Tax Court Determines §6672 Penalties are Penalties Subject to §6751(b) Requirements

Share this Article
Facebook Icon LinkedIn Icon Twitter Icon
Jason B. Freeman

Jason B. Freeman

Managing Member

214.984.3410
jason@freemanlaw.com

Mr. Freeman is the founding member of Freeman Law, PLLC. He is a dual-credentialed attorney-CPA, author, law professor, and trial attorney.

Mr. Freeman has been named by Chambers & Partners as among the leading tax and litigation attorneys in the United States and to U.S. News and World Report’s Best Lawyers in America list. He is a former recipient of the American Bar Association’s “On the Rise – Top 40 Young Lawyers” in America award. Mr. Freeman was named the “Leading Tax Controversy Litigation Attorney of the Year” for the State of Texas for 2019 and 2020 by AI.

Mr. Freeman has been recognized multiple times by D Magazine , a D Magazine Partner service, as one of the Best Lawyers in Dallas, and as a Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters service. He has previously been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Top 100 Up-And-Coming Attorney in Texas.

Mr. Freeman currently serves as the chairman of the Texas Society of CPAs (TXCPA). He is a former chairman of the Dallas Society of CPAs (TXCPA-Dallas). Mr. Freeman also served multiple terms as the President of the North Texas chapter of the American Academy of Attorney-CPAs. He has been previously recognized as the Young CPA of the Year in the State of Texas (an award given to only one CPA in the state of Texas under 40).

§6672 Penalties

In Chadwick v. Commissioner, a recent collection due process hearing (CDP) case, the United States Tax Court upheld an IRS notice of intent to levy. Chadwick v. Comm’r, 154 T.C. No. 5 (2020) stemmed from the taxpayer’s failure to pay employment taxes for two LLC entities for which he was responsible and the subsequent assessment of trust fund recovery penalties (TFRPs) against him personally for taxes owed by the businesses. The same day that each revenue officer on the case received written supervisory approval under section 6751(b)(1) of their Form 4183, the IRS issued Letters 1153 notifying Mr. Chadwick of the assessment of TFRPs, which was not appealed. The IRS later mailed a levy notice attempting to collect the unpaid TFRPs, and the taxpayer requested a CDP hearing.

 

The court noted that the requirements of written supervisory approval under §6751(b)(1) may be relevant in a CDP case. The IRS argued that the §6751(b)(1) approval requirements do not apply to TFRPs, as §6672 essentially imposes a tax rather than a penalty. Taking up this issue for the first time, the Tax Court pointed to the plain text of §6672(a), which states that “a responsible person incurs liability under section 6672(a) only if he ‘willfully fails’ to discharge his Federal tax obligations on behalf of the employer.” The court reasoned that this indicates that TFRPs are imposed as a sanction and constitute a penalty from the viewpoint of the person sanctioned.

Having held that TFRPs are penalties subject to the supervisory approval requirement of §6751(b)(1), the court next assessed whether that supervisory approval for the TFRPs was timely secured. §6751(b)(1) requires that approval be secured befor the initial determination penalty assessment, which the court has previously determined is embodied by the letter formally notifying the taxpayer of the IRS’s decision to assess penalties. The court determined that the initial determination of the assessment of the TFRPs was embodied in the Letters 1153. The court further concluded that approval was timely secured, noting that the electronic signatures of each RO’s supervisor on the Forms 4183 were sufficient to constitute approval.

The court additionally reviewed the denial of petitioner’s request to place his account in currently non-collectible (CNC) status. Noting that petitioner failed to submit necessary information, despite repeated opportunities to do so, and his noncompliance with his tax filing obligations for 2015–2017, the court found no abuse of discretion.

Having found no abuse of discretion, the court granted the IRS’s motion for summary judgment and sustained the notice of intent to levy.

Though recent case law has emerged regarding compliance with the statutory requirements of §6751(b)(1), the court looked to the plain statutory text to make clear that TFRPs are penalties subject to the §6751(b)(1) approval requirements.

 

Probate Trust and Fiduciary Litigation Lawyers

Need assistance managing probate proceedings, will contests, trust, and fiduciary litigation, or disputes involving the administration of estates and trusts. Freeman Law represents executors, administrators, trustees, beneficiaries, and heirs. Our Firm offers a unique blend of legal skills and an accounting background. This combination positions our Firm to represent clients in even the most complex probate, trust, and fiduciary litigation. Schedule a consultation or call (214) 984-3410 to discuss your Probate and Fiduciary litigation needs.

Fiduciary Litigation