Do Mixed Questions of Fact and Law Have Component Facts and Law for § 7491(a) Purposes? (9/11/25)

I address today what may seem to be a fairly mundane issue, but in some contexts might be important. Readers may already be familiar with § 7491(a), here, titled “Burden shifts where taxpayer produces credible evidence.” The “burden” referred to is the burden of proof and specifically the burden of persuasion. The burden of persuasion is not technically relevant until the end of trial when it determines which party loses in the event the trier of fact is in factual equipoise as to some key fact. From a practical perspective, it is important to keep in mind the conventional trial wisdom that triers of fact are rarely in equipoise, so that ultimately the assignment of the burden of persuasion is meaningless in most cases. Setting that aside and accepting the possibility that the burden of persuasion may be outcome-determinative in some cases, parties will often want to know before the beginning of trial which party has the burden of persuasion so that it can prove its case accordingly.

That is what happened in FBA St. Clair Property C, LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Case 14406-23, here, at docket # 176 9/11/25), where the petitioner in a syndicated conservation easement case filed a motion in limine for the Court to hold that the conditions in § 7491(a) assigned the burden of persuasion to the IRS. The Court denied the motion, reasoning (Slip Op. 3-4):

          Section 7491(a) states that if a taxpayer produces credible evidence with respect to one or more factual issues relevant to the taxpayer’s tax liability, the burden of proof may shift to the Commissioner as to that issue or issues, as long as the taxpayer complies with certain additional requirements. Section 7491(a) only applies if the issue is factual and not “a mixed question of fact and law” which is “primarily a legal question.” Williams v. Commissioner, 120 F.App’x 289, 293 (10th Cir. 2005) (denying that § 7491(a) applies to the issue of whether a payment was a gift for purposes of § 102(a) or instead a bonus), aff’g T.C. Memo. 2003-97. Here, the issue is whether the transaction was a contribution or gift for purposes of Section 170(c), and we hold that this issue is a mixed question of fact and law, and so Section 7491(a) does not shift the burden to the Commissioner. 

Tax Court Rejects a Bullshit Tax Shelter False Valuation Claim with Warning of Sanctions for Taxpayers, their Counsel, and Expert Witness Proffering the Bullshit (7/16/25; 9/10/25)

Note a significant addition was made on 9/10/25 @ 5:30pm at end of this blog entry.

I write today on a “dictated” oral decision at the conclusion of trial in Veribest Vesta, LLC, True North Resources, LLC, v. Commissioner (T.C. Dkt # 9158-23; docket entries here at docket # 199). Bottom line, the taxpayer’s (only because they got caught) claim went “True South.”

Note on Tax Court Orders: Orders can be relatively short dealing with routine procedural matters or may be longer when they serve the same function as T.C.M. opinions. Juge Buch’s opinion is the latter sort where he enters as an a one-page order attaching his lengthy findings of fact and conclusions dictated into the record at the close of the lengthy trial. This Order serves as the report (same as T.C. and T.C.M. opinions) required by § 7459(a), here. One difference between an Order and the other Tax Court opinions is that the Order does not list counsel. Readers can identify counsel for the parties by clicking the docket entries link above and clicking at the box on upper right for a printed docket sheet.

Veribest involved a standard plain vanilla bullshit Syndicated Conservation Easement shelter, with many Tax Court opinions and Circuit Court affirmances in other similar cases preceding Veribest in essence calling out the bullshit. Some cases have been decided on other grounds, but there was always a common problem of false hyper-inflated valuations of the easements; often (I can’t say always) the valuations claimed were many, many times the real cost of the whole property (including the easement) reasonably close to the date the easement was carved out and “donated” to a willing “charity.” There could be several procedural footfaults for claiming deductions, but false overvaluations have been a common feature of many bullshit tax shelters since the days of Jackie Fine Arts and Barrister. Old timers will remember those shelters from the 1970s and 1980s.

In the SCE cases that have barraged the Tax Court dockets with much wasted resources involving many lawyers making lots of money, one feature has been the taxpayers (through their lawyers making lots of money) proffering expert witnesses who lack credibility. I include at the end of this blog some earlier blog offerings in bullshit tax shelters (including one-off rather than syndicated) with valuations that were not credible.

Today, I want to note Judge Buch’s warning of the potential for Section 6673 penalties. Section 6673, here, is titled “Sanctions and costs awarded by courts.” The Section permits the Tax Court to award costs:

Tax Court Judge Lauber Denies Petitioner Motion for Summary Judgment Rejecting Fraud Penalties in Allegedly Abusive SCE Case; Some Background (4/14/24)

In North Donald LA Property LLC et al. v. Commissioner (Order T.C. Dkt. 24703-21 #140 4/10/24), TA here and TC Dkt here*, a syndicated conservation easement (“SCE”) case, the Court (Judge Lauber) denied the petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment. 

* This is an order and not an opinion of the Court. Hence there is no direct access to the Court’s order. Access through the Court (as opposed to a third party provider) is by using the Court website to access the docket entries for Case # 24703-21 and going to the particular docket entry (in this case entry 140 dated 4/10/24). Here there is a third party provider, Tax Analysts on its public site sponsored by Deloitte. I take this opportunity to state my appreciation to Tax Analysts and Deloitte for providing this service.

Judge Lauber opens (slip op. 1):

On February 16, 2024, petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking a ruling that the civil fraud penalty, as a matter of law, does not apply because respondent has not alleged facts showing that NDLA “intended to evade taxes known to be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of taxes.” Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment at 7 (quoting Parks v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 654, 661 (1990)). In essence, petitioner contends that respondent cannot carry his burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence because NDLA disclosed on its tax return the facts relating to the conservation easement transaction. Finding that there exist genuine disputes of material fact regarding the possible application of the fraud penalty, we will deny the Motion.

Judge Lauber starts the discussion of the facts as follows:

Sixty West, LLC (Sixty West), was a promoter of syndicated conservation easement transactions.n3 In March 2016 Reserve at Welsh, LLC (Welsh), an entity controlled by Sixty West, purchased 3,324 acres of land in Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana (Parent Tract). Sixty West allegedly purchased the Parent Tract for use in multiple syndicated transactions that would generate large charitable contribution tax deductions for investors. The total purchase price for the Parent Tract was $9,888,008, or $2,975 per acre.
   n3 “Promoter” is a loaded term in the syndicated conservation easement space because of the penalty imposed on “promoters” by section 6700(a). In this Order we use the term “promoter” in its ordinary sense, making no determination as to whether Sixty West was a “promoter” within the meaning of section 6700(a), a question that is not before us.

Judge Lauber’s recitation of the rest of the relevant facts then follows a recognizable pattern for those who have watched abusive SCE cases. Setting aside technical foot-faults, the core common pattern is the substantial overvaluations of the donated easements. Based upon the appraisal  of a frequent appraiser in abusive SCE cases (Claud Clark III), NDLA claimed a donation of $115,391,000 for a portion of the property originally purchased. (Order slip op. 2.) That contribution claim was based upon a “’before value’ of the property of $116,303,000, or $471,4561 per acre. Subtracting from the sum an “after value” of $912,000, Mr. Clark asserted that the easement was worth $115,391,000.’” (Slip op. 2-8.)

Timely disclosure Forms were filed as follows (Slip op. 30):

Transfer Pricing: Finite Valuation and Ranges (8/20/22)

        I have just started reading a tax, more or less, history, at least anecdotal history. Michael Keen, & Joel Slemrod, Rebellion, Rascals, and Revenue, (Princeton University Press 2021), here.   Early in my reading, something caught my eye because of a case I perused earlier in the day, Medtronic, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-84 (Decided 8/18/22), T.C. docket entry 74 at docket entries for the case here and GS here). I say I perused because the opinion is 75 pages (with three-page appendix of the experts’ brief biographies). I read closely only certain parts, including the part I discuss here. Medtronic involves transfer pricing for intangibles, which most commonly involve transactions between a U.S. taxpayer and a foreign affiliate offering opportunities to manipulate (lower) the U.S. tax base and thus achieve major U.S. tax “savings.”  The drill in these cases for the taxpayer is to lower the U.S. tax base and for the IRS to increase the U.S. tax base. That’s an oversimplification, but not much of one. The theoretical mechanism for achieving that is to peg the tax results of the related party transaction to a standard of an uncontrolled transaction between unrelated parties. This standard is notoriously difficult for intangible assets.

           Professors Keen and Slemrod offer a good tongue-in-cheek description (pp. xvi-xvii):

Many of the tax episodes we look at may at first seem far-fetched or ridiculous. Some are stories of disastrous missteps and cruelty. Some, we admit, teach no useful lesson that we can discern, but are just pleasingly gaudy and preposterous. But along with the follies there are also episodes of remarkable wisdom. For it is a theme of the book that, when it comes to designing and implementing taxes, our ancestors were addressing fundamentally the same problems that we struggle with today. And they were no less ingenious—not just in creating taxes, but also in avoiding and evading them—than we are. We should not feel too superior to our forebears, given the taxes we have nowadays. The idea of taxing chimneys may seem quaint to us. But we suspect our descendants will find some of the things that we do today more than a little peculiar, such as taxing multinationals by trying to figure out what some entirely different and hypothetical set of companies would have done in the unlikely (possibly inconceivable) event that they found themselves in the same circumstances. And they would be right.

        My observation of transfer pricing over the years is that these transfer pricing cases are just valuation cases, with a lot of zeroes to justify litigation with a lot of commotion to prompt a lot of legal and expert fees. My anecdotal observation of this type of case over the years is that many unnecessary legal and expert fees are generated in litigating them. But that is another story. 

        For now, I want to focus on Medtronic (this opinion rather than the earlier Tax Court and Eighth Circuit opinions, Medtronic, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-112 (sometimes Medtronics I), vacated and remanded, T.C. Memo. 2016-112, 900 F.3d 610 (8^th Cir. 2018) (sometimes Medtronic II). As an aside, the petition in the Medtronic case was filed in 2011, Medtronic I was decided in 2016, Medtronic II was decided on August 18, 2018, and Medtronic III was decided 8/16/18, and Medtronic III was decided on remand is dated 8/18/22. Interesting.

4th Circuit Holds the Tax Partnership Receiving an Administrative Summons is Different Than its Representative for Purposes of § 7602(d) (7/9/22; 7/12/22)

In Equity Inv. Assocs., LLC v. United States, 40 F.4th 156 (4th Cir. July 8, 2022), CA 4 here and GS here, the Court held that, for purposes of the § 7602(d) limitation on IRS administrative summonses after a criminal referral to DOJ, the person investigated for whose records a third party (bank) was summonsed (in this case a syndicated conservation easement tax partnership) is not the same as a related person (the partnership representative under 26 C.F.R. §§ 301.6223-1) who was under criminal referral, at least in part arising from the same set of facts. See the discussion at Slip Op. 8-11 under the heading “A. “Person” in § 7602(d) does not include a legal person's agents.”  The Court rejects the suggestion that anything other than an actual referral of the person to whom the summons is issued will meet the terms of the statutory limitation. See Slip Op. 11-14, saying at Slip Op. 12:.

            Equity [the summonsed tax partnership] must show evidence that a referral existed before the IRS summons, because the IRS can generally use its summons power to further a criminal investigation. § 7602(b). The summons power only ends “at the point where an investigation was referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.” United States v. Morgan, 761 F.2d 1009, 1012 (4th Cir. 1985). And a Justice Department referral is not simply some generalized suspicion of criminal activity, but a specific procedural mechanism used to share information. Id. (describing a Justice Department referral as a “mechanical test”).

These are pretty straightforward holdings that I am surprised were seriously disputed.  Hence, I think they require no further discussion for the prototypical reader of this blog (as I imagine that reader). But I note that the court makes some statements in the opinion that on their face seem noteworthy or curious. I will just list them without further comment:

 1. Slip Op. 2 n1:

   n1 The IRS has broad powers to investigate criminal tax fraud, but it lacks the power to prosecute tax fraud. So if an IRS criminal investigation discovers evidence of criminal activity, the IRS must refer the case to the Justice Department for prosecution. Once referred, the IRS typically plays a continued role in investigating and prosecuting the case.

2. Explaining how the tax partnership inflates the value of the donated easement (Slip Op. 3 n3):

   n3 This inflation is possible because the easement's value is often not calculated based on the land's recent purchase price but based on the value of its highest and best use. See PBBM-Rose Hill, Ltd. v. Comm'r, 900 F.3d 193, 209 (5th Cir. 2018). So the limit on the valuation is little more than the imagination of the appraiser (who may be in on the scheme), tempered only by the fear of an audit. See generally Mary Clark, Greedy Giving, Bad for Business: Examining Problems with Arbitrary Standards in Appraising Conservation Easements, 51 U. Mem. L. Rev. 479 (2021).

More Coca-Cola - On Transfer Pricing and Blocked Income Regulation (11/23/20)

I recently wrote on burden of proof issues in The Coca-Cola Company v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. ___, No. 10 (2020), here.  Tax Court (Judge Lauber) Issues Significant Transfer Pricing Decision in Coca-Cola; Burden of Proof Issues (11/19/20; 11/21/20), here.  Coca-Cola is a transfer pricing case, meaning that it is a valuation case.  Valuation cases are generally humdrum on the issue of valuation, an issue raised in many contexts including in abusive tax shelters since the 1970s when I first began observing them.  Transfer pricing can be abusive as well because valuation can be abused.  I don’t propose to delve into the factual issues bearing on valuation Coca-Cola and whether the underlying valuations Coca-Cola used were abusive.  

I rather today point to this discussion of the “blocked income” issue.  The issue is described in high overview (pp. 184-185, beginning here):

2. Brazilian "Blocked Income"

Petitioner alternatively contends that, if TCCC owned the Brazilian trademarks, Brazilian law would have prevented the Brazilian supply point from paying, for use of those trademarks, royalties anywhere close to the amounts determined in the notice of deficiency. During 2007-2009 Brazilian law restricted the amount of trademark royalty and technology transfer payments that a Brazilian entity could pay to a foreign parent. The parties have stipulated that those maximum amounts were approximately $16 million for 2007, $19 million for 2008, and $21 million for 2009.

Relying on what is commonly called the "blocked income" regulation, respondent contends that these Brazilian legal restrictions should be given no effect in determining the arm's-length transfer price. See sec. 1.482-1(h)(2), Income Tax Regs. The regulation generally provides that foreign legal restrictions will be taken into account only if four conditions are met. See id. subdiv. (ii). Petitioner contends that this regulation does not apply here or that the necessary conditions were met. Alternatively, it contends that the blocked income regulation is invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act and/or Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

As the parties have observed, the validity of section 1.482-1(h)(2), Income Tax Regs., has been challenged by the taxpayer in 3M Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C. Dkt. No. 5816-13 (filed Mar. 11, 2013). The Court has granted a motion to submit the 3M case for decision without trial under Rule 122, and the case is still pending. We will accordingly reserve ruling on the parties' arguments concerning the blocked income regulation until an opinion in the 3M case has been issued.

The Blocked Income Issue as I recall it from my transfer pricing forays over the years hearkens back to Commissioner v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, 405 U.S. 394 (1972), here.  In that case, in high level summary, the Court held that § 482 did not authorize the IRS to allocate income from one related company to another if state law prohibited the income from being paid.  The Blocked Income Issue is whether the foreign law prohibition upon paying royalties prohibits the IRS from allocating the income to the U.S. party.  The underlying “Blocked Income” regulations, 26 CFR 1.482-1(h)(2), here, imposes the following conditions on the First Sec. Bank results (no allocation).

(ii) Applicable legal restrictions. Foreign legal restrictions (whether temporary or permanent) will be taken into account for purposes of this paragraph (h)(2) only if, and so long as, the conditions set forth in paragraphs (h)(2)(ii) (A) through (D) of this section are met.

(A) The restrictions are publicly promulgated, generally applicable to all similarly situated persons (both controlled and uncontrolled), and not imposed as part of a commercial transaction between the taxpayer and the foreign sovereign;

(B) The taxpayer (or other member of the controlled group with respect to which the restrictions apply) has exhausted all remedies prescribed by foreign law or practice for obtaining a waiver of such restrictions (other than remedies that would have a negligible prospect of success if pursued);

(C) The restrictions expressly prevented the payment or receipt, in any form, of part or all of the arm's length amount that would otherwise be required under section 482 (for example, a restriction that applies only to the deductibility of an expense for tax purposes is not a restriction on payment or receipt for this purpose); and

(D) The related parties subject to the restriction did not engage in any arrangement with controlled or uncontrolled parties that had the effect of circumventing the restriction, and have not otherwise violated the restriction in any material respect.

I don’t propose to develop the Blocked Income Issue further here, since I am sure it has been adequately developed in the 3M case to which the Coca-Cola both referred and deferred.  Readers should just be aware that further enlightenment is coming in 3M.

JAT Comments.

Tax Court (Judge Lauber) Issues Significant Transfer Pricing Decision in Coca-Cola; Burden of Proof Issues (11/19/20; 11/25/20)

Yesterday, the Tax Court decided The Coca-Cola Company v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. ___, No. 10 (2020), GS here, a transfer pricing company case in which the IRS seems to have substantially prevailed.  Transfer pricing cases are fact intensive cases.  However, in this discussion, I won’t wander through the morass of facts but rather deal with burden of proof issues that, although presented in a fact setting, can be considered at a conceptual level independent of the facts of the case.  However, I do ask that readers keep in mind that transfer pricing cases are, at bottom, simply valuation cases.

I recently wrote an article on burden of proof in tax cases.  John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges—An Update, 73 Tax Lawyer 389 (2020), here.  In that article, I discussed the seminal case of Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935), see discussion beginning on p. 411, here.  In that case in summary and without nuance, the Court held that in a deficiency case in the Tax Court, once the taxpayer shows the deficiency is “arbitrary and excessive,” the IRS bears the burden of persuasion (risk of nonpersuasion) to show that the taxpayer has a deficiency.  Three nuance points:  (i) I address in the article (p. 397 n. 28, here) that “arbitrary and excessive,” although stated in the conjunctive is really disjunctive; (ii) if the issue involves a deduction turning upon valuation, the taxpayer will bear the burden of persuasion with respect to value to support the deduction; and (iii) the burden of persuasion is often called the risk of nonpersuasion which is more descriptive of how the burden of persuasion performs, but I used the term burden of persuasion here.

I illustrate the key concept of the article in a simple example. Assume that the taxpayer receives property in a service income transaction.  Taxpayer reports $40 income on his tax return based on valuing the property at that amount.  The IRS determines a deficiency of tax by valuing the property at $100.  The parties litigate in the Tax Court.  The Tax Court cannot find a finite value by a preponderance of the evidence but can find a range where the low end of the range is the lowest value proved by a preponderance of the evidence and the high end of the range is the highest value proved by a preponderance of the evidence.  Let’s say that range is from $70 to $80.  (This range may also be called the range of equipoise where the Court (or other trier of fact) is in equipoise as to the valuation based on the preponderance of the evidence standard.)

In the example, Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935) requires that the value be determined at $70 because the taxpayer has shown the deficiency determination excessive because of the excessive valuation.  The IRS thus bears the burden of persuasion as to an amount that would produce some deficiency amount.  In the example, the evidence proves by a preponderance a value of at least $70 and the Tax Court should determine the deficiency accordingly.

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:

IRS Offers to Settle Abusive Syndicated Conservation Easement Shelters Pending in Tax Court (6/26/20)

In IR-2020-13, here, the IRS announces that it will offer to settle Conservation Easement Syndication shelters of the BS genre that are currently pending in the Tax Court.  The settlement offer will be made by mail in each pending case.  The announcement says that the following will be the key terms.

• The deduction for the contributed easement is disallowed in full.
• All partners must agree to settle, and the partnership must pay the full amount of tax, penalties and interest before settlement.
• "Investor" partners can deduct their cost of acquiring their partnership interests and pay a reduced penalty of 10 to 20% depending on the ratio of the deduction claimed to partnership investment.
• Partners who provided services in connection with ANY Syndicated Conservation Easement transaction must pay the maximum penalty asserted by IRS (typically 40%) with NO deduction for costs.

Keep in mind that these are not all the terms but only the key terms.  And, I suppose, as presented, they may only be summaries of the key terms so that the actual key terms summarized may present different nuances than one can derive from the summaries.  As I learn more details or obtain more documents or links that may be helpful, I will do update revisions to this blog entry.

One of the key points regarding the offer, it will be made only in those cases pending before the Tax Court.  Cases in the IRS administrative pipeline are not within the scope of the offer as stated.  (Query, will Appeals make the same offer because, once a case gets to Appeals, the same incentive to clear the cases will be presented, because the next step will be litigation in the Tax Court?)

Peter Reilly has a good early discussion of the offer:  IRS Victory In Easement Case Prompts An Offer Not To Be Refused (Forbes 6/25/20), here.  Highly recommended.  And, from knowing Peter and his special interested in the abusive Syndicated Conservation Easement Shelters, he is likely to have more posts as the settlement offer plays out.

In email correspondence with Peter, I offered the following off-the-cuff (meaning not fully considered) comments.  I offer those off-the-cuff comments (modified and expanded but again without detail thought) just for early consideration, but if I have time to try to refine them, I will do so here.

1. The key excerpt, I think, is this:

The IRS realizes that some promoters may tell their clients that their transaction is “better” than or “different” from the transactions previously rejected by the Tax Court and that it may be better for the client to litigate than accept this resolution.  When deciding whether to accept the offer, the IRS encourages taxpayers to consult with independent counsel, meaning a qualified advisor who was not involved in promoting the transaction or handpicked by a promoter to defend it.

2. The penultimate paragraph says that taxpayers not excepting should not expect better terms.  But, as suggested by the above quote, what about those taxpayers who really do have better cases than the very bad cases (i.e., their documents meet the technical requirements of the regulation and their valuation is not grossly inflated as much as the more abusive ones)?  They will have better litigating hazards and the IRS should be willing to settle on a litigating hazards of their cases rather than insisting that one size fits all.

Publication in ABA Tax Lawyer Townsend Burden of Proof Article (6/8/20)

The ABA Tax Lawyer publication has published my article:  John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges—An Update, 73 Tax Lawyer 389 (2020).  I have posted the article as published to SSRN where it can be reviewed or downloaded in pdf format.  The suggested citation on SSRN is:  Townsend, John A., Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges — An Update (2020). 73 Tax Lawyer 389, 2020. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599481

I had posted an earlier blog entry of the posting of an earlier draft to SSRN.  See Townsend Article on Burden of Proof and Valuation in Tax Cases (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 12/9/19), here.  The final as published has substantial changes, so I recommend that the final published article be used rather than the earlier draft.

The SSRN Abstract is.

Abstract

In this Article, the author discusses the difficulty in many valuation cases of determining a definite valuation point by the required degree of persuasion (more likely than not in most civil cases). This point was made cogently in Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., a frequently cited opinion by the Delaware Court of Chancery, a forum for significant litigation involving corporate valuations:

[I]t is one of the conceits of our law that we purport to declare something as elusive as the fair value of an entity on a given date. . . . [V]aluation decisions are impossible to make with anything approaching complete confidence. Valuing an entity is a difficult intellectual exercise, especially when business and financial experts are able to organize data in support of wildly divergent valuations for the same entity. For a judge who is not an expert in corporate finance, one can do little more than try to detect gross distortions in the experts’ opinions. This effort should, therefore, not be understood, as a matter of intellectual honesty, as resulting in the fair value of a corporation on a given date. The value of a corporation is not a point on a line, but a range of reasonable values, and the judge’s task is to assign one particular value within this range as the most reasonable value in light of all the relevant evidence and based on considerations of fairness.

Corporate valuations for estate tax are just one context of tax litigation, but there are many other contexts. A prominent example for some time now has been transfer pricing.

Townsend Article on Burden of Proof and Valuation in Tax Cases (12/9/19)

Caveat:  The ABA Tax Lawyer publication has published my article:  John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges—An Update, 73 Tax Lawyer 389 (2020).  I have posted the article as published to SSRN where it can be reviewed or downloaded in pdf format.  The suggested citation on SSRN and the link for review or downloading is:  Townsend, John A., Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges — An Update (2020). 73 Tax Lawyer 389, 2020. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3599481.  The final published article supersedes the draft and should be the one consulted going forward.

I have posted on SSRN a draft of an article, titled  Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges - an Update, I have submitted to the ABA Tax Lawyer for publication.  The SSRN posting where the draft can be downloaded is here.

The SSRN Abstract is:

In this article, I update a previous article, John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuations and Ranges, 2001 TNT 187-37 (2001). I discuss the difficulty in many valuation cases of determining a finite valuation point by the required degree of persuasion (more likely than not in most civil cases). This point was made cogently in a frequently cited opinion of by the Delaware Court of Chancery (which I quote in the next paragraph): 

It is one of the conceits of our law that we purport to declare something as elusive as the fair value of an entity on a given date. Valuation decisions are impossible to make with anything approaching complete confidence. Valuing an entity is a difficult intellectual exercise, especially when business and financial experts are able to organize data in support of wildly divergent valuations for the same entity. For a judge who is not an expert in corporate finance, one can do little more than try to detect gross distortions in the experts' opinions. This effort should, therefore, not be understood, as a matter of intellectual honesty, as resulting in the fair value of a corporation on a given date. The value of a corporation is not a point on a line, but a range of reasonable values, and the judge’s task is to assign one particular value within this range as the most reasonable value in light of all the relevant evidence and based on considerations of fairness.

Sometimes where ranges are identified, arbitrary conventions (such as the midpoint as in the case of publicly traded stock) can be used to determine the issue in litigation. But where there is no such convention that should be applied, the burden of persuasion can resolve the case by identifying the range. The party bearing the burden of persuasion (or risk of nonpersuasion) then has persuaded only as to the end of the range that does not favor that party and the value, based on persuasion, is determined accordingly. 

The party bearing the burden of persuasion in tax cases is usually the taxpayer. In the article, I discuss interesting features of the burden and how, at least in the Tax Court, the burden of persuasion might shift to the Commissioner under Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935), which I think is often misunderstood. 

Another benefit of identifying the range is that, if it is determined on appeal that the trier of fact misapplied the burden of persuasion but did identify the range, the court of appeals can resolve the case by picking the other end of the range (unless a successful attack is made on the choice of the ends of the range).

The purpose of the advance publication on SSRN is to advised the community of the article and solicit comments for those wishing to make them.  I find that comments will help me make final revisions that make the final publication better.  Thanks in advance.

The SSRN listing for all of my articles is here.

The Notice of Deficiency (11/8/19)

Tax Procedure fans should follow Bryan Camp's weekly offerings on the Tax Prof Blog, here (the link is to the cover page for the blog).  Bryan's offering this week is titled Lesson From The Tax Court: No Jurisdiction Over Ambiguous NOD, here.  In the blog, Bryan reviews a recent case,  U.S. Auto Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. ___, No. 5 (review opinion), here.  In that case, the Tax Court judges get all worked up over a confusing notice of deficiency where the cover letter (that many of us think of as the actual notice of deficiency) is not consistent with the enclosures or attachments intended to explain the deficiency amounts asserted in the letter.

Before reading Bryan's offering, I had just completed a submission draft of an article in which I addressed in a footnote exactly what a notice of deficiency was and referred to the U.S. Auto Sales case.  For those wanting a detailed and thoughtful analysis, please go to Bryan's blog linked above.  But, for a less detailed analysis dealing with just a high level overview of what a notice of deficiency is, I offer the following:

In the article, I discuss the use of ranges in valuation and the interplay with the burden of persuasion.  One topic I address is the common Helvering v. Taylor, 293 U.S. 507 (1935), here, issue of what happens when a notice of deficiency is shown to be arbitrary and excessive.  In addressing that issue, I needed to establish exactly what the notice of deficiency is.  This is what I say in a footnote in the final draft I submitted:

When I use the term notice of deficiency, I mean the (i) cover letter itself which states the amount of deficiencies and tax years and (ii) the enclosures with the cover letter that provide the explanations.  § 7522(a); e.g., IRM 8.17.4.8.13 (09-27-2013), Including Enclosures in the Notice of Deficiency; IRM 8.17.4.10 (09-27-2013), Parts of the Notice of Deficiency Statement.  For an example, see U.S. Auto Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. ___, No. 5 (2019), Slip Op. at 2-3, 9 (saying that the “notice encompasses” the “ cover” letter which states the deficiency and years, and the enclosures:  Form 4089, Notice of Deficiency Waiver (permitting a taxpayer to waive the restrictions on assessment), Form 5278 Statement of Income Tax Changes; and Form 886-A Explanation of Adjustments).

Thoughts on Estate of Elkins and Valuations (10/21/14)

I write today on the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Estate of Elkins v. Commissioner, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17882 (5th Cir. 2014), here.  In that case, the Fifth Circuit reversed the Tax Court in a valuation case involving discounts for fractional interests in valuable art.  The Fifth Circuit opens with a summary of its reasoning, such as it is (footnote omitted):

In the Tax Court, the Commissioner steadfastly maintained that absolutely no fractional-ownership discount was allowable. This presumably accounts for his failure to adduce any affirmative evidence—either factual or expert opinion—as to the quantum of such discounts in the event they were found applicable by the court.
The Tax Court rejected the Commissioner's zero-discount position, but also rejected the quantums of the various fractional-ownership discounts adduced by the Estate through the reports, exhibits, and testimony of its three expert witnesses—the only substantive evidence of discount quantum presented to the court.1 Instead, the Tax Court concluded that a "nominal" fractional-ownership discount of 10 percent should apply across the board to Decedent's ratable share of the stipulated FMV of each of the works of art; this despite the absence of any record evidence whatsoever on which to base the quantum of its self-labeled nominal discount.
We agree in large part with the Tax Court's underlying analysis and discrete factual determinations, including its rejection of the Commissioner's zero-discount position (which holding we affirm). We disagree, however, with the ultimate step in the court's analysis that led it not only to reject the quantums of the Estate's proffered fractional-ownership discounts but also to adopt and apply one of its own without any supporting evidence. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and render judgment in favor of Petitioners, holding that the taxable values of Decedent's fractional interests in the works of art are the net amounts reflected for each on Exhibit B of the Tax Court's opinion. This, in turn, produces an aggregate refund owed to the Estate of $14,359,508.21, plus statutory interest.

Just a few paragraphs down, the Fifth Circuit continues:

This entire appeal thus begins and ends with the question of the taxable value of Decedent's fractional interests in those 64 items of non-business, tangible, personal property that were jointly owned in varying percentages by Decedent and his three adult children at the instant of his death. And, the answer to that one question begins and ends with the proper administration of the ubiquitous willing buyer/willing seller test for fair market value: "Fair market value is defined as 'the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.'"

The context for the Fifth Circuit’s opinion is the Tax Court’s opinion below.   In Estate of Elkins v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. No. 5, 2013 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 6 (T.C. 2013), here, the issue was the familiar one of the appropriate discounts for fractional interests.  The IRS generally disfavors fractional interests, due in no small part to taxpayers’ frequent – perhaps even common – use of aggressive discounts which will either prevail because they win the audit lottery or, if caught, will be recognized as improperly inflated and reduced accordingly.  (Most practitioners would say that it is entirely proper to assert aggressive discounts -- but not so aggressive that serious penalties would apply in the full expectation that, if contested, there will likely be some adjustment; that is the way the game is played.) Essentially, as I read the opinion, the Tax Court judge, Judge Halperin, found the estate's proffered too aggressive and found an alternative discount.  The estate, of course, had "experts" to testify as to the discounts.  The IRS essentially had no "experts" to testify that no discount or any discount less than testified by the estate's experts was appropriate.  So, on the record presented, Judge Halperin found that the proper discount was 10%, substantially below the discounts claimed by the estate.  He based that on the entire record before him.

Tax Court Rejects Unusual Path to Admission of Expert Testimony (11/20/13)

In Estate of Tanenblatt v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-263, here, the Tax Court excluded an expert witness report that the petitioner attempted to introduce as the expert's testimony by attaching the report to his petition, by a failed motion to admit the report, and an IRS stipulation that the petition was the petition but not for purposes of admission.  The Court said that "Petitioner's path for attempting to introduce the Tindall appraisal into evidence as expert testimony is, to say the least, unusual."

The Court immediately described the usual way:

Generally, a party obtains the testimony of an expert witness by calling that witness to testify. See Rule 143(g)(1). Pursuant to that Rule, the expert witness must prepare a written report, which is marked as an exhibit and, after having been identified by the witness and adopted by him, received into evidence as his direct testimony unless the Court determines that the witness is not qualified as an expert. The Rule further provides that, not less than 30 days before the call of the trial calendar on which a case appears, a party calling an expert witness shall serve on each other party and submit to the Court a copy of the expert's report. Finally, the Rule also provides that, generally, we will exclude an expert witness' testimony altogether for failure to comply with the Rule. Those requirements are echoed in our standing pretrial order, which was served on petitioner.

The Court inferred that the petitioner chose the unusual method because of a fee dispute with the appraiser.

The Court then rejected the attempt to back door the expert report into evidence, concluding:

Petitioner did not call Dr. Tindall as a witness but asks us to rely on her report (which, under our Rules, would serve as her direct testimony) as her expert opinion. Petitioner has neither qualified Dr. Tindall as an expert entitled pursuant to rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence to give her opinion on technical matters nor has he satisfied our procedural rules for expert testimony, found in Rule 143(g) and in our standing pretrial order. In other words, petitioner has failed to satisfy the preconditions for our receiving Dr. Tindall's opinion into evidence. Because her report (i.e., the Tindall appraisal) is not in evidence, we may not consider her opinion.

The Court then accepted the IRS's valuation of $2,303,000.