey through esoteric partnership tax provisions.

Suffice it to say that the Court rejected that “engineered” journey on the merits of the partnership tax law and also based on economic substance doctrine. In this regard, because it preceded the effective date, the transaction was not subject to the codified economic substance doctrine in § 7771(o) or the penalty in § 6662(b)(6). (See Slip Op 2 n. 2.)

 The Penalties:

Tax Court Finds Reasonable Cause to Rely Upon alliantgroup Research Credit Advice (2/4/26)

Lew Taishoff has a rather cryptic review of George v. Commissioner, T. C. Memo. 2026-10 (2/3/26), TC 27494-16, here, at # 209 and GS here. See ALWAYS CHICKENS OUT (Taishoff Law 2/3/26), here. George involves the qualified research credit in §§ 46 and 174; the credit is arcane legally and usually fact-intensive, as the George opinion (86 pages) proves. Taishoff concludes that “Judge Tag Greaves has thoroughly reviewed the Section 41 landscape. It’s a must-read for specialists, and eyeglazing for the rest of us.” I am among the eyeglazing majority who may skim the opinion without digging into the details on the substantive issue. So, I will not deal with the merits of substantive tax issue.

I focus on the discussion of the § 6662 accuracy-related penalties (Slip Op. 81-85) which is a common subject for tax procedure enthusiasts. The Georges conceded some accuracy-related penalties (Slip Op. 2 n. 2 & 38 n. 21.) The accuracy-related penalties in issue were negligence and substantial understatement, both of which have an exception for “reasonable cause." The Court finds that the Georges had reasonably cause in relying on alliantgroup a major provider for research credit advice. See alliantgroup website here. The Court describes alliantgroup (Slip Op. 83):

Petitioners sought the advice of alliantgroup to determine whether any activities performed by GOMI qualified for research credits and if so, the amounts of such credits. At the time George’s contracted for the research study, alliantgroup had over 12 years of experience in conducting tax credit and incentive studies for clients. Its ranks are filled with people who are knowledgeable on the intricacies of the tax code, including tax attorneys and those with tax policy experience. One such person was Mr. Troutman. He had a long history at alliantgroup and specialized in research credit studies for the agriculture industry. He also was an attorney who went through extensive internal training at alliantgroup to stay on top of the latest developments in the area.

            The reputation of alliantgroup was also bolstered by Frost PLLC's recommendation. As Gary testified, Frost PLLC grew alongside George's and had a tremendous amount of knowledge about George's business operations. When Frost PLLC called regarding a possible collaboration with alliantgroup, it was reasonable for Gary to conclude that alliantgroup was competent in its field. alliantgroup had the necessary expertise to competently advise petitioners.

alliantgroup diligently requested and reviewed documents and met with employees to determine GOMI's eligibility for the research credits. Although petitioners did not directly provide alliantgroup with records, George's, the entity with the relevant documents, provided alliantgroup with open access to George's books and records and the plethora of data routinely gathered throughout the standard production process. George's used these documents for business purposes, including to determine grower compensation and to perform trend monitoring, so there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information contained therein. alliantgroup also had access to employees from the C-suite down to the field service technicians for interviews. Finally, alliantgroup worked closely with Frost PLLC, which provided additional documents, verified facts, and answered any lingering questions.

District Court Holds that Santander's Arguments to Avoid Penalty for Bullshit Tax Shelter (No Substance) Lack Substance (7/24/18)

Here is an entry that I posted a few days ago on my Federal Tax Crimes Blog.  It is equally interesting to Federal Tax Procedure enthusiasts.

In Santander Holdings USA, Inc. v. United States (D. Mass. Dkt. 09-11043-GAO Dkt Entry 344 7/17/18), here, Santander previously lost the merits of its bullshit tax shelter on appeal, with the Court of Appeals holding that the shelter lacked economic substance.  Santander Holdings USA, Inc. v. United States, 844 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2016), here, cert. denied sub nom. Santander Holdings USA, Inc., & Subsidiaries v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 2295 (2017).  See my discussion of the Court of Appeals decision, First Circuit, Reversing the District Court, Rejects Santander's Bullshit Tax Shelter (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 12/17/16), here.

Santander argued that, although its tax shelter lacked economic substance -- i.e., was bullshit -- it should be able to avoid the accuracy related penalty.  Well, basically, the district court held that that argument too lacked substance -- was bullshit.  The opinion is short and, I think, predictable, so I forego addressing it further.

However, the district court did include a quote from the Court of Appeals' decision that I had included in my prior write up but was in a larger quote so that I had not focused on it.  The district court did focus on it as follows.  This is the quote (cleaned up):

When a transaction is one designed to produce tax gains not real gains—such as when the challenged transaction has no prospect for pre-tax profit—then it is an act of tax evasion that, even if technically compliant, lies outside of the intent of the Tax Code and so lacks economic substance.

The district corut did not quote the whole paragraph from the Court of Appeals which includes "tax evasion" twice, so I offer the whole paragraph (cleaned up):

The economic substance doctrine is centered on discerning whether the challenged transaction objectively lies outside the plain intent of the relevant statutory regime. A transaction fails the economic substance test if, though it actually occurred and technically complied with the tax code, it was merely a device to avoid tax liability. Courts may disregard the form of transactions that have no business purpose or economic substance beyond tax evasion. In other words, when a transaction is one designed to produce tax gains not real gains -- such as when the challenged transaction has no prospect for pre-tax profit -- then it is an act of tax evasion that, even if technically compliant, lies outside of the intent of the Tax Code and so lacks economic substance.

Readers of this blog will recognize the term "tax evasion."  At least in this blog and in other authorities on criminal tax matters, tax evasion is a term of art.  Narrowly, it means the specific tax evasion crime in § 7201, but is often used to cover the panoply of tax crimes where tax was evaded (e.g., the Sentencing Guidelines require that for a tax loss as the first step in the sentencing calculation).  But, the term usually does connote conduct that is criminal.  See e.g., the Wikipedia entry for Tax Evasion, here.