TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
section 6676
Subscribe to section 6676's Posts

Understanding the IRC’s Excessive Refund Claim Penalty

by , and | May 8, 2024 | , , ,

Recently, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been asserting the Internal Revenue Code Section 6676 penalty much more frequently in examinations and in court. For example, in 2023, a government counterclaim in the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia sought to recover Section 6676 penalties in Townley v. United States. And, internal IRS guidance requires examiners to consider whether to assert the penalty in every case in which a refund is disallowed.

In light of these factors, and major questions being raised in high-profile tax cases like Moore v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States, taxpayers are wondering whether the penalty can be asserted as a protective refund claim.

Read more here.



read more

Can the IRS Assert IRC Section 6676’s Erroneous Refund Penalty on Protective Refund Claims?

by , and | Mar 25, 2024 | , ,

We once again want to bring to your attention the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) new favorite penalty provision: Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6676. We have reported on this provision several times before (See here, here and here), but this time we’re analyzing it in the context of protective refund claims.

As background, IRC Section 6676 was enacted in 2007 in response to the high number of presumed meritless refund claims being filed at the time. It imposes a 20% penalty to the extent that a claim for refund or credit with respect to income tax is made for an “excessive amount.” An “excessive amount” is defined as the difference between the amount of the claim for credit or refund sought and the amount that is actually allowable. For example, if a taxpayer claims a $2 million refund and the IRS allows only $1 million, the taxpayer can still be penalized $200,000 (e.g., 20% of the amount of the refund that was disallowed). Significantly, IRC Section 6676 does not require the IRS to show any fault or culpability on the part of the taxpayer (e.g., negligence or a disregard of rules or regulations). Neither the IRC nor the regulations provide for any defense to the Section 6676 penalty other than “reasonable cause.” Moreover, the penalty is immediately assessable, and generally taxpayers cannot fight the IRS on the penalty in a prepayment forum like it can the US Tax Court. Instead, the taxpayer must first pay the penalty and seek redress in a refund forum in either the relevant US federal district court or the US Court of Federal Claims.

Now that the IRS is asserting the IRC Section 6676 penalty more frequently, taxpayers are asking whether the penalty can apply to a protective refund claim. A protective refund claim is a judicial creation under which a taxpayer files a “protective” refund claim that is expressly contingent on a specified future event, like a taxpayer-friendly holding in a relevant court case. The Supreme Court of the United States has endorsed protective refund claims to toll the statute of limitations on the refund claim and thereby protect the taxpayer’s right to claim the refund if the favorable event should occur. (See, e.g., United States v. Kales, 314 US. 186 (1941), and CCA 201136021 (describing protective claims in detail).)

So, does the IRC Section 6676 penalty apply to a protective refund claim? Based on IRS internal guidance from 2022, the IRS believes that the IRC Section 6676 penalty applies to any filing that constitutes a “claim for credit or refund” of income tax, including a protective refund claim. To apply the penalty, the IRS would have to process the protective refund claim, deny the claim and then assert the IRC Section 6676 penalty.

Processing and denying a protective refund claim go against most tax practitioners’ experience and understanding of how the IRS treats protective refund claims. Typically, the refund claim is [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Weekly IRS Roundup February 22 – February 26, 2021

by | Mar 2, 2021 | ,

Presented below is our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of February 22, 2021 – February 26, 2021. Additionally, for continuing updates on the tax impact of COVID-19, please visit our resource page here.

February 25, 2021: The IRS issued an alert warning taxpayers to refrain from submitting meritless amended returns to claim the Domestic Production Activities Deduction (DPAD) for prior tax years—the DPAD was repealed as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for taxable years after December 31, 2017. This alert was in response to a large number of filings claiming the DPAD deduction based on studies conducted after the fact, which the IRS claims contained unreasonable assumptions of facts and law. The IRS further noted that examining these claims will continue to be a priority and that penalties may be asserted under section 6676. We have previously written about section 199 refund claims and penalties under section 6676.

February 25, 2021: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin 2021-9, dated March 1, 2021, containing the following highlights: Announcement 2021-4 (Administrative).

February 26, 2021: The IRS issued Notice 21-18 providing the adjusted limitations on housing expenses for 2021 for purposes of section 911, which allows a qualified individual to elect to exclude from gross income certain foreign earned income and to exclude or deduct certain housing expenses.

February 26, 2021: The IRS released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums and Chief Counsel Advice).

Special thanks to Samuel DiPietro in our Chicago office for this week’s roundup.



read more

Exxon Prevails in $200 Million Tax Penalty Case

by and | Jan 26, 2021 | , , , ,

On January 13, 2021, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation (“Exxon”) in its battle against the government over tax penalties. Exxon filed amended returns for its 2006-2009 tax years seeking a $1.35 billion tax refund based upon a change of character of certain transactions (from mineral leases to purchase transactions). The government disallowed the refund claims and imposed a $200 million penalty pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6676. Exxon paid the penalty and filed suit for a refund.

We have written extensively concerning IRC section 6676, warning taxpayers of this potential landmine. See, e.g., “Taxpayers Should Prepare for the Next Penalty Battleground” Roberson, Spencer and Walters, Law360 (May 21, 2019) and “Expect More Civil Tax Penalties—So, Now What?” Roberson and Spencer, Tax Executive (Sept. 27, 2019). To recap, IRC Section 6676 was enacted in 2007 in response to the high number of meritless refund claims being filed at the time. It imposes a 20% penalty to the extent that a claim for refund or credit with respect to income tax is made for an “excessive amount.” An “excessive amount” is defined as the difference between the amount of the claim for credit or refund sought and the amount that is actually allowable. For example, if the taxpayer claims a refund of $2 million and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allows only $1 million, the taxpayer can still be penalized $200,000.Significantly, IRC section 6676 does not require the IRS to show any fault or culpability on the part of the taxpayer—e.g., negligence, disregard of rules or regulations, etc. IRC section 6676(a) originally provided a “reasonable basis” defense (which is applicable to the Exxon case), but in 2015 Congress amended the statute and now requires a showing of “reasonable cause.” Neither the Code nor the regulations provide for any other defense to the IRC section 6676 penalty. Moreover, the penalty is immediately assessable, meaning taxpayers cannot fight the IRS in a pre-payment forum like the US Tax Court but must first pay the penalty and seek redress in a refund form.

In Exxon, the government argued that the court should overlay a subjective element on “reasonable basis,” as the US Circuit Court for the Eighth Circuit did in Wells Fargo & Co. v. United States, 957 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 2020). Our prior coverage of this case can be found here. The Exxon court declined the invitation. Instead, the court explained IRC section 6676 “focuses on whether the claim had a reasonable basis, not on whether the taxpayer had a reasonable basis.” The court agreed with Exxon that its position in the refund claim that its transactions were purchases was reasonable based on the relevant authorities. It further found that the company had “colorable support for its legal contention that a change that affects whether, not when, an item comes into income is not [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Kevin Spencer

Evan Walters

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge