Wednesday, December 31, 2008

1.6694-1(e) - most important part of final regs

I have identified the following quoted language of the regulations as the most important part of the regulations because if you are not careful, it is a trap. Read the language slowly and digest the highlighted portion. How can a return preparer rely on information supplied by a client whan at the same time the return preparer has to make sure that the data complies with the substantive requirements of the IRS Code, IRS regulations, published positions and the rest of the tax law? All items in the schedules filed with any income tax return are based on the technical requirements of the IRS Code, IRS regulatins, etc.

It is my opinion that the reliance on the client information without verification is misleading. Yes, you do not have to verify that your client paid $600 to a charity, but you still have to make sure that charitable deduction meets IRS substantiation requirements which were recently modified. The point is guys & gals, you can no longer just put numbers into software and expect that you will nlot be hit with a $5,000 "reckess" payment for negligently not checking the technical requirements for substantiation.

The language in 1.6694-1(e)and (f) is essentially a trap for the unwary tax return preparer if they think there will be no penalty if they do not check the technical substantiation standards.

There is one important thing you must know. The standard of conduct, even for disclosed positions, is higher than not being negligent. This means that if the return preparer is "negligent" the reckless penalty is predictable.

(e) Verification of information furnished by taxpayer or other party --(1) In general . For purposes of sections 6694(a) and (b) (including demonstrating that a position complied with relevant standards under section 6694(a) and demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith under §1.6694-2(e)) , the tax return preparer generally may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the taxpayer. A tax return preparer also may rely in good faith and without verification upon information and advice furnished by another advisor, another tax return preparer or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's firm). The tax return preparer is not required to audit, examine or review books and records, business operations, documents, or other evidence to verify independently information provided by the taxpayer, advisor, other tax return preparer, or other party. The tax return preparer, however, may not ignore the implications of information furnished to the tax return preparer or actually known by the tax return preparer. The tax return preparer must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect or incomplete. Additionally, some provisions of the Code or regulations require that specific facts and circumstances exist (for example, that the taxpayer maintain specific documents) before a deduction or credit may be claimed. The tax return preparer must make appropriate inquiries to determine the existence of facts and circumstances required by a Code section or regulation as a condition of the claiming of a deduction or credit.


(2) Verification of information on previously filed returns . For purposes of section 6694(a) and (b) (including meeting the reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits and reasonable basis standards in §§1.6694-2(b) and (d)(2), and demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith under §1.6694-2(e)) , a tax return preparer may rely in good faith without verification upon a tax return that has been previously prepared by a taxpayer or another tax return preparer and filed with the IRS. For example, a tax return preparer who prepares an amended return (including a claim for refund) need not verify the positions on the original return. The tax return preparer, however, may not ignore the implications of information furnished to the tax return preparer or actually known by the tax return preparer. The tax return preparer must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect or incomplete. The tax return preparer must confirm that the position being relied upon has not been adjusted by examination or otherwise.



With this last blog of the year, let me wish you all a very Happy New Year without and 6694 penalties.

This web page picks up about 50 new IP addresses each day of the week. We have received lots of positive feedback. The comment comes in through ab@irstaxattorney.com. However you can make comment to these blogs. I would like nothing better than to have blogs like the one above debated or apended. I could write an article on just the analysis of 1.6694-1(e) and (f). You are welcome to make negative comment and disagree on any point made. Or if you wish, comment or related technical issues.

I deal with the IRS examiners regularly. They are aggressive. They will be motivated to go after the penalties. If there is a substantiation problem in the soon to be filed tax returns, expect to be changed with the penalty. I have been pounding the table saying that any compliance matters will be viewed as your fault and per se negligence. "Negligence" is sufficient to trigger the 6694 penalty even under pre-1979 law. If the penalty would be triggered under pre-1979 law, is it not obvious that it would trigger the "reckless" 6694(b) $5,000 penalty even for disclosed positions that the IRS has determined to be negligent for missing substantiation requirements? I believe that is an obvious conclusion. If I have dwelled on this, it is because I consider the above language to be a "trap."

Thank you all for all of the kind message you have sent to my office.

Alvin S. Brown, Esq.

Labels:

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Passive losses and 6694

The Lowe case, decided yesterday, is instructive on passive loss issues. The Tax Court also commented on due care and what a reasonably prudent person would do. Obviously, this is threshold all return preparer need to meet and more. With the 6694 penalty in mind, return preparers would have to treat as a “red flag” any situation where your client is generating losses. One of the points I have made repeatedly is the necessity for return preparers to make sure that they have acess to a tax research service and make sure the client meeets all technical standards. As noted by the Tax Court... Negligence has been defined as lack of due care or failure to do what a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. See, e.g., Hofstetter v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 704 (1992). It also "includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the internal revenue laws or to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the preparation of a tax return." Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. If you jurt rely on client data, without checking for technical substantiation, you will be destroyed by the oppressive $5,000 penalties for being "reckless."


William C. and Cristina Lowe v. Commissioner.Dkt. No. 15592-06 , TC Memo. 2008-298, December 29, 2008. T.C. Memo. 2008-298

1. Held: The 1994 and 1996-2002 losses constitute suspended passive activity losses, and the excess of those losses over the unreported 1995 gain may be carried forward as a partial offset to Ps' unreported 2003 long-term capital gain from DA.

2. Held, further, Ps have not produced credible evidence that there are any suspended passive activity losses from 1985-90 or 1992 available for carryover to 2003, and, therefore, no carryover from those years is permitted.

3. Held, further, R's penalty against Ps is sustained, in part, under sec. 6662, I.R.C.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

HALPERN, Judge: By notice of deficiency dated May 9, 2006, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 2003 Federal income tax of $69,351 and an accuracy-related penalty of $13,870.20. Petitioners assign error to both of those determinations. The issues for decision are (1) the extent, if any, to which there exist unused or suspended passive activity losses arising in taxable years before 2003 and attributable to petitioner William C. Lowe's (Mr. Lowe's) interest in a real estate limited partnership that, pursuant to section 469(b) and (g), 1 are available to petitioners as offsets to the unreported 2003 long-term capital gain Mr. Lowe realized upon the termination of his investment in the partnership, and (2) whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).

The notice contains certain other adjustments that are purely computational. Their resolution depends upon our resolution of the first issue in dispute.
FINDINGS OF FACT 2

Some facts are stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts, with accompanying exhibits, is incorporated herein by this reference.

At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in Lake Forest, Illinois.
Mr. Lowe's Background and Job History
Mr. Lowe earned a B.S. in physics from Lafayette College in 1962. He then was employed by IBM as an engineer and, by 1985, had become a corporate vice president and president of IBM's entry systems division. Although his formal training was in physics, he had some responsibilities for business decisions in his area. In general, however, Mr. Lowe depended upon the chief financial officer to support the financial decisions relating to the products with which he was concerned.

During 1985, Mr. Lowe resided in Chappaqua, New York. He became an executive for Xerox Corp. in 1988 and remained at Xerox until 1991. During that period, he continued to reside in Chappaqua. He then embarked upon a series of job changes and relocations: In 1991, he became the chief executive officer (CEO) of Gulfstream Aerospace in Savannah, Georgia, and he moved to Hilton Head, South Carolina; in 1993, he became the CEO of New England Business Services in Groton, Massachusetts, and he moved to Concord, Massachusetts; and, in 1996, he became executive vice president, North America, for Moore Corp., headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois, which became his new place of residence. Then, in late 1998 or early 1999, petitioner Cristina Lowe's (Mrs. Lowe's) mother passed away, and petitioners moved to Tucson, Arizona, to be with Mrs. Lowe's father. In 2004, petitioners moved back to Lake Forest, Illinois.
Mr. Lowe's Investment in Douglas Associates
In 1985, while Mr. Lowe was at IBM, a financial adviser from Chase Bank, used by Mr. Lowe and a number of other IBM executives, advised Mr. Lowe to get involved in some limited partnerships. He specifically recommended that Mr. Lowe invest in Douglas Associates, a limited partnership engaged in renting real estate. Thereupon, Mr. Lowe invested $200,000 in Douglas Associates in exchange for a limited partnership interest.

Douglas Associates issued Schedules K-1, Partner's Share of Income Credits, Deductions, etc. (the Schedules K-1), to Mr. Lowe for each year of its existence (1985-2003), and Mr. Lowe retained his limited partnership interest in Douglas Associates for that entire period. The Schedules K-1 reported Mr. Lowe's annual share of Douglas Associates' gains and losses as follows:
Year Gain (Loss) 1985 ($7,961) 1986 (31,817) 1987 (61,526) 1988 (71,581) 1989 (63,587) 1990 (58,029) 1991 (49,152) 1992 (49,336) 1993 (46,596) 1994 (43,615) 1995 107,580 1996 (15,102) 1997 (15,469) 1998 (16,667) 1999 (14,257) 2000 (20,645) 2001 (6,638) 2002 ($7,835) 2003 1292,853 1 The 2003 Schedule K-1 (which covered Douglas Associates' final taxable year, ending July 15, 2003) also reported that Mr. Lowe's share of unrecaptured depreciation gain from "flow through entity" was $109,913. Respondent does not argue that that amount reduces the amount of suspended passive activity losses that may be available to offset the $292,853 long-term capital gain Mr. Lowe realized upon the termination of his investment in Douglas Associates. Therefore, we will ignore that amount in determining the amount of suspended passive activity losses, if any, available for that purpose.

The 1985 and 1986 Schedules K-1 reported Mr. Lowe's losses for those years on line 1, "Ordinary income (loss)". The Schedules K-1 for all subsequent years (1987-2003) reported his gains or losses on the line entitled "Reconciliation [or 'Analysis'] of partner's capital account", and/or that entitled "Income [or 'Net income'] (loss) from rental real estate activities".

Mr. Lowe received the 1985-93 Schedules K-1 and turned them over to his tax return preparer. Having failed to notify Douglas Associates of his various changes of address between 1994 and 2003, Mr. Lowe did not receive any of the Schedules K-1 issued for those years. 3
Tax Reporting of the Gains and Losses Reflected on the Schedules K-1
Mr. Lowe reported the losses attributed to him on the 1991 and 1993 Schedules K-1 (jointly with his former spouse for 1991 and jointly with Mrs. Lowe for 1993) as currently deductible on the returns filed for those years. On the joint returns petitioners filed for 1994 through 2003, they reported neither the gains, for 1995 and 2003, nor the losses, for the other years, reflected on the Schedules K-1 for those years. Mr. Lowe was unable to obtain copies of his 1985-90 and 1992 returns, and those returns are not in evidence. 4

Mr. Lowe's 1985-92 returns were prepared by Joseph Cannistra & Co., in Mount Kisco, New York. His 1993-2003 returns were prepared by at least six different tax preparers, generally located near his residence, which, as noted supra, changed several times during those years.
OPINION
I. Petitioners' Entitlement to a Passive Activity Loss Carryover
A. Applicable Law

Section 469, dealing with passive activity losses and credits, was added to the Internal Revenue Code by section 501 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA), Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 501, 100 Stat. 2233. Theretofore, there had been no generally applicable limitation on a taxpayer's ability to use losses from a particular trade or business activity to offset income from other such activities. That circumstance gave rise to the proliferation of tax shelters permitting taxpayers to reduce or avoid taxes on salary or other positive income through the use of losses (often in excess of real economic costs) incurred in advance of any income from the shelters. See H. Conf. Rept. 99-841 (Vol. II) at II-137 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 4) 1, 137; S. Rept. 99-313, at 713 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 713.

In pertinent part, section 469(a)(1) provides that an individual's "passive activity loss" for any taxable year shall not be allowed. Section 469(c)(1) defines a "passive activity" as one which involves the conduct of any trade or business in which the taxpayer does not materially participate. 5 Section 469(d)(1) defines a passive activity loss as the amount, for the taxable year, by which aggregate losses from all passive activities exceed aggregate income from those activities. Thus, losses arising from a passive activity are deductible only against income from that activity or another passive activity. See S. Rept. 99-313, supra at 722, 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) at 722. Section 469(b) provides that any passive activity loss disallowed under subsection (a) shall be treated as a deduction allocable to that same passive activity in the next taxable year. If the carried-over passive activity loss becomes a nonallowable passive activity loss for the carryover year, it is carried over to the succeeding year. Disallowed or suspended losses may be carried over indefinitely until they are used. 6 See S. Rept. 99-313, supra at 722, 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) at 722; Bittker & Lokken, Federal Taxation of Income, Estates and Gifts, par. 28.9, at 28-91 (3d ed. 1999). Pursuant to section 469(g)(1)(A) and (B), if a taxpayer disposes of his entire interest in a passive activity to an unrelated person in a transaction in which all gain or loss is recognized, suspended passive activity losses (remaining after the application of section 469(b)) are deductible without limitation (i.e., they are treated as losses "not from a passive activity") in the year of disposition. 7

Section 469 generally applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, and does not apply to losses from pre-1987 taxable years carried forward to post-1986 taxable years. TRA sec. 501(c)(1) and (2). Section 469(m) provides a 5-year phase-in for passive activity losses from interests held before the new law's date of enactment, October 22, 1986, pursuant to which an increasing percentage of such losses becomes subject to the new rules, with 100 percent of such losses becoming subject thereto for taxable years beginning in or after 1991.

B. Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners argue that the losses set forth on the Schedules K-1 issued to Mr. Lowe by Douglas Associates for 1985-90, 1992, 1994, and 1996-2002, totaling $484,065, and from which they "have received no tax benefit", 8 are passive activity losses, which "more than offset any gains from Douglas Associates"; i.e., the 1995 and 2003 gains totaling $400,433. 9

Respondent argues: "Because petitioners have failed to substantiate the transactions surrounding the alleged passive activity losses * * *, petitioners cannot satisfy the statutory requirements for carrying forward suspended * * * [passive activity losses]". He concludes that those alleged losses "cannot be properly carried forward because they are not suspended * * * [passive activity losses] pursuant to * * * [section] 469." Alternatively, respondent argues that, even if we decide that the losses set forth on the 1994 and 1996-2002 Schedules K-1, totaling $140,228, constitute suspended passive activity losses available as a carryover, 10 they must be offset by the unreported 1995 gain of $107,580, leaving only $32,648 in suspended passive activity losses as an offset to the unreported 2003 gain of $292,853, resulting in net unreported gain of $260,205.

C. Burden of Proof

In pertinent part, Rule 142(a)(1) provides, as a general rule: "The burden of proof shall be upon the petitioner". In certain circumstances, however, if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the proper tax liability, section 7491 places the burden of proof on the Commissioner. Sec. 7491(a)(1); Rule 142(a)(2). Credible evidence is evidence that, after critical analysis, a court would find constituted a sufficient basis for a decision on the issue in favor of the taxpayer if no contrary evidence were submitted. Baker v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 143, 168 (2004); Bernardo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-199 n.6. Section 7491(a)(1) applies only if the taxpayer complies with substantiation requirements, maintains all required records, and cooperates with the Commissioner's requests for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and interviews. Sec. 7491(a)(2).

For the reasons discussed infra section E.3.a., we find that petitioners have failed to introduce credible evidence that any of the losses reflected on the Schedules K-1 for 1985-90 and 1992 (the pre-'93 losses) constitute suspended passive activity losses. It follows that petitioners retain the burden of proving that those losses are available to offset their 2003 gain on the disposition of Mr. Lowe's interest in Douglas Associates, a burden that, because of the absence of credible evidence on that issue, petitioners cannot sustain. See Bernardo v. Commissioner, supra n.7; see also Rendall v. Commissioner, 535 F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Bernardo v. Commissioner, supra), affg. T.C. Memo. 2006-174. Therefore, our discussion of that issue may be viewed as setting forth the basis for our determination that petitioners have failed to (1) introduce credible evidence and (2) carry their burden of proof. See Bernardo v. Commissioner, supra; see also Rendall v. Commissioner, supra at 1225.

The parties also disagree as to the status of the losses reflected on the Schedules K-1 for 1994 and 1996-2002 (the post-'93 losses) as suspended passive activity losses. We need not decide whether section 7491(a) applies to that issue because we resolve it upon a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, resolution of the issue does not depend upon which party bears the burden of proof. See, e.g., Bergquist v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op. at 30).

D. Respondent's Motion for Leave To File Amendment to Answer To Conform to the Evidence

On January 31, 2008, respondent moved, pursuant to Rule 41(b), for leave to file an amendment to the answer to conform to the evidence (the motion). In the motion, respondent raises the duty of consistency as an affirmative defense to what he considers petitioners' attempt to characterize the 1985-93 losses, alleged by respondent to have been reported as active losses on the 1985-93 returns, 11 as suspended passive activity losses available to offset their unreported 2003 passive activity gain. 12 Petitioners oppose the motion.

We need not rule upon the motion because, as noted supra, we find that petitioners have failed to introduce credible evidence that the pre-'93 losses constitute suspended passive activity losses. That finding, together with the parties' stipulation that petitioners reported the 1991 and 1993 losses as active losses (so that petitioners concede they may not be carried forward as suspended passive activity losses) renders moot respondent's motion, which, in substance, seeks the same result.

E. Discussion

1. Introduction

The parties' joint exhibits include copies of petitioners' 1994 and 1996-2002 returns. Those returns show that petitioners did not report or deduct the post-'93 losses. Petitioners' tax treatment of the pre-'93 losses is not evidenced by copies of returns filed for those years. The only support for petitioners' argument that those losses were never deducted and, therefore, remain available for carryover to 2003 is Mr. Lowe's testimony to that effect. Because of that evidentiary difference, we separately consider those two groups of alleged passive activity losses.

2. The Post-'93 Losses

a. Analysis

Respondent states that petitioners have failed to provide a "valid explanation as to why * * * [Mr. Lowe] invested in Douglas Associates" and that Mr. Lowe "failed to explain why he had very limited records relating to his roughly 20-year participation in" that partnership and why he never inquired further relating to his $200,000 investment therein. Respondent concludes: "Because petitioners have failed to substantiate the transactions surrounding the alleged passive activity losses * * * [they] cannot satisfy the statutory requirements for carrying forward suspended * * * [passive activity losses]." Respondent also cites a taxpayer's right, under section 469(g)(1), to carry forward suspended passive activity losses to the year in which the taxpayer disposes of his entire interest in the passive activity to an unrelated party, provided all gain or loss on the disposition is recognized. He then states: "[Mr. Lowe] has not substantiated that this [i.e., that there is a suspended loss] is true for any of the * * * [passive activity losses], and thus, [he] cannot carry any of * * * [them] forward." (Emphasis supplied.) We disagree as regards the post-'93 losses.

Mr. Lowe testified that he invested in Douglas Associates upon the advice of a financial adviser who provided investment advice to IBM executives like him. The adviser suggested that he become involved in limited partnerships and, specifically, that he invest in Douglas Associates. The parties have stipulated that from 1985 through 2003 Douglas Associates was a limited partnership engaged in the activity of renting real estate, and that Mr. Lowe held a limited partnership interest therein. According to the Schedules K-1 issued by Douglas Associates, which are unchallenged, Mr. Lowe's investment in Douglas Associates did give rise to the alleged losses (both pre-and post-'93), and the 1994 and 1996-2002 returns provide unchallenged verification that the post-'93 losses were not claimed on those returns and did not give rise to any tax benefit to petitioners before 2003. Moreover, pursuant to section 469(c)(1) and (h)(2) and section 1.469-5T(e), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 5726 (Feb. 25, 1988), which, together, establish that Mr. Lowe's limited partnership interest in Douglas Associates constituted a passive activity, it is clear that the post-'93 losses constituted passive activity losses. Lastly, there is no dispute that all of the other requirements of section 469(g)(1) for carrying forward the post-'93 losses to offset the 2003 capital gain on termination of Mr. Lowe's interest in Douglas Associates have been met. Respondent does not dispute that, as reflected on the 2003 Schedule K-1, the partnership was terminated in a fully taxable transaction, and respondent does not allege that that termination constituted a "disposition [of the limited partnership interests] involving [a] related party" within the meaning of section 469(g)(1)(B).

b. Conclusion

The post-'93 losses constitute suspended passive activity losses that may be carried forward to 2003 pursuant to section 469(b) and (g)(1)(A).

3. The Pre-'93 Losses

a. Analysis

Because the 1985-90 and 1992 returns are not in evidence, petitioners' position that the pre-'93 losses constitute suspended passive activity losses available for carryover to 2003 is based solely upon Mr. Lowe's testimony. That testimony is not persuasive.

Mr. Lowe testified that, beginning with his receipt of the 1985 Schedule K-1, his "process was to turn * * * [the Schedules K-1] over to my tax preparer, who I depended upon to deal with them properly and put my returns in proper form." 13 He further testified that the C.P.A. firm that prepared his 1985 return (as well as all subsequent returns through 1992) told him that the 1985 loss was a "passive loss", that he could not "do anything with" the loss, and that his "expectation from that point forward was that's the way they would be treated". Mr. Lowe expressed his "belief" that the 1985-90 losses reflected on the Schedules K-1 for those years "were never claimed", and that the same was true for 1992. He had no explanation as to why the 1991 and 1993 losses were reported as "active losses" on the returns for those years, and he testified that "it was a surprise to me to discover that those losses had been claimed."

Mr. Lowe's testimony that the pre-'93 losses were not claimed is implausible in several respects. To begin with, before the enactment of section 469 in 1986, the concept of active versus passive losses did not exist for deductibility purposes, and, with the exception of the section 1211(b) limitations on the deductibility of capital losses, losses incurred by an individual in connection with a trade or business or in a transaction entered into for profit were fully deductible under section 165(c)(1) and (2). Moreover, as noted supra section I.A., section 469 did not become effective until 1987; and, until 1991, it only affected a portion of the losses from preenactment investments such as Mr. Lowe's interest in Douglas Associates. Lastly, the Schedules K-1 for 1985 and 1986 listed the losses for those 2 years on a line entitled "Ordinary income (loss)". 14 Under those circumstances, we find incredible Mr. Lowe's testimony that his professional tax-advisor (1) did not deduct the losses reflected on the Schedules K-1 for 1985 and 1986 and (2) told him, in connection with the preparation of his 1985 return, that the 1985 loss was a "passive loss" and that he "couldn't do anything with it."

Petitioners' argument that the pre-'93 losses subject to section 469, in whole or in part (1987-92), were not deducted is not based upon the returns for those years (which are not in evidence) or even upon Mr. Lowe's recollection based upon his prior review of those returns but, instead, upon his "belief" that those losses "were never claimed". That belief, based upon an alleged conversation that took place some 22 years earlier, is belied by the 1991 return, which shows that the firm responsible for preparing the 1985-92 returns treated the loss reflected on the 1991 Schedule K-1 as a deductible, ordinary loss. The 1991 return, at the very least, implies that neither the return preparer nor the reviewer(s) (if any) were aware of the section 469 limitations on the deductibility of passive activity losses, and that they, therefore, continued to deduct in full, after 1986, the losses reflected on the Schedules K-1. 15 On the other hand, if we assume that Mr. Lowe's return preparers applied section 469 to Mr. Lowe's passive activity losses reflected on the Schedules K-1 for 1987-90 and 1992, including the phase-in rules of section 469(m) applicable to 1987-90, there is no evidence of the extent to which those passive activity losses may have been used as offsets to passive activity income or gain from interests other than Mr. Lowe's interest in Douglas Associates, thereby making them unavailable for carry forward to 2003. 16

b. Conclusion

Mr. Lowe has not provided credible evidence of the existence of pre-'93 passive activity losses available for carry forward to 2003 pursuant to section 469(b) and (g)(1)(A).

F. Conclusion

Petitioners may carry forward to 2003 post-'93 losses of $32,648.
II. Section 6662(a) Penalty
A. Applicable Law

Section 6662(a) provides for a penalty equal to 20 percent of the portion of any underpayment of tax attributable to, among other things, negligence or intentional disregard of rules or regulations (without distinction, negligence), any substantial understatement of income tax, or any substantial valuation misstatement. See sec. 6662(b)(1)-(3). Although the notice states that respondent bases his imposition of the penalty of $13,870.20 on "one or more" of the three above-referenced grounds, on brief he relies upon only the first two of those grounds: negligence and substantial understatement of income tax.

Negligence has been defined as lack of due care or failure to do what a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. See, e.g., Hofstetter v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 695, 704 (1992). It also "includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the internal revenue laws or to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the preparation of a tax return." Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

For individuals, a substantial understatement of income tax exists "if the amount of the understatement for the taxable year exceeds the greater of --(i) 10 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return for the taxable year, or (ii) $5,000." Sec. 6662(d)(1)(A).

Section 6664(c)(1) provides that the accuracy-related penalty shall not be imposed with respect to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that there was reasonable cause for that portion and the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to that portion. Further:

The determination of whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all pertinent facts and circumstances. * * * Circumstances that may indicate reasonable cause and good faith include an honest misunderstanding of * * * law that is reasonable in light of all of the facts and circumstances, including the experience, knowledge, and education of the taxpayer. * * * [ Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.]

B. Analysis

Even with a $32,648 offset to petitioners' unreported capital gain for 2003, it is clear that there was a substantial understatement of petitioners' 2003 income tax within the meaning of section 6662(d)(1)(A). 17 Alternatively, we find that that understatement was attributable to negligence, within the meaning of section 6662(c), on Mr. Lowe's part. He did not exercise due care or do what a reasonably prudent person would do; rather, he adopted an attitude of total indifference to his investment in Douglas Associates. That indifference caused him not to notify Douglas Associates of his various changes of address after 1993, and that inaction resulted in his not receiving the 2003 Schedule K-1 or including, on his 2003 return, the long-term capital gain of $292,853 reflected on that Schedule K-1. Mr. Lowe's stated assumption that Douglas Associates would perpetually generate nondeductible losses (so that there was no reason for him to make certain that he would receive the Schedules K-1 after he changed his address in 1993) was not a reasonable or prudent assumption, even if it was based upon advice from a professional tax return preparer. The reasonableness of Mr. Lowe's predicating such an assumption upon that advice is undercut by his testimony that the advice related only to the initial year of the investment, 1985, a year which preceded the effective date of the passive loss provisions, and that it was his own "expectation from that point forward" that the losses would continue to be nondeductible. Moreover, it was not reasonable for an individual of Mr. Lowe's background and experience to make a $200,000 investment with the sole expectation that it would do no more than generate perpetual losses of no economic benefit to him. He knew, or should have known, that Douglas Associates owned real estate of some potential value, which might be sold at some time, and that such a sale, in part because of the property's depreciated tax basis, might produce a taxable gain to the investors. For that reason alone Mr. Lowe was negligent in turning his back on the Schedules K-1.

The same reasons that form the basis for our finding that petitioners' underpayment of the 2003 tax liability was attributable to Mr. Lowe's negligence also form the basis for our finding that there was no reasonable cause for that underpayment, and that Mr. Lowe failed to act in good faith with respect thereto. See sec. 6664(c)(1).

C. Conclusion

Petitioners are liable for the section 6662(a) penalty as applied to the underpayment of tax determined herein.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.2 Pursuant to Rule 151(e)(3), each party, in the answering brief, is required to "set forth any objections, together with the reasons therefor, to any proposed findings of any other party". Petitioners have filed an answering brief, but they have failed to set forth objections to respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accordingly, we must conclude that petitioners have conceded that respondent's proposed findings of fact are correct except to the extent that those findings are clearly inconsistent with either evidence in the record or petitioners' proposed findings of fact. See, e.g., Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106, 108 n.4 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003).3 The 1998-2002 Schedules K-1 were addressed to Mr. Lowe at his address in Lake Forest, Illinois, which indicates that someone had advised Douglas Associates that Mr. Lowe resided at that address. Presumably, Mr. Lowe's failure to receive them is attributable to petitioners' late 1998 or early 1999 move from Lake Forest to Tucson, Arizona. The 2003 Schedule K-1 was mistakenly addressed to Mr. Lowe at a different address in Lake Forest, Illinois, at a time when petitioners were still residing in Tucson.4 The 1995 return is also not in evidence, but the parties stipulate that petitioners did not report on that return the $107,580 gain reported on the Douglas Associates 1995 Schedule K-1.5 With exceptions not here relevant, an individual is not treated as materially participating in any activity of a limited partnership of which he is a limited partner (e.g., Mr. Lowe is not treated as materially participating in Douglas Associates' activities). See sec. 469(h)(2); sec. 1.469-5T(e), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 5726 (Feb. 25, 1988).6 Because disallowed or suspended losses from a passive activity are allowable in full upon a fully taxable disposition of that activity (see discussion infra), it is necessary to determine the portion of each year's passive activity loss carryover that is allocable to each of the taxpayer's passive activities, assuming the taxpayer owns interests in more than one. See S. Rept. 99-313, at 722 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 722; sec. 1.469-1(f)(4)(i), Income Tax Regs.; sec. 1.469-1T(f)(2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 5706 (Feb. 25, 1988).7 In this case, the nonpassive activity loss characterization would apply only to the extent Mr. Lowe's suspended loss carryover exceeded his unreported capital gain on the disposition of his interest in Douglas Associates.8 The parties stipulate (and the 1991 and 1993 returns verify) that the losses reported on the 1991 and 1993 Schedules K-1 were deducted as nonpassive or "active" losses, and petitioners concede that the alleged passive activity loss carryover is "net of claimed active losses".9 Petitioners do not dispute the status of the unreported 1995 gain as an offset to their alleged suspended passive activity loss carryover to 2003. What they seek is to "apply all passive * * * [losses] ( net of claimed active losses and unreported gains) to offset any tax liability for 2003." (Emphasis supplied.)10 As explained infra sec. I.D., respondent believes that petitioners' duty to be consistent forecloses their claim that the 1985-93 losses are available to offset their unreported 2003 passive activity gain.11 As noted supra note 8, the parties stipulate that the losses reported on the 1991 and 1993 Schedules K-1 were deducted as active losses for those years.12 The "Amendment To Answer" filed with the motion erroneously refers to "passive gains in 2004".13 Mr. Lowe's practice of turning over the Schedules K-1 to his accountants of course ceased after 1993 when he no longer received any from Douglas Associates.14 For subsequent years, the Schedules K-1 listed Mr. Lowe's pass-through gain or loss on a line entitled "Income [or 'Net income'] (loss) from rental real estate activities" and/or on a line entitled "Reconciliation of partner's capital account".15 The ordinary loss treatment in 1993 by a new return preparer of the loss reflected on the 1993 Schedule K-1 is, perhaps, explainable if we assume that that preparer followed the questionable practice of treating the Schedule K-1 loss for 1993 just as the Schedule K-1 losses had been treated by the prior return preparer for prior years. Of course, that practice, if it existed, necessarily stopped, beginning in 1994, when Mr. Lowe stopped receiving Schedules K-1 from Douglas Associates and, therefore, was unable to furnish them to his return preparers.16 The 1991 and 1993 returns, both of which reflect investments in partnerships other than Douglas Associates, indicate that Mr. Lowe may very well have maintained such investments during the entire 1987-92 period.17 Mr. Lowe Petitioners' taxable unreported long-term capital gain for 2003 as determined herein is $260,205 ($292,853 - $32,648). Applying the 15-percent maximum capital gain rate under sec. 1(h)(1)(C) applicable to net capital gain realized in taxable years ending on or after May 6, 2003, petitioners' understatement of tax attributable to that gain is $39,031 (15 percent of $260,205). That understatement exceeds $5,000 and 10 percent of the tax required to be shown on petitioners' 2003 return, which, as computed by respondent is $71,820, an amount that, presumably, will be reduced by our allowance of a portion of the passive activity loss carryover claimed by petitioners.

Labels:

Monday, December 29, 2008

6694 - alimony- reliance

Section 71(b) of the Code provides a statutory definition of "alimony or separate maintenance payments." If return preparers merely accept a number from a client as “alimony or separate maintenance” without checking the documentation for that number or the legal definition directly in the Code, that would be clearly “reckless” and I do not have the slightest doubt that the return preparer and the firm who employs the return preparer will each be liable for $5,000 in penalties.

There is zero doubt in my mind that the failure to not follow Code and Regulation definitions is per se “reckless” within the meaning of section 6694(b).

This issues comes up with some frequency. I have received lots of calls from taxpayers when audited on this issues and, for that reason.

Where there are CPA firms and other tax preparation organizations, you need to make sure that you have procedures in place to make sure employees do not miss the substantiation requirements in statutes and regulations, as well as IRS published positions.

Although the final 6694 regulations indicate that you can rely on data from clients, those regulations also have due diligence requirements. All exclusion from income issues should be documented and substantiated. That should be in every procedures book for every return preparer and return preparation firm.

I do not know how return preparers without technical research services will be able to survive as tax return preparers because of the large size of the return preparer penalties. For those with research capabilities, you need to staff up for the extra time that will be needed to prepare tax returns.

For any questions on this topic, contact ab@irstaxattorney.com.




W.O. MelvinDecember 29, 2008WALTER OLIVER MELVIN, Petitioner-Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF IRS, Respondent-Appellee.


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 08-13329. Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. 21192-06. Petition for Review of a Decision of the United States Tax Court. (December 17, 2008).

Before DUBINA, BARKETT and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.PER CURIAM: Appellant Walter Oliver Melvin, proceeding pro se , appeals the U.S. Tax Court's final decision in favor of the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service ("Commissioner" or the "IRS") on his petition for redetermination of deficiency.

On appeal, Melvin first argues that he was entitled to deduct $6,000 from his 2003 income tax returns because his 1985 divorce decree ordered that he pay alimony, through the seizure of property to be credited at the rate of $500 per month, to his ex-spouse. He asserts that, because he was required to pay all of the alimony in advance, he should thus be allowed to claim a deduction on his 2003 tax return. Second, Melvin argues that he was denied due process of law because his trial before the Tax Court was cut short before he was allowed to hear the position of, and cross-examine, the IRS.

I. Tax Deficiency

We review a Tax Court's conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Creel v. Comm'r , 419 F.3d 1135, 1139 (11th Cir. 2005). "The Commissioner's determination of a deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving it is incorrect." Webb v. Comm'r , 872 F.2d 380, 381 (11th Cir. 1989).Section 215 of the Internal Revenue Code ("I.R.C.") states, "[i]n the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to the alimony or separate maintenance payments paid during such individual's taxable year." I.R.C. § 215(a) , 26 U.S.C. § 215(a) . It further states that alimony means any alimony payment as defined in I.R.C. § 71(b) "which is includible in the gross income of the recipient under section 71 ." I.R.C. § 215(b) , 26 U.S.C. § 215(b) .Section 71(b) of the I.R.C. states:

(1) In general. --The term "alimony or separate maintenance payment" means any payment in cash if --

(A) such payment is received by (or on behalf of) a spouse under a divorce or separation instrument,

(B) the divorce or separation instrument does not designate such payment as a payment which is not includible in gross income under this section and not allowable as a deduction under section 215 ,

(C) in the case of an individual legally separated from his spouse under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance, the payee spouse and the payor spouse are not members of the same household at the time such payment is made, and

(D) there is no liability to make any such payment for any period after the death of the payee spouse and there is no liability to make any payment (in cash or property) as a substitute for such payments after the death of the payee spouse.
I.R.C. § 71(b) , 26 U.S.C. § 71(b) ."If [a] statute's meaning is plain and unambiguous, there is no need for further inquiry. The plain language is presumed to express congressional intent and will control a court's interpretation." United States v. Fisher , 289 F.3d 1329, 1338 (11th Cir. 2002).Because in 2003 Melvin admittedly made no alimony payments, as defined in the I.R.C., we conclude that he was not allowed to claim an alimony deduction on his 2003 income tax returns. Melvin was thus unable to meet his burden to show that the Commissioner erred in Melvin's deficiency determination, and the Tax Court properly entered a decision in the Commissioner's favor.

II. Due Process

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. V. Rudimentary due process includes reasonable notice and an opportunity to rebut the charges and be heard. American Druggists Ins. Co., Inc. v. Bogart , 707 F.2d 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 1983).The IRS made its arguments known to Melvin in both its answer to his petition, and its pretrial memorandum. At Melvin's trial before the Tax Court, Melvin and the Commissioner had the opportunity to challenge each other's arguments. Furthermore, Melvin and the Commissioner prepared memoranda addressing their arguments raised during trial. We thus conclude from the record that Melvin was afforded the opportunity to be heard, both at his trial and in a memorandum of law. See id. Accordingly, his due process argument fails.For the above-stated reasons, we affirm the Tax Court's judgment.AFFIRMED.

Other cases that deal with this issues are noted below

Monthly payments that were awarded to a taxpayer in a legal separation and were reaffirmed in the final divorce decree were includible in her gross income. The payments were in the nature of support, rather than a property division, as indicated by the fact that they were in addition to the taxpayer's award of substantially all of the marital estate.C.S. McKay, 52 TCM 820, Dec. 43,443(M), TC Memo. 1986-514.Amounts paid by a taxpayer to his ex-wife were alimony payments rather than nontaxable distributions of community property. The payments were originally characterized as support, but a subsequent court order reduced the wife's share of the couple's community property by the amount of the support payments. That reduction alone did not convert the payments into a division of marital property as long as they continued to meet the statutory definition of alimony. The tax-benefit rule had no application since the reduction represented part of the determination by the court, and not a recovery of any portion of the payments.M.H. Soriano, 61 TCM 1622, Dec. 47,103(M), TC Memo. 1991-2.Lump-sum alimony payments made by a taxpayer to his former spouse were not deductible as alimony because they were made under a consent order that specifically identified them as an additional property settlement. However, the characterization of the payments as lump-sum alimony did not apply to alimony arrearages that had accrued prior to the settlement. Therefore, the arrearages constituted deductible alimony.P.M. Barrett, Jr., CA-5, 96-1 USTC ¶50,084, 74 F3d 661.An individual's periodic payments to his ex-spouse under their integrated property settlement were not alimony. Although the settlement described the payments as alimony, the evidence showed that they were part of the couple's property division. Also, the husband was obliged to continue the payments after the wife's death. E.S. Pettet, DC N.C., 97-2 USTC ¶50,948.A husband's payments under a marital settlement agreement were not deductible as alimony. The agreement's unequivocal terms provided that the parties waived all rights to support or maintenance and that all payments were for the division of community property. Further, the payments would not terminate at the death of the wife.A.T. Croteau, 75 TCM 1550, Dec. 52,511(M), TC Memo. 1998-9.A husband could deduct payments he made under a divorce decree because they satisfied the statutory requirements for alimony. It was irrelevant that an appellate court that later reviewed the decree held that the payments were in the nature of a property division.T.H. Nelson, 76 TCM 145, Dec. 52,804(M), TC Memo. 1998-268.One half of the amounts that a certified public accountant's ex-wife withdrew from a money market account while she and her ex-husband owned it jointly as tenants by the entirety constituted alimony that was includible in her gross income and deductible by her ex-husband. Although their divorce agreement did not provide a definitive characterization of the withdrawals, a subsequent court order confirmed that the funds were required for her support and maintenance. Further, language in the agreement that made the husband responsible for taxes on the withdrawals did not amount to a designation that the payments did not constitute alimony. The other half of her withdrawals represented a distribution of her own funds.I.C. Jaffe, 77 TCM 2167, Dec. 53,417(M), TC Memo. 1999-196.Amounts received by the taxpayer under a provisional order entered by a state (Indiana) divorce court were for her support and, thus, constituted taxable alimony. The payments were not in the nature of a property settlement because they would have terminated in the event of her death under state (Indiana) law. Moreover, a provisional order was merely for the purpose of maintenance and was distinct from a property settlement.M.K. Heckaman, 79 TCM 1643, Dec. 53,795(M), TC Memo. 2000-85.Military retirement payments received by the divorced wife of an Air Force officer under the couple's divorce judgment constituted alimony, despite the fact that the provision appeared under the "Property Settlement" title of the couple's divorce judgment. A common-sense reading of the divorce judgment did not establish a nonalimony designation regarding the income tax implications of the payments.M.J. Baker, 79 TCM 2050, Dec. 53,889(M), TC Memo. 2000-164.A payment that the taxpayer made to his former spouse under their divorce decree was not deductible as alimony. Both the decree and a subsequent modification designated the payment as a nontaxable division of marital property. The payment, which represented the ex-wife's share of a lump-sum separation payment the taxpayer received in lieu of his retirement benefits from the armed forces, was explicitly designated in the modified decree as a nontaxable event. Further, the original divorce decree precluded the payment of spousal support by either party.T. Clarence, 80 TCM 53, Dec. 53,952(M), TC Memo. 2000-214.The intent of formerly married individuals was frustrated when the IRS determined that the husband was liable for taxes on payments made under a divorce settlement agreement. The IRS had determined that the payments in question were taxable as a property settlement, even though the terms of the settlement provided that the payments were alimony taxable to the wife and deductible by the husband. Thus, the calculation of taxes that the wife was obligated to reimburse to the husband did not modify the settlement agreement, it only effectuated the intent of the parties in a manner that preserved the rights of the parties under the agreement. E.A. Eldridge, CA of Mich., 2003-1 USTC ¶50,485.A payment made by a divorced husband to his ex-wife under their divorce decree constituted a property settlement and did not give rise to an alimony deduction. The decree specifically stated that the payment "does not constitute, nor shall it be interpreted to be, any form of spousal support, alimony, or child support." R.S. Simpson, I, 86 TCM 470, Dec. 55,325(M), TC Memo. 2003-294.A taxpayer's contributions and loan repayments to his retirement plan were not deductible alimony. Although his divorce settlement awarded his ex-wife an interest in the plan, it also designated the plan as marital property; thus, payments related to the plan were part of the couple's marital property settlement.W.E. Johnson, 91 TCM 1239, Dec. 56,534(M), TC Memo. 2006-116.The portion of a husband's disability benefits that he paid over to his ex-wife was alimony, and not a division of martial property. There was no indication that the couple had considered his professional disability insurance policy to be marital property. Rather, their divorce agreement merely required him to pay alimony from his earned income or from his disability benefits. J.A. Perkins, 95 TCM 1165, Dec. 57,345(M) , TC Memo. 2008-41.Payments made under a divorce decree were part of the couple's property settlement, rather than alimony. The decree characterized the payments as personalty rather than as alimony, it provided that they were not taxable to the recipient, the amount of the payments was much larger than the amount of the payments that were characterized as alimony, and it did not appear that the payment obligation would terminate upon the recipient's death.R.W. Fields, 96 TCM 130, Dec. 57,528(M), TC Memo. 2008-207.

Labels:

Sunday, December 28, 2008

6694 "unreaslonable positions" are not unreasonable

An “unreasonable position” is defined as a position that a tax return preparer cannot support with “substantial authority” if the position is not disclosed to the IRS. If the “unreasonable position” is disclosed to the IRS, then the tax return preparer need only have a “reasonable basis” to support the position taken. Either way, with or without disclosure of a position in your tax return to the IRS, the position is only “unreasonable” if a return preparer does not have the requisite technical authority or technical skill to support the position taken in your tax return. The term “unreasonable position” in section 6694 is a misnomer or erroneous classification of positions that can be supported with “substantial authority.”
.
To make this point clearer, why is any position in a tax return deemed to be "unreasonable" if it can be supported with substantial technical authority? If the tax return decided to disclose the position to the IRS, he is disclosing a position he "thinks" might be unreasonable. There may be obvious substantial athority at the time the position is taken in the tax return. But the return preparer may want to disclose the position just to play it safe for the availability of the lower "reasonable basis" standard. If all return preparers, even those confident about their technical positions, "disclose" those positions to the IRS, the IRS will be bombarded with disclosed positions. Not a bad strategy. The IRS is not staffed to handle a millions of disclosed positions.

A more important point is the fact that return preparers who have little or no technical skills will get blased with 6694 penalties even if there is "substantial authority" for the positon. How can a return preparer supply any technical authority, even for the reasonable basis standard, if they lack the technical skill or technical resources to defend the position? IRS examiners are not your friends. They are aggressive. They like to make examples of return preparers. They will be motivated to go after the very large penalties. I predict the IRS examiners will treat return preparer negligence as "reckless" and go after the $5,000 penalties.

In my tax practice, I have lots of battles with the IRS over technical issues. Without the requisite technical research, analysis, interpretative skill, advocacy skill, the IRS would prevail over a raft of issues that they should not win. That is the point. Tax return preparers without the necessary technical skills, including the ability to draft a technical memorandum for managers, reviewers and appeal personnel, the IRS would win on those issues. Return preparers will inevitably get "nailed" for large 6694 penalties merely because they do not know how to find that support or analyze the nuances of that technical support.

I am left with the conclusion that positions that can be supported with strong technical support will be deemed to be "unreasonable positions" when handled by inept tax return preparers in many cases. Simple example: every side business with losses is nearly always treated as a hobby. But that is not necessarily the correct conclusion.

My personal belief is that all problematical positions should be disclosed to the IRS even those positions I believe that have strong technical support. The disclosure will cover for a missed detail in a regulation, a missed fact, or some kind of other error. Why take the chance? If the position appears factually or legally complex - disclose it. If your gut tells you that you are uncertain about the position - disclose it.

Continue to send questions to ab@irstaxattorney.com.

Labels:

Friday, December 26, 2008

The final 6694 regulations have been uploaded

Just a reminder that you can download the final 6694 regulations from the home page and also from one of the blogs below.

There were more than 10,000 downloads of the proposed regulations and less than half as much on the more important and final 6694 regulations, although the population of those who have found this web page and blog have grown substantially.

Also entered into one of the recent blogs is IRS Notice 2009-5 which addresses the standard of conduct for return preparers. Now that the "substantial authority" standard has replaced the "more than likely standard, you have to have some clarification of how to measure "substantial authority."

Although "substantial authority" is defined in the section 6662 negligence regulations, it is Notice 2009-5, not the final 6694 regulations, that clarify that the IRS will look to section 1.6662-4(d) for the definition of "substantial authority." Those regulations specify all of the tax law: the IRS Code, the regulations under the Code, the case law, legislative history, IRS published positions, and more. In addition, those regulations require the anlysis used to support "substantial authority" must be relevant.

There is a huge body of case law that defines "substantial authority."

WARNING! Do not assume that the standard of conduct for return preparer is "negligence" merely because the proposed regulations, either directly or indirectly through Notice 2009-5 reference the negligence regulations.

Negligence was the standard of conduct for return preparers prior to 1989. What you have to understand is that you can be not-negligent, and still be hit with the $1,000 and $5,000 penalties for each wrong position.

The test is a purely technical test on the quality of the authority you have to support any position in the tax return. A large part of the issues arise in a Form 1040 in Schedule A and Schedule C. That means that if you do not support any of those items with the specificity demanded by the regulations that deal with those issues, you will be hit with those penalties.

The above also applies to the "reasonable basis" standard for disclosed positions. Do not assume that you do not have to apply the specificity of the income tax regulations for disclosded positions. For example, there are high technical substantiation requirements under the travel and entertainment regjulations, as you all know. You are "red meat" for the $5,000 penalty for being "reckless" (within the meaning of 6694(b)) if you do not meet the substantiation requirements of the section 167 regulations.

What does thils really mean for most of the return preparers?

You need to have access to current tax law and regulations. How can you possibly meet the "substantial authority" or "reasonable basis" standards without having immediate access to all of the current tax law? I have always used CCH, a personal habit with me. There are other tax resource services.

The reason we have these new draconian penalties is that return preparers would take any number given to them by their client, put those numbers into software, collect their fees and be done with the return.

No more, now way, Jose! That is the past!

I have represented a fair number of tax return preparerers undergoing civil and criminal examinations. Whether you know it or not, the IRS software is able to identify a high error rate by tax return preparers. In those examinations, the 6694 penalty was never an issue because of the small size of the $250 penalty.

I am certain that the IRS will be motivated to go after the very large draconian penalties. Example, three negligent errors in any tax return is certain to be viewed as "reckless" and translate into $15,000 in penalties ($5,000 x 3). You can take a travel expense of $100 and if you cannot support that travel expense with the technical authority in the regulations, that $100 will cost you $5,000 in penalties because the failure of a tax return preparer to apply long standing IRS regulations is simply "reckless." If you claim $600 for a charitable deduction and do not apply the NEW substantiation requirements, you will be hit with another $5,000 for being reckless. If you make the same mistakes in a typical three year examination, your penalties could be $45,000 ($15,000 x 3).

Because of this new high risk for large penalties that most return preparers cannot afford, I am at a total loss to understand why the ABA, AICPA, NAEA, and NATA professional associationsare not alerting you to this new high financial risk of these new high technical standards for all return preparers.

I deal with IRS examiners on a regular basis. They are aggressive. Do not expect that they are your friends. They are now motivated to go after these large penalties. If you are "negligent" because you misapply any substantiation requilrement, you should expect to be able to expect these penalties.

For the rest of this blog, I will assume that you can access tax research services. If you do not, you will not be return preparers very long unless you restrict your services to tax returns using the standard deduction. But if you work any tax return with itemized deductions, you will not be able to afford to stay in the return preparation business without access to a tax research service which allows you to cite the tax statute, read and apply the relevant regulations and the rest of the tax law.

I will use just one example for those of you who can research the relevant tax law: the business loss-hobby loss issue. I see this issue a lot. Lots of people have small Schedule C businesses that lose money. The IRS examiners will always go after those issues, and they only way to deal with it is to cite the applicable statute, regulations, and find some case law that will support your position. I would disclose those positions to get into the "reasonable basis" standard. Given the fact that there is a lot of litigation in this area and lots of losses of this issue in the Tax Court, I would not bet that you can win this issue with "substnatial authority" on a high frequency basis.
But even if your client does not win the 162 issue, you may prevail on the 6694 issue, depending on the quality of your technical research. But this also means that you have to put a lot of time into the technical research and writing. This is an example of they type of issue you should disclose to the IRS to take advantage of the much lower "reasonable basis" standard. Your client might lose the issue and be hit with the 20% negligence penalty, but you should be able to avoid the 6694 penalty by citing some of the relevant case law and the IRS regulations that deal with this issue.

I have recently uploade some recent case law to illustrate the type of issues that are litigated, and I will continue to do that, particularly in negligence cases which indicate sloppy work by the taxpayer or his tax return preparer.

If you have any comment to make on any of the above, you can reply to this blog without disclosing your identify. Quite a few of you have, instead, contacted me directly at ab@irstaxattorney.com or you can leave a message at 703 425-1400 ex 106 or ex 111.

Good luck in the upcoming final season. You will need it with the risk of $1,000 or $5,000 penalties (or the higher of 50% of your fee).

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Substantial authority case

Substantial authority was not offered under Sec. 6662(d)(2)(B) in Kenneth F. Reinert v. Commissioner, Filed December 23, 2008, T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-163. The taxpayer was liable for the substantial understatement component of the accuracy-related penalty. The individual had failed to provide substantial authority for excluding distributions from terminated life insurance and endowment policies from income.

This case is offered for your review because of the application of the "substantial authority" standard. Notice that Taxpayer's argument was not as strong as a case cited in the TC decision.
If this would have been a 2008 tax year case and prepared by a return preparer, the return preparer would be liable for the 6694 penalty.

The issue of whether it would be the $1,000 or $5,000 penalty situation is problematical. I can simply tell you, as a tax attorney dealing with IRS examination every day, they are aggressive and will take positions that are not justified. In this case, as an advocate, I would argue that the penalty in this case was not "reckless" and that the $5,000 should not be applied.

The larger point in this blog is to illustrate the fact that when a return preparer gets an issue like this with some technical complexity involving an interpretative analysis, that return preparer must have access to technical research services and have the technical ability to research the applicable tax law. If you cannot do that, then you have to bring in a tax expert to assist in the research and analysis and provide a written opinion that would support "substantial authority." You do not have to win the issue to provide substantial authority. And it is expensive to take cases to the Tax Court.

GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 1 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

Respondent determined a $5,368 income tax deficiency and a $1,074 accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for petitioner's 2005 tax year. The issues for our consideration are whether petitioner received gross income of $21,248.18 because of the termination of his life insurance policy and whether he is liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).
Background 2

At the time his petition was filed, petitioner resided in Arizona. On July 17, 1958, petitioner purchased a life insurance policy with the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Northwestern). The face amount of the policy was $10,000, and the $52.40 premium was payable every 4 months until July 17, 2035, or until petitioner's 65th birthday, at which time the policy would be fully paid. The policy had a cash surrender value which continued to increase.

As the cash value increased, petitioner borrowed against that value. As of 2005 the cash value of the policy was $29,933.78. At the same time, petitioner's outstanding loan balance against the cash value was $28,492.40, and the premiums he paid totaled $8,685.60. Over the years petitioner was not paying interest on the loans outstanding against the cash value of the insurance policy, and Northwestern treated the interest on the loans, under the terms of the policy, as additional loans against the cash value of the policy.

Under the policy, "If indebtedness equals or exceeds the cash value at any time, his policy shall terminate thirty-one days after a notice of termination has been mailed to the last known address of the Owner". The policy terms also provided that "Upon receipt at the Home Office of this policy and of a full and valid surrender of all claims, the insurance shall terminate and the Company will pay, as directed, the cash value less any indebtedness." At the end of December 2004, Northwestern sent petitioner a notice that the loan amount would soon exceed the cash value and that the policy would "terminate". The notice also advised that termination would trigger a taxable event and would result in reportable ordinary income. At that point petitioner owed $1,356.78 interest on his loan against the cash value of the policy and chose not to pay the interest, resulting in the loan balance exceeding the cash value of the policy. Petitioner advised Northwestern that if the policy "terminated" it was not a taxable event, whereas if the policy was "surrendered" it was a taxable event. Petitioner chose not to pay the interest, the loan amount exceeded the policy cash value, and the policy was terminated. Petitioner did not physically surrender the policy.

On February 21, 2005, petitioner received a form entitled "Surrender of Policy for Cash Value" along with a $1,269.57 check from Northwestern representing the residual cash value after considering petitioner's outstanding loan balance. Petitioner signed the form and endorsed and cashed the $1,269.57 check.

Because of the termination, petitioner lost the $10,000 of life insurance coverage. In January 2006 petitioner received a Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., for his 2005 tax year from Northwestern reflecting a gross distribution of $29,933.78 and a taxable amount of $21,248.18. The difference between the gross distribution and the taxable amount was $8,685.60, the total amount petitioner had paid in premiums on the policy.

Petitioner believes that Northwestern used the termination as leverage to force policy holders to pay interest on their outstanding loans borrowed against the cash surrender value of their policies. In other words, petitioner had $10,000 of fully paid life insurance in force and had borrowed all of the increases in cash surrender value to a point where the annual increases in policy value paid the interest on petitioner's outstanding policy loans. In that way, the insurance company did not collect interest on the loans, and, because petitioner was 65 years old (making his policy paid up), he made no more premium payments.
Discussion

Petitioner allowed his policy to terminate by not paying the interest on outstanding loans so that the loan balance exceeded the threshold for termination. Petitioner contends that a "termination" of a policy in this manner is not a taxable event because the pertinent statutes and regulations expressly apply to a "surrender" of a policy.

Section 72(e)(1)(A)(i), (5)(A), and (C) generally provides that an amount received in connection with a life insurance contract, which is not received as an annuity, constitutes gross income to the extent that the amount received exceeds the investment (basis) in the insurance contract. Section 72(e)(6)(A) generally provides that the "investment" in the contract is the aggregate amount of premiums.

In particular, and as pertinent to this case, section 1.72-11(d)(1), Income Tax Regs., provides

Any amount received upon the surrender, redemption, or maturity of a contract to which section 72 applies, which is not received as an annuity under the rules of paragraph (b) of § 1.72-2, shall be included in the gross income of the recipient to the extent that it, when added to amounts previously received under the contract and which were excludable from the gross income of the recipient under the law applicable at the time of receipt, exceeds the aggregate of premiums or other consideration paid. * * *

Petitioner argues that his insurance policy contract was "terminated" and that he did not literally "surrender" the policy. He relies on dictionary definitions of those terms; i.e., a "termination" in the setting of his case is an involuntary event, whereas a "surrender" is a voluntary act that he did not perform. Because the statute and the regulations use the term "surrender" and the term "termination" is absent, petitioner argues that Congress intended that amounts received in excess of investment on account of termination are not includable in his gross income. Petitioner has not provided any reference to legislative history in support of his contention. Petitioner does not question the amounts in dispute, only the legal question of whether the excess over investment is taxable.

We addressed a substantially similar set of circumstances in Atwood v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-61. In that case, as with petitioner, the insurance contracts provided for the termination or lapse of the policy when the total loan, including unpaid interest, exceeded the policy cash value or a similar threshold. Likewise in Atwood, the taxpayers failed to repay any portion of the loans or interest thereon. Their insurance policy contracts were terminated, and they were sent a small check reflecting the amount of the cash surrender value after considering the outstanding loans. In Atwood, as in petitioner's case, the termination resulted in the outstanding loan's being satisfied by the cash value of the policy. In Atwood the excess of the cash surrender value over the total premiums was held to be ordinary income.

The cash value of petitioner's insurance policy increased from its 1958 inception to the time of termination by $29,933.78. No amount of that increase in value was distributed to petitioner as a dividend or distribution and, as a result, petitioner paid no tax on the increase between 1958 and 2005. During that same period petitioner paid $8,685.60 in premiums on the life insurance policy and borrowed $28,664.21 (representing principal and interest). As of 2005 petitioner had attained the age of 65, no further premiums were due, and his life insurance policy was considered fully paid.

After petitioner was warned by Northwestern that his outstanding loans and interest were going to exceed the amount that would result in termination under the terms of the life insurance contract, he decided to allow the termination. In response, Northwestern sent petitioner a $1,269.57 check representing the difference between the $29,933.78 cash value of the policy and petitioner's $28,664.21 outstanding loan (including interest accretions) against the cash value. Northwestern sent petitioner a Form 1099-R reflecting the above information and advising petitioner that $21,248.18 was includable in his 2005 income. The $21,248.18 represents the $29,933.78 cash value less petitioner's investment/basis of $8,685.60 in premiums paid.

Although petitioner complains that he received only $1,269.57 and he did not "surrender" his policy, 3 when the policy terminated, petitioner was relieved of $28,664.21 in outstanding loans which he had taken out during the 47 years the policy was in force. So, in effect, he received $29,933.78, $1,269.57 in cash and $28,664.21 in payment or credit against his outstanding loan obligations. Petitioner could have further deferred reporting this income by paying interest on or reducing the principal of his loan to an amount that would not have caused termination. In addition, he could have maintained his paid-up life insurance coverage by maintaining the loan balance below the threshold amount.

Section 72(e) causes the increases in value of insurance contracts to be taxable when the policy ends prior to the payment of an annuity. This situation is one that permits the deferral of the reporting of income until a triggering event occurs. We see no distinction between the termination and surrender of an insurance policy for this purpose. The physical act of submitting the policy is of no import in this setting. The policy has been terminated and no contractual relationship continued between petitioner and Northwestern. In reality, petitioner was allowed to defer the increases in value of his policy for many years, a fact that he fails to focus upon. We accordingly hold that petitioner had $21,248.18 of income as determined by respondent.

Respondent also determined that petitioner was liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) on the underpayment of tax for his 2005 tax year. Section 6662(a) imposes a 20-percent penalty on the portion of an underpayment of tax attributable to, among other things, a substantial understatement of income tax, which is defined in section 6662(d)(1)(A) as an understatement that exceeds the greater of 10 percent of the tax required to be shown or $5,000. Petitioner reported $2,853 of tax and accordingly his tax was understated in the amount of $5,368, an amount that is more than 10 percent of the tax required and also more than $5,000.

Petitioner would therefore be subject to the penalty unless he can show that any part of the understatement is attributable to an item that was adequately disclosed and has a reasonable basis, or for which there was substantial authority for its tax treatment. Sec. 6662(d)(2)(B).

Petitioner, although issued a Form 1099-R by Northwestern indicating taxable distributions upon termination of his insurance policy, made no disclosure on his income tax return of the Form 1099-R from Northwestern or explanation as to why the amounts shown thereon were not reported on his 2005 return. See sec. 6662(d)(2)(B)(ii)(I). Petitioner has argued that a termination was not contemplated but has not shown any authority, substantial or otherwise, for excluding these amounts from income.

We accordingly hold that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty, as determined by respondent.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered for respondent.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2005, the taxable year in issue.2 The parties' stipulation of facts and exhibits is incorporated by this reference.3 We note that although petitioner may not have physically surrendered his policy, he did sign a form entitled "Surrender of Policy for Cash Value" in order to negotiate the $1,269.57 check from Northwestern.

--------------------------------------

Continue to forward requests for analysis to ab@irstaxattorney.com

Tax return preparers should have pre-filing conferences with their return preparation clients now to see if there are tax issues that need to be addressed before the start of the 2008 tax year filing season. You will not have the time for technical research and analysis during the crush of the tax filing season.

Labels:

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Kinney case - tax return preparer issues

In the Kinney tax court case, decided December 22, 2008 and attached below, a married couple did not engage in direct marketing activity for profit and, therefore, could only deduct substantiated expenses to the extent of their income from the activity. The taxpayers did not conduct the activity in a businesslike manner since they failed to maintain adequate and complete records that would allow them to evaluate the activity's profitability and did not make any changes in order to generate a profit. They also did not have previous direct marketing experience and conducted the activity while being employed on a full-time basis. Moreover, the taxpayers had never realized a net profit from the activity and did nothing to reduce costs or terminate the activity. The existence of personal pleasure elements in their activity further indicated the absence of a profit objective.


In addition, the couple was not entitled to deduct unreimbursed employee expenses erroneously claimed on their Schedules C for two tax years. The taxpayers failed to meet the strict substantiation requirements of Code Sec. 274 (d) for the car and truck expenses because the records did not indicate the miles driven for employment and had meager explanations of trip destinations. The taxpayers also could not substantiate the cell phone expenses since no additional phone charges related to employment were established. Furthermore, a deduction for work clothes was disallowed for lack of substantiation since the purchased items could not be clearly identified from the receipts and the descriptions were insufficient to establish that the purchased clothes were not suitable for general use. Other types of unreimbursed employee expenses were sustained but disallowed since the amounts were less than the Code Sec. 67(a) 2-percent limitation.

The taxpayers were further denied deductions for expenses related to a prospective welding business. Because the husband never started the business, all expenses were incurred only in preparation of the business and were not deductible under Code Sec. 162. A portion of a claimed home mortgage interest deduction was also denied for lack of substantiation.


Finally, the taxpayers were liable for the Code Sec. 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for underpayment of tax due to negligence. The taxpayers did not maintain adequate records, failed to properly substantiate many deductions and did not establish that they acted with reasonable cause and in good faith.


If the fact in Kinney applied to a 2008 tax year and if the tax return for Kinney was preparer by a tax return preparer, that preparer would be liable for the 6694(a) or (B) penalties. I believe that the 183 issue could be defended with "substantial authority" and negat the 6694(a penalty. The other errors were the result of negligence and would generate "reckless" 6694(b penalties if prepared by a tax return preparer in 2008. Read the case and decide for yourself. It is clear to me that all negligence by a tax return preparer will be subject to the $5,000 penalty. "Negligence" was the standard of conduct prior to 1989 not in 2008. And the negligence in the Kinney case would have resulted in 6694 penalties prior to 1989.


IMPORTANT – IRS Notice 2008-5, December 18, 2008, provides, as follows:

Until further guidance is issued, solely for purposes of section 6694(a) , "substantial authority" has the same meaning as in § 1.6662-4(d)(2) (or any successor provision) of the accuracy-related penalty regulations. The analysis prescribed by § 1.6662-4(d)(3)(i) through (ii) (or any successor provisions) applies for purposes of determining whether substantial authority is present.

The authorities considered in determining whether there is substantial authority for a position are those authorities described in § 1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) (or any successor provision).There is substantial authority for a position for purposes of section 6694 if the taxpayer is the subject of a "written determination" as provided in § 1.6662-4(d)(3)(iv)(A) .

In the case of a tax return preparer, however, a written determination with a misstatement or omission of material fact is substantial authority unless the tax return preparer knew or should have known of the misstatement or omission of material fact when the return or claim for refund was filed.

The applicability of court cases to the taxpayer's situation by reason of the taxpayer's residence in a particular jurisdiction is not taken into account in determining whether there is substantial authority for a position in accordance with § 1.6662-4(d)(3)(iv)(B) . Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, there is substantial authority for a position if the position is supported by controlling precedent of a United States Court of Appeals to which the taxpayer has a right of appeal with respect to the position. Finally, there is substantial authority for a position only if there is substantial authority on the date the return or claim for refund is deemed prepared, as prescribed by § 1.6694-1(a)(2) , or there was substantial authority on the last day of the taxable year to which the return relates.Conclusions reached in treatises, legal periodicals, legal opinions, or opinions rendered by tax professionals (including tax return preparers) are not authority. The authorities underlying such expressions of opinion, if applicable to the facts of a particular case, however, may give rise to substantial authority for the position.

Solely for purposes of section 6694(a) , a tax return preparer nevertheless will be considered to have met the standard in section 6694(a)(2)(A) if the tax return preparer relies in good faith and without verification on the advice of another advisor, another tax return preparer, or other party. Factors used in evaluating a tax return preparer's good faith reliance on the advice of another are found in § 1.6694-2(e)(5) .

With those standards in mind, read the Kinney case:



Russell D. Kinney and Heather R. Kinney v. Commissioner.Dkt. No. 14816-06 , TC Memo. 2008-287, December 22, 2008.-

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

After concessions 2 the issues for decision are:

(1) Whether during 2003 and 2004 petitioners' direct marketing activity constituted an activity not engaged in for profit;

(2) whether petitioners are entitled to deductions claimed on their Schedules C, Profit or Loss From Business, for expenses not related to the direct marketing activity for 2003 and 2004;

(2) whether petitioners are entitled to deduct additional home mortgage interest of $336 for 2003;

(3) whether petitioners have substantiated unreimbursed employee expenses in excess of expenses conceded by respondent for 2003;

(4) whether petitioners are liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties.
FINDINGS OF FACT

The parties have stipulated some of the facts, which we incorporate in our findings by this reference. Petitioners resided in Oklahoma when their petition was filed. Petitioners were married and filed joint Federal income tax returns for the years at issue, but they were separated at the time of trial.

During the years at issue petitioners received wage and other income from several sources. Heather R. Kinney (Mrs. Kinney) was employed by Women's Health Group, Inc., earning $28,329 and $20,492 for 2003 and 2004, respectively. Russell D. Kinney (Mr. Kinney) was a member of a local union and was employed as a welder by K & L Smith Mechanical, Inc. (K & L Smith), earning $37,454 and $49,155 in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Petitioners also reported "gaming" income of $7,300 and $38,780 for 2003 and 2004, respectively.
I. Petitioners' Direct Marketing and Prospective Welding Businesses
A. Direct Marketing Activity

In 2001 petitioners became involved with Melaleuca, Inc. (Melaleuca), a direct marketing company selling health, wellness, and household products through individuals (distributors). Melaleuca is structured as an upline-downline system in which distributors earn commissions when they recruit new distributors (downlines) and when their downlines recruit more distributors. Distributors also receive commissions on purchases of products by their downlines. Melaleuca's distributors qualify for discounts on Melaleuca products. Petitioners were recruited as downlines by another distributor (upline). Before their involvement with Melaleuca petitioners had no experience in running a business or conducting direct marketing activities.

Initially petitioners concentrated on recruiting downlines, but because of the $300 initiation fee that prospective downlines had to pay, petitioners were not able to attract anyone. Mrs. Kinney sold some products to neighbors, friends, and coworkers. After petitioners realized they could not recruit downlines, they considered quitting the Melaleuca activity but decided to continue selling products because of their inventory. In addition, they remained hopeful that they would eventually sign up downlines. Petitioners had been told by their upline that if their potential downlines ordered Melaleuca products at petitioners' volume, petitioners would recoup their startup costs in approximately 1 year. However, petitioners did not calculate how many downlines they would have to recruit to make their marketing activity profitable. Both petitioners continued their full-time jobs.

Petitioners owned a mobile home 3 in a trailer park, which after they ceased using it as a residence, they converted for use exclusively as an office for their Melaleuca activity, including storing inventory. Although they purchased a computer and printer for their Melaleuca activity, petitioners did not have Internet service at the mobile home, and they placed online orders with Melaleuca on their computer at home.

When petitioners became Melaleuca distributors, they consulted Susan Boyer (Ms. Boyer) regarding business records they had to maintain. Although petitioners obtained computer software from Ms. Boyer, they recorded all items on paper and retained receipts. Petitioners did not maintain a separate bank account for the Melaleuca activity. Petitioners never generated a profit from the Melaleuca activity. In 2003 and 2004 petitioners reported gross sales of $412 and $595, respectively.

B. Preparations To Start Welding Business

In the latter part of 2003 Mr. Kinney prepared to start a welding business because he anticipated receiving orders for pipe fabrication from an acquaintance. In 2004 Mr. Kinney constructed gates, built a pole building, and purchased a welding machine and other supplies. However, for reasons beyond Mr. Kinney's control, he did not actually begin to operate a business.


II. Petitioners' Federal Income Tax Returns


Petitioners timely filed their 2003 and 2004 Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (2003 and 2004 returns). Ms. Boyer prepared the returns. Schedule C attached to the 2003 return (2003 Schedule C) described petitioners' Melaleuca activity as "Marketing". Besides the Melaleuca expenses, on the 2003 Schedule C petitioners also claimed mileage for vehicles and expenses for one cellular phone that pertained to Mr. Kinney's employment at K & L Smith.

Petitioners' Schedule C attached to the 2004 return (2004 Schedule C) described petitioners' business activity as "Marketing Welding". Marketing referred to the Melaleuca activity, and welding referred to Mr. Kinney's prospective welding business. Gross income of $595 reported on the 2004 Schedule C represented petitioners' gross sales of Melaleuca products. In addition to claiming deductions for the Melaleuca activity and for the prospective welding business, on the 2004 Schedule C petitioners also claimed deductions for (1) mileage for vehicles and expenses of one cellular phone that pertained to Mr. Kinney's employment at K & L Smith and (2) work clothes expenses for both petitioners' jobs. The 2004 Schedule C did not separately identify the expenses related to the Melaleuca activity, the prospective welding business, and petitioners' employment.

Petitioners deducted the following Schedule C expenses on their 2003 and 2004 returns:
Sch. C expense category 2003 2004 Car and truck $8,795 $9,217 Commissions and fees 1,542 -0- Depreciation 5,591 -0- Legal and professional services 418 649 Office expense 313 -0- Rent or lease Vehicles, machinery and equipment -0- 273 Other business property 3,246 7,500 Repairs and maintenance 1,225 676 Supplies 802 2,813 Taxes and licenses -0- 107 Travel 341 -0- Meals and entertainment 646 -0- Other Toll -0- 85 Meetings 108 -0- Phones 2,911 1,180 Work clothes -0- 484 Tools -0- 400 Total 25,938 23,384

On the 2003 return petitioners itemized their deductions, attaching to the return Schedule A, Itemized Deductions (2003 Schedule A). On the 2003 Schedule A petitioners reported home mortgage interest of $9,587 and unreimbursed employee expenses of $2,186. 4 After applying the section 67(a) limitation, petitioners deducted $1,158 of unreimbursed employee expenses. Petitioners attached to their return a Form 2106-EZ, Unreimbursed Employee Business Expenses, but the form did not show how the amount was calculated.


III. Notice of Deficiency


In the notice of deficiency respondent disallowed all of petitioners' 2003 and 2004 Schedule C deductions on the following grounds: "no amount in excess of zero has been adequately substantiated as to amount of deductibility. In addition, it has not been established that the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section 274 have been met." For 2003 respondent also disallowed $1,803 of petitioners' itemized deductions because of lack of substantiation. 5 This amount consisted of home mortgage interest expense of $645 and unreimbursed employee expenses of $1,158. Respondent also determined that petitioners were liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) of $832 and $1,197 for 2003 and 2004, respectively.


OPINION

The Commissioner's determinations are presumed correct, and the taxpayer ordinarily bears the burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Moreover, deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to any deduction claimed. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). Petitioners do not contend that section 7491(a) shifts the burden of proof to respondent, and petitioners have not established that they satisfy the section 7491(a)(2) requirements.


I. Schedule C Deductions Related to the Melaleuca Activity


A. In General

Respondent argues that petitioners may not deduct the Schedule C expenses attributable to the Melaleuca activity because the Melaleuca activity did not constitute a trade or business and was not engaged in for profit. 6 Section 162(a) allows a taxpayer to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses of carrying on the taxpayer's trade or business. To be engaged in a trade or business with respect to which deductions are allowable under section 162, "the taxpayer must be involved in the activity with continuity and regularity", and "the taxpayer's primary purpose for engaging in the activity must be for income or profit." Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35 (1987).

Section 183(a) restricts taxpayers from deducting losses for an activity that is not engaged in for profit. Section 183(c) defines "activity not engaged in for profit" as "any activity other than one with respect to which deductions are allowable for the taxable year under section 162 or under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 212."

Absent a stipulation to the contrary, see sec. 7482(b)(2), this case is appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, see sec. 7482(b)(1), which has applied the dominant or primary objective standard to test whether an alleged business activity is conducted for profit, Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 28 F.3d 1024, 1027 (10th Cir. 1994), affg. Krause v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132 (1992); Cannon v. Commissioner, 949 F.2d 345, 350 (10th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-148; 7 Oswandel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-183. Under the standard applied by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the dominant or primary objective of petitioners' Melaleuca activity must be to earn a profit. Whether an activity was engaged in for profit is a factual determination to be resolved on the basis of all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Hildebrand v. Commissioner, supra at 1027.

Factors enumerated in regulations under section 183 generally are utilized in determining whether the requisite profit objectives are present under section 162. See Cannon v. Commissioner, supra at 348; Krause v. Commissioner, supra at 168. Section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., sets forth a nonexclusive list of factors to be considered in determining whether a taxpayer has the requisite profit objective. The factors are: (1) The manner in which the taxpayer carries on the activity; (2) the expertise of the taxpayer or his advisers; (3) the time and effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the activity; (4) the expectation that assets used in the activity may appreciate in value; (5) the success of the taxpayer in carrying on other similar or dissimilar activities; (6) the taxpayer's history of income or loss with respect to the activity; (7) the amount of occasional profits, if any, which are earned; (8) the financial status of the taxpayer; and (9) elements of personal pleasure or recreation. No single factor is determinative, and not all factors are applicable in every case. See Abramson v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 360, 371 (1986).

B. Applying the Factors

We analyze the most pertinent of the factors listed in the regulation to illustrate why we conclude that petitioners' Melaleuca activity was not an activity engaged in for profit.

1. The Manner in Which Petitioners Conducted the Activity

In deciding whether a taxpayer has conducted an activity in a businesslike manner we consider: (1) Whether complete and accurate books and records were maintained; (2) whether the activity was conducted in a manner substantially similar to other activities of the same nature that were profitable; and (3) whether changes in operating methods, adoption of new techniques, or abandonment of unprofitable methods were done in a manner consistent with an intent to improve profitability. See Engdahl v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 659, 666-668 (1979); sec. 1.183-2(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

When petitioners signed up as downlines, they consulted Ms. Boyer regarding necessary recordkeeping and obtained from her a computer program and a book for recording "everything". Mr. Kinney testified that petitioners did not use the software but instead contemporaneously recorded all items in the book 8 and retained receipts. We are not convinced that petitioners' recordkeeping represented anything other than an effort to substantiate expenses claimed on their return. For a taxpayer's books and records to indicate a profit motive, the taxpayer should use the books and records "as analytic or diagnostic tools in an effort to achieve profitability", Nissley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-178, for example, to enable a taxpayer to cut expenses, increase profits, and evaluate the overall performance of the operation, see Golanty v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 411, 430 (1979), affd. without published opinion 647 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1981). Petitioners could not meaningfully analyze profitability and make informed decisions regarding their Melaleuca activity on the basis of the collection of receipts and invoices they retained. Although they believed they would recoup their startup costs if they could recruit some downline distributors, they did not estimate what sales level they had to maintain to break even. Although Mrs. Kinney prepared spreadsheets to assist the tax return preparation process, petitioners did not use the spreadsheets to analyze profitability of the business or to identify cost-cutting measures.

Petitioners failed to maintain certain records that individuals pursuing a similar activity with a profit objective are expected to maintain. See Nissley v. Commissioner, supra. In addition, the records petitioners did maintain were neither complete nor accurate. For example, for 2004 petitioners reported $595 in gross sales but retained records reflecting only $393 in gross sales.

Petitioners also did not prove that they made changes to their business activity in order to generate a profit. For example, petitioners offered no evidence that they considered switching companies or that they consulted successful direct marketers about how to improve sales and reduce expenses. Despite their losses, petitioners continued to buy products without increasing their sales volume or changing their method of operation. We conclude that petitioners did not conduct their Melaleuca activity in a businesslike manner.

2. The Expertise of Petitioners or Their Advisers

Preparation for an activity by an extensive study of its accepted business, economic, and scientific practices, or consultation with those who are experts therein, may indicate a profit objective. Engdahl v. Commissioner, supra at 668; sec. 1.183-2(b)(2), Income Tax Regs. Efforts to gain experience and a willingness to follow expert advice may indicate a profit motive. See, e.g., Dworshak v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-249.

Before signing up as downlines, petitioners never engaged in any direct marketing activity or any other type of sales business. Petitioners relied only on advice from another Melaleuca distributor. Under a direct marketing system like Melaleuca an upline is an interested party rendering advice to promote his own interest. See Ogden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-397 (direct marketers "may be biased when discussing * * * [their direct marketing activity] because they have a natural desire to advance the organization and/or obtain income from a downliner."), affd. 244 F.3d 970 (5th Cir. 2001). Petitioners never sought advice from an independent party. On balance we conclude that petitioners did not have, and did not acquire from others, a sufficient grounding in direct marketing.

3. Petitioners' Time and Effort Devoted to the Activity

The fact that a taxpayer devotes personal time and effort to carry on an activity may indicate an intention to derive a profit, particularly where there are no substantial personal or recreational elements associated with the activity. Sec. 1.183-2(b)(3), Income Tax Regs.

Mr. Kinney's testimony about the amount of time petitioners devoted to the Melaleuca activity was confusing and unclear. Mr. Kinney testified that Mrs. Kinney spent a couple of hours weekly trying to sell Melaleuca products and that he spent approximately 1 hour daily filling out order sheets. However, Mr. Kinney testified he placed orders for merchandise once a month. We cannot reconcile Mr. Kinney's testimony about the amount of time he and his wife spent on the activity 9 with the small amount of sales reported, nor do we understand what he did for an hour a day. Consequently we disregard Mr. Kinney's testimony on this point. See Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).

Petitioners maintained full-time jobs during the years at issue, and in 2004 Mr. Kinney also devoted time and effort to his prospective welding business. In addition, Mrs. Kinney started gambling at some point and spent far more time gambling during the years at issue than selling Melaleuca products or recruiting downlines. Petitioners' other activities left little time for the Melaleuca activity.

4. Petitioners' History of Income or Loss From the Activity

A taxpayer's history of income or loss with respect to an activity may indicate the presence or absence of a profit objective. See Golanty v. Commissioner, supra at 426; sec. 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs. However, "a series of startup losses or losses sustained because of unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the taxpayer may not indicate a lack of profit motive." Kahla v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-127 (citing Engdahl v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 669, and section 1.183-2(b)(6), Income Tax Regs.), affd. without published opinion 273 F.3d 1096 (5th Cir. 2001).

Petitioners' activity never generated a net profit. Their Melaleuca activity mostly provided them discounts on products for personal use and deductions for personal expenses, such as expenses related to their car, cellular phone, Internet service, and mobile home. Although the activity was in its early years, petitioners recognized that they needed to build a downline organization to maintain a profit, yet they did nothing to reduce costs or terminate the activity when they were unsuccessful at recruiting downline distributors. We fail to see how petitioners could recoup their cumulative losses under these circumstances. We conclude petitioners' substantial losses from the activity indicate that the Melaleuca activity was not engaged in for profit.

5. Elements of Personal Pleasure or Recreation

The existence of personal pleasure or recreation relating to the activity may indicate the absence of a profit objective. See sec. 1.183-2(b)(9), Income Tax Regs. However, an activity is not treated as an activity not engaged in for profit merely because the activity may have recreational or pleasurable elements. Id. Petitioners' Melaleuca activity was so intertwined with social and recreational elements that it is difficult to discern what part, if any, of the activity was business and what part was pleasure. For example, on a January 2003 trip to a cheerleading convention 10 petitioners invited their acquaintances to dinner during which they talked about cheerleading and Melaleuca products. Petitioners treated the cost of the dinner as a deductible expense. During another personal trip to New Mexico, Texas, and Las Vegas, Nevada, petitioners delivered products to and discussed Melaleuca with spouses of persons whom Mr. Kinney had met through his employment. Petitioners deducted the cost of meals and some lodging expenses. We conclude that elements of personal pleasure and recreation indicate that petitioners did not engage in the Melaleuca activity with a primary objective of realizing a profit.

6. Conclusion

The remaining factors either do not apply or do not favor petitioners' position. After considering the factors listed in section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs., and the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that petitioners did not engage in the Melaleuca activity with the primary objective of realizing a profit. Accordingly, we hold that petitioners' Melaleuca activity during the years in issue was not an activity engaged in for profit within the meaning of sections 162 and 183.


II. Deductibility of 2003 and 2004 Schedule C Expenses


A. 2003 Schedule C Expenses

1. Expenses Related to the Melaleuca Activity

Because we have concluded that petitioners did not engage in the Melaleuca activity for profit, we now turn our analysis to what deductions, if any, petitioners may claim under section 183(b)(1) and (2). Section 183(b)(1) permits deductions which are otherwise allowable without regard to whether the activity is engaged in for profit, such as State and local taxes and interest. Section 183(b)(2) allows deductions that would be allowable if the activity were engaged in for profit but only to the extent of gross income received from the activity, reduced by deductions under section 183(b)(1).

For 2003 petitioners provided records showing they paid Tulsa County tax of $50, an expense that appears to be deductible under section 164(a) and allowable under section 183(b)(1). Petitioners also paid rent for the lot for the mobile home totaling $1,320. 11 We are satisfied, on the basis of Mr. Kinney's testimony, that petitioners used the mobile home exclusively for the Melaleuca activity. We find that petitioners may deduct the county tax in full and may deduct the lot rent expenses up to $362, the excess of the $412 gross profit from the Melaleuca activity over the county tax. Given the section 183(b)(2) limitation, we do not need to address whether petitioners substantiated other deductions related to the Melaleuca activity on their 2003 Schedule C.

2. Expenses Related to Mr. Kinney's Employment Erroneously Claimed on the 2003 Schedule C

The 2003 Schedule C included mileage and cellular phone expenses related to Mr. Kinney's employment at K & L Smith. Although those deductions should have been claimed on petitioners' 2003 Schedule A as miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to the 2-percent adjusted gross income limitation under section 67(a), we consider whether petitioners are entitled to these deductions.

A taxpayer may deduct unreimbursed employee expenses as an ordinary and necessary business expense under section 162. Lucas v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1, 6 (1982). An employee cannot deduct such expenses to the extent that the employee is entitled to reimbursement from his or her employer for expenditures related to his or her status as an employee. Id. at 7. Along with other miscellaneous itemized deductions, unreimbursed employee expenses are subject to the 2-percent limitation of section 67(a). We accept as credible Mr. Kinney's testimony that K & L Smith did not reimburse him for mileage and cellular phone expenses.

(a) Car and Truck Expenses

Petitioners claimed $8,795 in car and truck expenses on the 2003 Schedule C, which included van and truck expenses for the Melaleuca activity and truck expenses for Mr. Kinney's employment. Passenger automobiles and any other property used as a means of transportation are listed property, see sec. 280F(d)(4)(A)(i) and (ii), and these expenses are subject to the provisions of section 274(d). Section 274(d) requires taxpayers to provide adequate records or sufficient other evidence establishing the amount, time, place, and business purpose of the expense to corroborate the taxpayer's statements. Mr. Kinney claimed that he maintained a contemporaneous log, but he did not introduce it into evidence. To substantiate mileage expenses, petitioners presented calendars that used an alphabetical code for indicating business or personal use of their vehicles. Although petitioners' code system separates business and personal mileage, it does not separate how many miles were driven for the Melaleuca activity and for Mr. Kinney's employment. The calendars have meager explanations about the purpose of a few trips; only a few entries describe trip destinations. We conclude the calendars do not satisfy the strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d), and we sustain respondent's determination disallowing car and truck expenses.

(b) Cellular Phone Expenses

On the 2003 Schedule C petitioners claimed cellular phone expenses under the category "other expenses". Petitioners introduced into evidence cellular phone bills that establish that they subscribed to a family plan for two cellular phones, one for Mr. Kinney and one for Mrs. Kinney. Mr. Kinney did not use any other cellular phone. Cellular phones are listed property, see sec. 280F(d)(4)(A)(v), and section 274(d) provides that no deduction shall be allowed unless the taxpayer substantiates, inter alia, the business use of the property. Petitioners did not offer a detailed breakdown of personal and business use of Mr. Kinney's cellular phone. Petitioners failed to establish the additional charges, if any, they incurred because of Mr. Kinney's employment. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the cellular phone expense deduction.

B. The 2004 Schedule C Expenses

1. Expenses Related to the Melaleuca Activity

For 2004 petitioners did not claim any deductions that are allowable under section 183(b)(1). As discussed above, section 183(b)(2) permits petitioners to offset expenses against gross income from the Melaleuca activity. Petitioners substantiated the following: (1) $330 rent for the mobile home lot for January through March 2004 and (2) $238 of utilities attributable to the mobile home office. These substantiated expenses total $568, leaving a small discrepancy between income from the activity and substantiated expenses.

Petitioners claimed the following deductions related to the Melaleuca activity.

(a) Car and truck expenses ($9,217)

As discussed above, petitioners' mileage records do not satisfy the substantiation requirements of section 274(d). In addition, the records do not separate miles driven for the Melaleuca activity and miles driven for Mr. Kinney's employment. Accordingly, none of the car and truck expenses may be deducted as an expense of the Melaleuca activity.

(b) Legal and Professional Services ($649)

Petitioners offered no evidence to substantiate that they paid for legal and professional services for 2004.

(c) Supplies ($2,813)

Petitioners did not substantiate what items they purchased and deducted as supplies or their business purpose.

(d) Tolls deducted as "Other expenses" ($85)

Although tolls related to Mr. Kinney's employment may qualify as a deductible unreimbursed employee expense, petitioners did not prove how to allocate the tolls expense between driving for the Melaleuca activity and driving for Mr. Kinney's employment. Accordingly, none of the tolls may be deducted as an expense of the Melaleuca activity.

On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that petitioners have not substantiated Melaleuca-related expenses in excess of $568.

2. Unreimbursed Employee Expenses Erroneously Claimed on the 2004 Schedule C

On the 2004 Schedule C petitioners claimed $484 of work clothes expenses. Mr. Kinney testified that for his employment he wore heavy denim and khaki shirts, steel-toed boots, safety glasses, and welding hats, and Mrs. Kinney wore scrubs to work. Clothing is a deductible expense only if it is required for the taxpayer's employment, unsuitable for general wear, and not worn for personal use. See Hynes v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1266, 1290 (1980); Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767 (1958). Such costs are not deductible even if a taxpayer establishes that he would not have purchased the items but for the employment. Hynes v. Commissioner, supra at 1290.

The receipts introduced into evidence to substantiate Mr. Kinney's work clothes expenses contain unclear abbreviated descriptions that do not allow us to determine what items were purchased. With respect to Mrs. Kinney's work clothes, petitioners have not established that Mrs. Kinney did not receive any reimbursement for her work clothes. The receipts presented to substantiate Mrs. Kinney's work clothes expenses describe the items purchased as "Comfort Wash Elastic-waist Pants", "Comfort Wash Checked Fashion Warm-up" and "Knit Polo Shirt by Jerzees". Such descriptions are insufficient to establish that the clothes purchased are not suitable for general wear. Petitioners did not argue any special circumstances that prevented the use of the clothes outside of work. Accordingly, we disallow a deduction for work clothes for lack of substantiation.

Besides the work clothes expenses, the 2004 Schedule C also includes mileage and cellular phone expenses related to Mr. Kinney's employment at K & L Smith. For the same reasons that we disallowed these deductions for 2003, we disallow car and truck and cellular phone deductions for 2004.

3. Expenses Related to the Prospective Welding Business

The record establishes that the following deductions claimed on the 2004 Schedule C related to Mr. Kinney's prospective welding business:
Item on the 2004 Schedule C Amount Rent or lease Vehicles, machinery and equipment $273 Other business property 7,500 Repairs and maintenance 676 Tools 400 Total 8,849

As discussed above, section 162 allows a taxpayer to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses of carrying on the taxpayer's trade or business. See sec. 162(a); sec. 1.183-2(a), Income Tax Regs. For the expense to be deductible under section 162, however, the taxpayer's business operations must actually have commenced. See Jackson v. Commissioner, 864 F.2d 1521, 1525-1526 (10th Cir. 1989), affg. 86 T.C. 492 (1986). The taxpayer has not "'engaged in carrying on any trade or business' within the intendment of section 162(a) until such time as the business has begun to function as a going concern and performed those activities for which it was organized." Richmond Television Corp. v. United States, 345 F.2d 901, 907 (4th Cir.), vacated and remanded on other grounds 382 U.S. 68 (1965). Mr. Kinney never started operating the welding business; rather, he undertook preparatory steps, such as constructing a building and locating a key client. 12 Accordingly, the prospective welding business expenses are not deductible under section 162(a).


III. 2003 Itemized Deductions


A. Home Mortgage Interest Deduction

Respondent disallowed the home mortgage interest deduction of $336 for lack of substantiation. Section 163(h)(2)(D) allows a deduction for interest paid on a qualified residence. Section 163(h)(4)(A)(i) further defines "qualified residence" as either the taxpayer's principal residence or another residence selected by the taxpayer and used as a residence. Taxpayers must be able to substantiate the amount claimed. See sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.

Petitioners provided no documentation or other evidence to substantiate that they are entitled to a home mortgage interest deduction in excess of that allowed by respondent. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's disallowance of the home mortgage interest deduction in excess of the $309 allowed.

B. Unreimbursed Employee Expenses 13

In the notice of deficiency respondent disallowed $1,158 of unreimbursed employee expenses. Respondent concedes that petitioners substantiated the union dues and other union assessment amounts as well as welding licenses expenses but maintains that the conceded amounts are projected to be less than the 2-percent limitation of section 67(a). Petitioner failed to substantiate amounts in excess of those conceded by respondent. Accordingly, we disallow a deduction for unreimbursed employee expenses in excess of deductions conceded by respondent.


IV. Other Matters


The Court's holding on the above adjustments, in turn, determines to what extent petitioners are entitled to the child tax credit for 2004 and whether petitioners are liable for self-employment tax. These adjustments will be addressed in a Rule 155 computation.


V. Accuracy-Related Penalty Under Section 6662


Respondent contends that petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty on the grounds of (1) negligence or disregard of rules or regulations under section 6662(a) and (b)(1) for 2003 and (2) negligence or disregard of rules or regulations and substantial understatement of tax under section 6662(a) and (b)(1) and (2) for 2004.

Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) authorizes the Commissioner to impose a 20-percent penalty on the portion of an underpayment of income tax attributable to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations. Negligence is defined as any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the internal revenue laws. Sec. 6662(c); sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. Negligence is strongly indicated where a taxpayer fails to make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the correctness of a deduction, credit, or exclusion on a return which would seem to a reasonable and prudent person to be "'too good to be true'" under the circumstances. Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1)(ii), Income Tax Regs.

Section 6662(a) and (b)(2) also authorizes the Commissioner to impose a 20-percent penalty if there is a substantial understatement of income tax. An understatement is substantial if the amount of the understatement for the taxable year exceeds the greater of 10 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000. Sec. 6662(d)(1)(A).

Respondent bears the initial burden of production with respect to petitioner's liability for the section 6662(a) penalty and must produce sufficient evidence indicating that it is appropriate to impose the penalty. See sec. 7491(c). Respondent has satisfied his burden with proof that in 2004 the amount of understatement exceeds the greater of $5,000 or 10 percent of the tax required to be shown on the return. Respondent also met his burden of production with respect to negligence by establishing that petitioners did not maintain required records or substantiate deductions as required by the Code.

Because respondent has met his burden of production, petitioners must come forward with sufficient evidence to persuade the Court that respondent's determination is incorrect. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001). Petitioners did not do so. Petitioners offered no credible evidence to establish that they should not be liable for the section 6662 penalty. They failed to properly substantiate their home mortgage interest deduction and work clothes expenses and improperly claimed Schedule C deductions.

The accuracy-related penalty is not imposed with respect to any portion of the underpayment if the taxpayer can establish that he acted with reasonable cause and in good faith. Sec. 6664(c)(1). Petitioners bear the burden of producing evidence to demonstrate reasonable cause under section 6664(c)(1). We determine reasonable cause and good faith on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all pertinent facts and circumstances. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. The most important factor is the extent of the taxpayer's effort to assess his proper tax liability. Id. The record does not establish that petitioners had reasonable cause and acted in good faith. 14 Therefore, we sustain respondent's determination to impose the 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty for 2003 and 2004.

We have considered all of the arguments raised by either party, and to the extent not discussed, we find them to be irrelevant or without merit.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.2 Respondent concedes that petitioners substantiated the union dues and welding license expenses claimed on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, for 2003 as unreimbursed employee expenses, but the parties dispute the remaining unreimbursed employee expenses. Respondent also concedes that petitioners are entitled to a $309 home mortgage interest deduction for 2003, but the parties dispute the remaining home mortgage deduction.3 Mr. Kinney purchased the mobile home in 1986, and petitioners used it as their primary residence until 2003.4 For 2004 petitioners reported unreimbursed employee expenses totaling $2,234 but did not claim them because such expenses did not exceed the 2-percent limitation under sec. 67(a).5 Respondent also made computational adjustments to self-employment tax and the sec. 24(a) child tax credit for 2004.6 In the notice of deficiency respondent disallowed Schedule C deductions for lack of substantiation. In the pretrial memorandum and at trial respondent also contended that petitioners' Melaleuca activity did not constitute a trade or business engaged in for profit within the meaning of secs. 162 and 183. Petitioners do not object on procedural grounds to respondent's argument under sec. 183.7 In both Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 28 F.3d 1024, 1027 (10th Cir. 1994), affg. Krause v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132 (1992), and Cannon v. Commissioner, 949 F.2d 345, 350 (10th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-148, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit applied the dominant or primary objective test at the partnership level in analyzing whether a partnership was engaged in an activity for profit under sec. 183.8 Petitioners did not give the book to the IRS during the audit and did not introduce the book into evidence.9 Copies of customer receipts indicate that in 2003 and 2004 petitioners made less than two sales per month, and the average sale was $21. We find it hard to believe that this sales volume required Mr. Kinney to spend 1 hour daily filling out order sheets.10 During the years at issue petitioners' daughter was a cheerleader.11 The record does not establish under which category of the 2003 Schedule C petitioners claimed the lot rent expense and the county tax.12 Petitioners did not argue that the prospective welding business expenses are startup expenditures eligible for amortization under sec. 195. Even if they had, sec. 195(b)(1) requires a taxpayer to elect to treat startup expenditures as deferred expenses that may be amortized over a period of not less than 60 months, and the amortizaton period cannot begin any earlier than the month in which the active trade or business begins.13 We remind the parties that when making their Rule 155 calculations, miscellaneous itemized deductions must be adjusted for the 2-percent limitation. See sec. 67(a).14 A taxpayer's reasonable reliance on the advice of an independent professional adviser as to the tax treatment of an item may demonstrate reasonable cause. Petitioners introduced no evidence to support a finding that Ms. Boyer was a competent tax professional. They also introduced no evidence that they provided all information to Ms. Boyer or that they actually relied in good faith on Ms. Boyer's return preparation. Neonatology Associates, P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 99 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002).

Labels:

Monday, December 22, 2008

Retrun preparers as "material advisors"

I have downloaded the proposed regulations under 6111 which impose a reporting requirement for "reportable transactions by "material advosors."

Guest what? Section 6694(a)(2)(C) requres returfn preparers to support "reportable transactions" under the more likely than not standard. Inability to do that will give the return prerarer a $5,000 penalty or the higher of 50% of the fee.

IMPORTANT: Return preparers will often meet the definition of a "material advisor" by merely tiving "assistance or advic e" to a client under section 6111(b)(1)(A) of the Code and thereby be subject to an additional $50,000 penalty.

If any return preparer does not know what a "reportable transaction" is, they should find another profession. There are not too many return preparers who can afford both the $5,000 6694 penalty and the adddtional $50,000 penalty provided under 6111(b)(1)(B).





Proposed Regulations Address Assessment of Penalty on Material Advisors for Failure to Disclose Reportable Transactions (NPRM REG-160872-04)
The IRS has issued proposed regulations under Code Sec. 6707 concerning the failure of material advisors to timely file a return or filing a return with false or incomplete information regarding reportable transactions under Code Sec. 6111. The regulations are proposed to apply to a return the due date of which is after the date a final version of the regulations is published in the Federal Register.

Disclosure Requirement
Under Code Sec. 6111, each material advisor is required to timely file an information return with respect to a reportable transaction (including a listed transaction). A material advisor is any person who provides any material aid, assistance, or advice with respect to the reportable transaction, as well as any individual who receives (directly or indirectly) a certain threshold of gross income from the transaction. The threshold is $50,000 in the case of a reportable transaction with substantially all tax benefits provided to a natural person ($10,000 in the case of a listed transaction). The threshold is increased to $250,000 in any other case ($25,000 in the case of a listed transaction).

Form 8918, Material Advisor Disclosure Statement, is used by the material advisor to make the disclosure. Generally, the return must be filed by the last day of the month that follows the end of the calendar quarter in which the person became a material advisor. To be considered complete, the information disclosed must meet the requirements of Reg. §301.6111-3. A penalty is imposed under Code Sec. 6707 on any material advisor who fails to timely file the return or files a false of incomplete return under Code Sec. 6111. The penalty with respect to any reportable transaction other than a listed transaction is $50,000. For a listed transaction, the penalty is the greater of $200,000 or 50 percent of the gross income derived by the material advisor with respect to the transaction before the return is filed. In the case of a failure or action with respect to a listed transaction that is intentional, the penalty is the greater of $200,000 or 75 percent of the gross income derived by the material advisor with respect to the transaction before the return is filed.

Liability for Penalty
Under the newly issued proposed regulations, the penalty may be assessed against each material advisor required to file Form 8918. Thus, if more than one material advisor is responsible for filing a return with respect to the same reportable transaction, a separate penalty may be assessed under Code Sec. 6707 against each material advisor who fails to file the return timely or files the return with false or incomplete information. In addition, if a group of material advisors enter into an agreement designating one material advisor to file the required return on behalf of all parties to the agreement, then the penalty may still be imposed on each party to the agreement if the designated material advisor fails to timely file the return or files the return with false or incomplete information.

Intentional Failures
In the case of listed transactions, material advisors are considered to have acted intentionally, subjecting them to an increased penalty, if they knew of the obligation to file a return under Code Sec. 6111, and knowingly did not timely file a return with the IRS or filed a return knowing that it was false or incomplete. Thus, in the case of a material advisor under designation agreement, a nondesignated material advisor of the agreement will not be considered to have intentionally failed to meet the requirements of Code Sec. 6111 unless the nondesignated material advisor knew or should have known that the designated material advisor would fail to timely file a true and complete return.

Moreover, to encourage material advisors to correct material defects, the proposed regulations provide that any failure to file a timely return or filing a return with false or incomplete information will be considered unintentional if the material advisor remedies the failure by filing a true and complete return with the IRS prior to the earlier of the date that: (1) any taxpayer files Form 8886 identifying the material advisor with respect to the reportable transaction in question; or (2) the IRS contacts the material advisor concerning the reportable transaction.

False or Incomplete Information
A return is considered to contain false information if any information on the return is untrue or incorrect when Form 8918 is filed. Information will not be considered false if it contains untrue or incorrect information by mistake or accident after the exercise of reasonable care by the material advisor or the information is immaterial. Incomplete information on a return means that the return does not provide the information required under Reg. §301.6111-3. A return will not be considered incomplete when the required information not provided is immaterial or was not provided due to mistake or accident after the exercise of reasonable care.

In addition, material advisors who complete Form 8918 to the best of their ability and knowledge after the exercise of reasonable efforts to obtain the information will not be considered to have filed an incomplete return. However, in the case of a listed transaction, a Form 8918 will be considered intentionally incomplete and subject to an increased penalty if information required to be provided under Reg. §301.6111-3 is omitted and the form contains a statement that the omitted information will be provided upon request.

Rescission of Penalty
Finally, the proposed regulations restate the procedures described in Rev. Proc. 2007-21, I.R.B. 2007-9, 613, for a material advisor to request a rescission of all or a portion of a penalty assessed under Code Sec. 6707 including: the deadline by which a person must request rescission; the information the person must provide in the rescission request; the factors that weigh in favor of and against granting rescission; where the person must submit the rescission request; and the rules governing requests for additional information from the person requesting rescission.

The regulations note that the factors that weigh in favor of or against rescission do not represent an exclusive list, and no single factor will be determinative. Rather, all factors will be considered whether included in the list or not. However, the IRS will not take into consideration doubt as to liability for, or collectibility of, the penalty. In addition, the extent to which the penalty assessed is disproportionately larger than the tax benefit received will not be considered. The gross income threshold to be considered a material advisor ensures that any penalty imposed will not be disproportionate to the benefit received.

Comments
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing regarding the proposed regulations must be received by March 23, 2009.
Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-160872-04

December 22, 2008

Code Sec. 6707

Reportable transactions : Information return : Penalties : Failure to file : Failure to furnish information .



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY



Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 301

[REG-160872-04]

RIN 1545-BF59

Section 6707 and the Failure to Furnish Information Regarding Reportable Transactions

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations under section 6707 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), which provide the rules relating to the assessment of penalties against material advisors who fail to timely file a true and complete return required under section 6111(a). The regulations implement the amendments to section 6707 by the American Jobs Creation Act and promote material advisors' compliance with the regulations under section 6111. These regulations affect material advisors responsible for disclosing reportable transactions under section 6111.

DATES: Written or electronic comments and request for a public hearing must be received by March 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-160872-04), room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-160872-04), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-160872-04).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew S. Cooper, (202) 622-4940 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments and requests for a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo Taylor of the Publications and Regulation Branch at (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:



Background

This document contains proposed amendments to the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR Part 301) under section 6707 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 6707 was originally added to the Code by section 141(b) of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, Public Law 98-369, 98 Stat. 494. At that time, section 6707 imposed a penalty for failing to timely register a tax shelter or for filing false or incomplete information with respect to the tax shelter registration. Treasury Regulation §301.6707-1T was issued shortly after section 6707 became law.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, 118 Stat. 1418, (AJCA) was enacted on October 22, 2004. AJCA section 816 amended section 6707 to impose a penalty on a material advisor who is required to file a return under section 6111(a) with respect to any reportable transaction, and who fails to file a timely return or who files a return with false or incomplete information with respect to the reportable transaction. Section 6707, as amended, is effective for returns due after October 22, 2004. The amount of the penalty for failing to timely file or filing a return with false or incomplete information with respect to any reportable transaction other than a listed transaction is $50,000. For listed transactions, the amount of the penalty is the greater of (1) $200,000, or (2) 50 percent of the gross income derived by the material advisor with respect to aid, assistance, or advice that the material advisor provides with respect to the listed transaction before the date the return is filed under section 6111. If the penalty is imposed with respect to a listed transaction and the failure or action subject to the penalty was intentional, the penalty is the greater of (1) $200,000, or (2) 75 percent of the gross income derived by the material advisor with respect to aid, assistance, or advice that the material advisor provides with respect to the listed transaction before the date the return is filed under section 6111. The provisions of section 6707A(d) regarding rescission of the penalty apply to any penalty assessed under section 6707.

To implement the pertinent provisions of the AJCA, the IRS and Treasury Department issued interim guidance on section 6111 in Notice 2004-80 (2004-2 CB 963, December 13, 2004); Notice 2005-17 (2005-1 CB 606, February 22, 2005); Notice 2005-22 (2005-1 CB 756, March 21, 2005); and Notice 2006-6 (2006-1 CB 385, January 30, 2006) (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b )). These notices provided guidance to a material advisor required to file a return under section 6111, including rules regarding the date by which the material advisor must file the return and the information the material advisor must include on the return. Subsequently, the IRS and Treasury Department proposed amendments to the rules relating to the disclosure of reportable transactions by material advisors under section 6111 (see Prop. Treas. Reg. §301.6111-3, 71 FR 64501) and finalized those proposed regulations as TD 9351 in the Federal Register (72 FR 43157). The IRS and Treasury Department are now proposing rules relating to the AJCA amendments to section 6707.

Rev. Proc. 2007-21, 2007-9 IRB 613, which was published on February 26, 2007, provides guidance to persons against whom a penalty under section 6707 or 6707A is assessed regarding procedures for requesting that the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service rescind all or a portion of these penalties with respect to a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction.



Explanation of Provisions

These proposed regulations provide rules reflecting the AJCA amendments to the section 6707 penalty for the failure to timely file a return under section 6111 or for filing a return with false or incomplete information regarding reportable transactions. The scope of the changes to the section 6707 penalty provisions by the AJCA necessitates a change to the temporary regulations promulgated under former section 6707.

Under these proposed revisions, a penalty under section 6707 may be assessed against each material advisor required to file a return under section 6111 who fails to file a timely return in accordance with §301.6111-3(e) or files a return with false or incomplete information. Accordingly, if more than one material advisor is responsible for filing a return under section 6111 with respect to the same reportable transaction, a separate penalty under section 6707 may be assessed against each material advisor who fails to timely file a return or files a return with false or incomplete information.

Additionally, §301.6707-1(b)(4) of these proposed regulations provides that incomplete information means a Form 8918, "Material Advisor Disclosure Statement" (or successor form), filed with the IRS that does not provide the information required under §301.6111-3(d). A return will not be considered incomplete when the information not provided on the Form 8918 (or successor form) is immaterial or was not provided due to mistake or accident after the exercise of reasonable care. The proposed regulations also provide that material advisors who complete the form to the best of their ability and knowledge after the exercise of reasonable efforts to obtain the information will not be considered to have filed an incomplete form within the meaning of this section. A Form 8918 (or successor form), however, will be considered intentionally incomplete (and, in the case of a listed transaction, subject to the increased penalty imposed by section 6707(b)) when it omits information required to be provided under §301.6111-3(d) and contains a statement that the omitted information will be provided upon request.

False information under proposed §301.6707-1(b)(5) means information provided on a Form 8918 (or successor form) to the IRS that is untrue or incorrect when the Form 8918 (or successor form) was filed. Information filed with the IRS will not be considered false when the return contains untrue or incorrect information by mistake or accident after the exercise of reasonable care or when the untrue or incorrect information is immaterial.

Under proposed §301.6707-1(b)(6), the failure to timely file or the submission of false or incomplete information is intentional if the material advisor knew of the obligation to file a return under section 6111, and knowingly did not timely file a return with the IRS; or filed a return knowing that it was false or incomplete. In the case of a listed transaction, the failure to timely file a true and complete return will not be considered intentional if the material advisor remedies this failure by filing a true and complete return with the IRS prior to the earlier of the date that any taxpayer files a Form 8886 identifying the material advisor with respect to the reportable transaction in question or the date the IRS contacts the material advisor concerning the reportable transaction. This rule is intended to encourage material advisors to correct material defects in their compliance with section 6111, and recognizes that by voluntarily correcting material defects the material advisors demonstrate an intent to comply with section 6111.

The proposed regulations in §301.6707-1(c)(2) state that a separate penalty may be assessed against each material advisor for its own failure to timely file the required return. If multiple material advisors (all with filing obligations under section 6111) enter into a designation agreement (within the meaning of §301.6111-3(f)) designating one material advisor to file the required return on behalf of all parties to the agreement, the section 6707 penalty may be imposed upon each party to the agreement if the material advisor designated to file the return either fails to timely file a return or files a return with false or incomplete information. In the case of a listed transaction, if the designated material advisor fails to timely file a true and complete return, a nondesignated material advisor will not be considered to have intentionally violated its obligations under section 6111 unless the nondesignated material advisor knew or should have known that the designated material advisor would fail to timely file a true and complete return.

Section 301.6707-1(d) of these proposed regulations provides several examples illustrating the potential application of the section 6707 penalty. Included are examples showing that the gross income derived by the material advisor will be determined in accordance with §301.6111-3(b)(3)(ii) for purposes of calculating the amount of the penalty with respect to a listed transaction.

Section 301.6707-1(e) of these proposed regulations restates the existing authority of the Secretary to prescribe the procedures to request rescission of a section 6707 penalty with respect to a nonlisted reportable transaction by revenue procedure or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Rev. Proc. 2007-21 describes the procedures for requesting rescission of a penalty assessed under section 6707, including the deadline by which a person must request rescission; the information the person must provide in the rescission request; the factors that weigh in favor of and against granting rescission; where the person must submit the rescission request; and the rules governing requests for additional information from the person requesting rescission.

These proposed regulations provide factors that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) should take into account during the determination whether to rescind all or a portion of any penalty imposed under section 6707. The proposed regulations generally adopt the list of factors stated in Rev. Proc. 2007-21, which factors are consistent with the legislative history of section 6707. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 755, 108 th Cong., 2d Sess. at 599 (2004). The factors identified in these proposed regulations do not represent an exclusive list, and no single factor will be determinative of whether to grant rescission in any particular case. Rather, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will consider and weigh all relevant factors, regardless of whether the factor is included in this list, and will generally favor rescission when the relevant factors and circumstances suggest that sustaining assessment of the penalty is against equity and good conscience.

One additional factor identified in the temporary regulations recently promulgated under section 6707A as weighing in favor of granting rescission that is not proposed to be adopted for purposes of rescission of the penalty under section 6707 is the extent to which the penalty assessed is disproportionately larger than the tax benefit received. The material advisor does not receive a tax benefit from the reportable transaction, but rather benefits from the transaction through the gross income derived for aiding, assisting, or advising on the transaction. The threshold of gross income for status as a material advisor under section 6111 in the case of a reportable transaction is $50,000 if substantially all of the tax benefits from the transaction are provided to natural persons (looking through any partnerships, S corporations, or trusts). For all other nonlisted reportable transactions, the threshold amount is $250,000. The gross income levels necessary to be treated as a material advisor substantially ensure that any penalty imposed upon a material advisor under section 6707 will not be disproportionate to the benefit received by the material advisor.

Because it is the policy of the IRS to administer penalties in a manner that promotes voluntary compliance with the tax laws, the fact that a material advisor voluntarily files the form required under section 6111 prior to the earlier of: (i) the date that any taxpayer files a Form 8886 identifying the material advisor with respect to the reportable transaction in question or (ii) the date the IRS contacts the material advisor concerning the reportable transaction will weigh strongly in favor of rescission. See IRS Policy Statement 20-1 (June 29, 2004).

The proposed regulations mirror Rev. Proc. 2007-21 in providing that a rescission request is not the appropriate forum to contest whether the elements necessary to support a penalty under section 6707 exist. That question is for the examining agent, the IRS Office of Appeals, and the courts. A rescission determination is based on the premise that a violation of section 6707 exists but, nonetheless, the penalty should be rescinded (or abated). Accordingly, the proposed regulations provide that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will not consider whether the material advisor in fact failed to comply with section 6111. Furthermore, these regulations provide that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will not take into consideration doubt as to liability for, or collectibility of, the penalties in determining whether to rescind the penalty.



Proposed Effective Date

These regulations are proposed to apply to returns the due date of which is after the date the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations is published in the Federal Register .



Special Analyses

It has been determined that these regulations are not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to this regulation and because the regulation does not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on the impact on small business.



Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the substance of the proposed regulations, as well as on the clarity of the proposed rules and how they can be made easier to understand. All comments submitted by the public will be made available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register .



Drafting Information

The principal author of these regulations is Matthew S. Cooper of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).



List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR Part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 301 --PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 301.6707-1 is added to read as follows:



§301.6707-1 Failure to furnish information regarding reportable transactions .

(a) In general . A material advisor who is required to file a return under section 6111(a) with respect to any reportable transaction, who fails to file a timely return in accordance with §301.6111-3(e) or who files a return with false or incomplete information with respect to the reportable transaction, will be subject to a penalty. The amount of the penalty for failing to timely file or filing a false or incomplete return with respect to any reportable transaction other than a listed transaction is $50,000. The amount of the penalty with respect to a failure relating to any listed transaction is the greater of $200,000 or 50 percent of the gross income derived by the material advisor with respect to aid, assistance, or advice that is provided with respect to the listed transaction before the date the return is filed under section 6111. If the failure or action subject to the penalty is with respect to a listed transaction and is intentional, the penalty is the greater of $200,000 or 75 percent of the gross income derived by the material advisor with respect to aid, assistance, or advice that is provided with respect to the listed transaction before the date the return is filed under section 6111. For purposes of calculating the amount of the penalty with respect to a listed transaction, the gross income derived by the material advisor will be determined in accordance with §301.6111-3(b)(3)(ii).

(b) Definitions --(1) Reportable transaction . The term "reportable transaction" is defined in §1.6011-4(b)(1) of this chapter.

(2) Listed transaction . The term "listed transaction" is defined in section 6707A(c) of the Code and §1.6011-4(b)(2) of this chapter.

(3) Material Advisor . The term "material advisor" is defined in section 6111(b)(1) of the Code and §301.6111-3(b).

(4) Incomplete information . For purposes of this section, incomplete information means a Form 8918, "Material Advisor Disclosure Statement" (or successor form), filed with the IRS that does not provide the information required under §301.6111-3(d). Information filed with the IRS will not be considered incomplete when the information not provided on the Form 8918 (or successor form) is immaterial or was not provided due to mistake or accident after the exercise of reasonable care. A material advisor who completes the form to the best of their ability and knowledge after the exercise of reasonable effort to obtain the information will not be considered to have filed incomplete information within the meaning of this section. A Form 8918 (or successor form) will be considered to provide incomplete information when it omits information required to be provided under §301.6111-3(d) and contains a statement that the omitted information will be provided upon request. For listed transactions, a Form 8918 (or successor form) that omits information required to be provided under §301.6111-3(d) and contains a statement that the omitted information will be provided upon request will be considered an intentional submission of a return with incomplete information within the meaning of paragraph (b)(6) of this section.

(5 ) False information . For purposes of this section, false information means information provided on a Form 8918 (or successor form) filed with the IRS that is untrue or incorrect when the Form 8918 (or successor form) was filed. False information does not include information provided on a Form 8918 (or successor form) filed with the IRS that is immaterial or that is untrue or incorrect due to a mistake or accident after the exercise of reasonable care.

(6) Intentional . For purposes of this section, the failure to timely file a return or the submission of a return with false or incomplete information is intentional if --

(i) The material advisor knew of the obligation to file a return and knowingly did not timely file a return with the IRS; or

(ii) The material advisor filed a return knowing that it was false or incomplete.

(7) Derive . The term "derive" is defined in §301.6111-3(c)(3).

(c) Assessment of penalty --(1) Individual liability . If there is more than one material advisor who is responsible for filing a return under section 6111 with respect to the same reportable transaction, a separate penalty under section 6707 may be assessed against each material advisor who fails to timely file or files a false or incomplete return. The determination of whether the failure or action subject to the penalty is intentional will also be made individually for each material advisor with respect to the same reportable transaction. The higher penalty will not apply to any material advisor whose failure to file timely or whose furnishing of false or incomplete information is unintentional. The failure to timely file a return, or filing a return with false or incomplete information, will be considered unintentional if the material advisor subsequently files a true and complete return prior to the earlier of the date that any taxpayer files a Form 8886, "Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement" (or successor form), identifying the material advisor with respect to the reportable transaction in question or the date the IRS contacts the material advisor concerning the reportable transaction.

(2) Designation agreements . A material advisor who is required to file a return under section 6111 and who is a party to a designation agreement within the meaning of §301.6111-3(f) is subject to a penalty under section 6707 if the designated material advisor fails to timely file a return or files a return with false or incomplete information. In the case of a listed transaction, if the designated material advisor fails to timely file a return, or files a return with false or incomplete information, the nondesignated material advisor who is a party to the designation agreement will not be treated as intentionally failing to file the return, or intentionally filing a return with false or incomplete information, unless the nondesignated material advisor knew or should have known that the designated material advisor would fail to timely file a true and complete return.

(d) Examples . The rules of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1 . Advisor A becomes a material advisor as defined under section 6111(b) and §301.6111-3(b) in the fourth quarter of 2009 with respect to a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction, and Advisor B also becomes a material advisor in the same quarter with respect to the same reportable transaction. Subsequently, Advisors A and B fail to timely file the Form 8918. Because the section 6707 penalty applies to each material advisor independently, Advisors A and B each are subject to a penalty of $50,000.

Example 2 . Same as Example 1 , except that Advisor B timely filed the Form 8918 with the IRS Office of Tax Shelter Analysis (OTSA). Advisors A and B did not enter into a designation agreement. Accordingly, only Advisor A is subject to a $50,000 penalty.

Example 3 . Advisor C becomes a material advisor to Client X on January 5, 2009, with respect to a listed transaction. Advisor C derives $400,000 in gross income from his advice to Client X because he expects to receive that amount from Client X, even though he has not yet received that amount. Advisor C unintentionally does not file a Form 8918. On January 5, 2010, Advisor C becomes a material advisor to Client Y with respect to the same type of listed transaction. The gross income Advisor C expects to receive from his advice to Client Y is $100,000. Advisor C does not become a material advisor with respect to any other client and unintentionally does not file a Form 8918. Advisor C is subject to a penalty of $250,000 (50 percent of the gross income he derived) under section 6707.

Example 4 . Same as Example 3 , except that Advisor C files the Form 8918 on November 15, 2009, which is beyond the date prescribed for filing the disclosure statement. Advisor C is subject to a $200,000 penalty under section 6707 because, as of the date he filed the Form 8918, the gross income Advisor C had received or expected to receive with respect to advice relating to the listed transaction did not include gross income for advice to Client Y.

Example 5 . Same as Example 3 , except that Advisor C files the Form 8918 on February 15, 2010, which is beyond the date prescribed for filing the disclosure statement. Advisor C is subject to a $250,000 penalty under section 6707 because, as of the date he filed the Form 8918, the gross income Advisor C had received or expected to receive with respect to advice relating to the listed transaction included gross income for advice to Client X and Client Y.

Example 6 . Advisor D becomes a material advisor as defined under section 6111(b) and §301.6111-3(b) in the first quarter of 2009 with respect to a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction. Advisor D does not file a Form 8918 by April 30, 2009. The transaction is then identified as a listed transaction in published guidance on July 7, 2009. Advisor D knew that it had a new obligation to file a Form 8918 by October 31, 2009, and intentionally fails to file the Form 8918. Advisor D is subject to only one penalty, in the amount of the greater of $200,000 or 75 percent of the gross income he derived from the transaction, for intentionally failing to disclose the listed transaction in accordance with §301.6111-3(d)(1) and (e).

(e) Rescission authority --(1) In general. The Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) may rescind the section 6707 penalty if --

(i) The violation relates to a reportable transaction that is not a listed transaction and

(ii) Rescinding the penalty would promote compliance with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and effective tax administration.

(2) Requesting rescission . The Secretary may prescribe the procedures for a material advisor to request rescission of a section 6707 penalty by revenue procedure or other guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

( 3 ) Factors that weigh in favor of granting rescission. In determining whether rescission would promote compliance with the requirements of the Code and effective tax administration, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will take into account the following list of factors that weigh in favor of granting rescission. This is not an exclusive list and no single factor will be determinative of whether to grant rescission in any particular case. Rather, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will consider and weigh all relevant factors, regardless of whether the factor is included in this list.

(i) The material advisor, upon becoming aware that it failed to properly disclose a reportable transaction, filed a complete and proper, albeit untimely, Form 8918 (or successor form). This factor will weigh strongly in favor of rescission provided that the material advisor files the form required under section 6111 prior to the earlier of the date that any taxpayer files a Form 8886 identifying the material advisor with respect to the reportable transaction in question or the date the IRS contacts the material advisor concerning the reportable transaction.

(ii) The material advisor's failure to properly disclose the reportable transaction was due to an unintentional mistake of fact that existed despite the material advisor's reasonable attempts to ascertain the correct facts with respect to the transaction.

(iii) The material advisor has an established history of properly disclosing other reportable transactions and complying with other tax laws, including compliance with any requests made by the IRS under section 6112, if applicable.

(iv) The material advisor demonstrates that the failure to include on any return or statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6111 arose from events beyond the material advisor's control.

(v) The material advisor cooperates with the IRS by providing timely information with respect to the transaction at issue that the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) may request in consideration of the rescission request. In considering whether a material advisor cooperates with the IRS, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will take into account whether the material advisor meets the deadlines described in Rev. Proc. 2007-21 (or successor document) (see §601.601(d)(2)(ii)( b )) for complying with requests for additional information.

(vi) Assessment of the penalty weighs against equity and good conscience, including whether the material advisor demonstrates that there was reasonable cause for, and the material advisor acted in good faith with respect to, the failure to timely file or to include on any return any information required to be disclosed under section 6111. An important factor in determining reasonable cause and good faith is the extent of the material advisor's efforts to determine whether there was a requirement to file the return required under section 6111. The presence of reasonable cause, however, will not necessarily be determinative of whether to grant rescission.

(4) Absence of favorable factors weighs against rescission . The absence of facts establishing the factors described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section weighs against granting rescission. The absence of any one of these factors, however, will not necessarily be determinative of whether to grant rescission.

(5) Factors not considered . In determining whether to grant rescission, the Commissioner (or the Commissioner's delegate) will not consider doubt as to liability for, or collectibility of, the penalties.

(f) Effective/applicability date . The rules of this section apply to returns the due date for which is after the date the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations is published in the Federal Register .

Linda E. Stiff

Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.

SEC. 6111. DISCLOSURE OF REPORTABLE TRANSACTIONS.
6111(a) IN GENERAL. --Each material advisor with respect to any reportable transaction shall make a return (in such form as the Secretary may prescribe) setting forth --

6111(a)(1) information identifying and describing the transaction,

6111(a)(2) information describing any potential tax benefits expected to result from the transaction, and

6111(a)(3) such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.

Such return shall be filed not later than the date specified by the Secretary.

6111(b) DEFINITIONS. --For purposes of this section --

6111(b)(1) MATERIAL ADVISOR. --

6111(b)(1)(A) IN GENERAL. --The term "material advisor" means any person --

6111(b)(1)(A)(i) who provides any material aid, assistance, or advice with respect to organizing, managing, promoting, selling, implementing, insuring, or carrying out any reportable transaction, and

6111(b)(1)(A)(ii) who directly or indirectly derives gross income in excess of the threshold amount (or such other amount as may be prescribed by the Secretary) for such aid, assistance, or advice.

6111(b)(1)(B) THRESHOLD AMOUNT. --For purposes of subparagraph (A), the threshold amount is --

6111(b)(1)(B)(i) $50,000 in the case of a reportable transaction substantially all of the tax benefits from which are provided to natural persons, and

6111(b)(1)(B)(ii) $250,000 in any other case.

6111(b)(2) REPORTABLE TRANSACTION. --The term "reportable transaction" has the meaning given to such term by section 6707A(c).

6111(c) REGULATIONS. --The Secretary may prescribe regulations which provide --

6111(c)(1) that only 1 person shall be required to meet the requirements of subsection (a) in cases in which 2 or more persons would otherwise be required to meet such requirements,

6111(c)(2) exemptions from the requirements of this section, and

6111(c)(3) such rules as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.

Labels:

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Comment #3 Final 6694 regulations

The ABA, the AICPA, the NAEA and the NSTP are strangely silent about the risks of tax return preaparers to draconian penalties. I have been involved with many civil and criminal examinations and it seems that when there is an examination of a client's tax return, there are multiple audit adjustment and, for the sake of this discussion, I venture to say that there would be an average of three examination changes in a return per year for the normal three year examination. That would mean there is an average of nine errors with the potential that each error is "reckless" and vulnerable to the $5,000 preckless penalty. Therefore, at risk, is the potential for $45,000 in return preparer penalties for a typical examination. It absolutely boggles my mind the the professional association have taken the return preparer penalty risk in a passive way, as if they solved all problems by lobbying for the "substantial authority" standard of conduct.

I have given some thought to this passive innvolvement and have concluded that your professional associations believe that return preparers have little risk because they can rely on data given to them by clients. They are wrong!


§1.6694-1(e)(1) In general. --For purposes of sections 6694(a) and (b) (including meeting the reasonable belief that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits and reasonable basis standards in §§1.6694- 2(b) and (c)(2), and demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith under §1.6694-2(d)), the tax return preparer generally may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the taxpayer. A tax return preparer, however, may not rely on information provided by a taxpayer with respect to legal conclusions on Federal tax issues. A tax return preparer may also rely in good faith and without verification upon information furnished by another advisor, another tax return preparer or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's firm). The tax return preparer is not required to audit, examine or review books and records, business operations, or documents or other evidence to verify independently information provided by the taxpayer, advisor, other tax return preparer, or other party. The tax return preparer, however, may not ignore the implications of information furnished to the tax return preparer or actually known by the tax return preparer. The tax return preparer must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect or incomplete. Additionally, some provisions of the Code or regulations require that specific facts and circumstances exist (for example, that the taxpayer maintain specific documents) before a deduction or credit may be claimed. The tax return preparer must make appropriate inquiries to determine the existence of facts and circumstances required by a Code section or regulation as a condition of the claiming of a deduction or credit.


(e)(2) Verification of information on previously filed returns. --For purposes of section 6694(a) and (b) (including meeting the reasonable belief that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits and reasonable basis standards in §§1.6694-2(b) and (c)(2), and demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith under §1.6694-2(d)), a tax return preparer may rely in good faith without verification upon a tax return that has been previously prepared by a taxpayer or another tax return preparer and filed with the IRS. For example, a tax return preparer who prepares an amended return (including a claim for refund) need not verify the positions on the original return. The tax return preparer, however, may not ignore the implications of information furnished to the tax return preparer or actually known by the tax return preparer. The tax return preparer must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect or incomplete. The tax return preparer must confirm that the position being relied upon has not been adjusted by examination or otherwise.


§1.6695-2(b)(3)(i) In general. --The tax return preparer must not know, or have reason to know, that any information used by the tax return preparer in determining the taxpayer's eligibility for, or the amount of, the EIC is incorrect. The tax return preparer may not ignore the implications of information furnished to, or known by, the tax return preparer, and must make reasonable inquiries if the information furnished to the tax return preparer appears to be incorrect, inconsistent, or incomplete. A tax return preparer must make reasonable inquiries if a reasonable and well-informed tax return preparer knowledgeable in the law would conclude that the information furnished to the tax return preparer appears to be incorrect, inconsistent, or incomplete. The tax return preparer must also contemporaneously document in the files the reasonable inquiries made and the responses to these inquiries
.

Looking at the above, does anyone know the meaning of "reasonable inquiries?"
Generally, as as is apparent from §1.6695-2(b)(3)(i) and §1.6694-1(e)the inquiries deal mostly with factual consistencies and logical consistencies. That is correct, but what about the facts required by the Code and regulations?

Consider a simple tax return with itemized deductions and a charitable donation of $500. If your client says I gave $500 to the United Cancer Fund, would you accept that statement because you can "rely on information" given to you my your client?

For any contribution of $250 or more (including contributions of property), taxpayers must obtain a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the qualified organization.

Suppose you did not know that rule and there were client receipts but not contemporaneous written recipts. Even if there is IRS disclousre, you would not be able to defend yourself against a "reckkess" $5,000 penalty because there was zero compliance with the law. But what about the "reliance on the client" rule? The IRS examiner would mostly argue that you did not make any "reasonable inquiry." You can never defend yourself with the "reasonable inquiry" standard in the regulations because that is a discretionary standard. Further §1.6694-1(e)(1) references the tax Code and Regulations in the context of the "reasonable inquiry" standard.

There is an overlap beteween the technical standards of conduct and the reasonable-reliance-on-the-client-data rule.

My conclusion is that if you cannot rely on client data that needs substantiation with specified rules in regulations. I am sure you can rely on the data in a document showing the contemporaneous documentation for a charitable contribution or you can rely on the total cost of office supplies. This is a very "slippery slope."

My advice is to put much more time into tax reasearch on any expense, deduction, or credit, and spend more time on substantiation, technical compliance, and learning as much about the business affairs as you can for each client. It is a loser to prepare tax returns for $5,000 or less if there is a risk of multiple $5,000 penalties for being reckless because you were negligent, did not exercise reasonable due diligence, or were dead wrong on the substantiation requirements. If you cannot meet these standards, you should not be preparing tax returns. Suddenly, return preparation is a high risk business.

Please note that the Final 6694 regulations have been uploaded to the top of the Home Page.

For technical consultation services, contact ab@irstaxattorney.com

Friday, December 19, 2008

Final 6694 regulations have been uploaded

Final 6694 regulations have been uploaded to the home page.

Labels:

Comment #2 Final 6694 regulations

6694(b)(1) IN GENERAL . --Any tax return preparer who prepares any return or claim for refund with respect to which any part of an understatement of liability is due to a conduct described in paragraph (2) shall pay a penalty with respect to each such return or claim in an amount equal to the greater of --

6694(b)(1)(A) $5,000, or

6694(b)(1)(B) 50 percent of the income derived (or to be derived) by the tax return preparer with respect to the return or claim.

6694(b)(2) WILLFUL OR RECKLESS CONDUCT . --Conduct described in this paragraph is conduct by the tax return preparer which is --
6694(b)(2)(A) a willful attempt in any manner to understate the liability for tax on the return or claim, or
6694(b)(2)(B) a reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations

Reg. section 1.6694-3(a)(1)(ii) repeats the “reckless” language of section 6694(b)(2)(B). Reg. section 1.6694-3(c)(2) notes that If the return preparer will not be “reckless” if the position is disclosed and there is a “reasonable basis” for the position.

The "reckless" language is used in section 6662(c)

6662(c) NEGLIGENCE. --For purposes of this section, the term "negligence" includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of this title, and the term "disregard" includes any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard.

§1.6662-3(b) (2) Disregard of rules or regulations. --The term "disregard" includes any careless, reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations. The term "rules or regulations" includes the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, temporary or final Treasury regulations issued under the Code, and revenue rulings or notices (other than notices of proposed rulemaking) issued by the Internal Revenue Service and published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. A disregard of rules or regulations is "careless" if the taxpayer does not exercise reasonable diligence to determine the correctness of a return position that is contrary to the rule or regulation. A disregard is "reckless" if the taxpayer makes little or no effort to determine whether a rule or regulation exists, under circumstances which demonstrate a substantial deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe. A disregard is "intentional" if the taxpayer knows of the rule or regulation that is disregarded. Nevertheless, a taxpayer who takes a position (other than with respect to a reportable transaction, as defined in §1.6011-4(b) or §1.6011-4T(b), as applicable) contrary to a revenue ruling or notice has not disregarded the ruling or notice if the contrary position has a realistic possibility of being sustained on its merits.

I have little doubt reaching the conclusion that if a return preparer prepars a return and does not adhere to ALL of the technical requirements of a tax regulation, that error is clear "negligence" and clearly "reckless" and will result in a $5,000 penalty for each reckless error.

What this means is that any tax return preparer dealing with a technical issue of any kind (e.g, the substantiation requirements of a charitable deduction) and there is a resulting underpayment of tax, the $5,000 penalty will be easily justifief.

The 6694 regulations and the 6694(b) statute make it clear that you will be viewed as "reckless" (negligent) unless you maticulously track every tax regulation and IRS published position and apply all of those technical requirements.

Commit to memory the folloging language of section 1.6694-1(e) of the regulations:
""The taxs return preparer must make appropriate inquiries to determine the existence of facts and curcumstances required by a Code section or regulation as a condition of the claiming of a deduction or credit."

This means, if you prepare a tax return with any deduction or credit (that would include every return preparer), each negligent error is a $5,000 penalty.

The era of just putting numbers into software given to you by your client are OVER even if you disclose those position. You do not meet the "reasonable basis" standard of conduct if you are negligent in the determination of any deduction or credit due to any technical error.

Let me know if you have any problematical issues that give you concern about any deduction or credit. Contact ab@irstaxattorney.com

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Comment #1 Final 6694 Regulations

The Final 6694 Regulations were uploaded as a blog on December 16, 2008. Those regulations should be listed in the home page shortly.

Section 1.6694-1(a) applies the "substantial authority" standard for undisclosed position (except for tax shelter and reportable transaction facts) and it retains the "reasonable basis" standard for disclosed positions.

This regulation does not make any reference to Reg. 1.6662-4(d)(3)(ii) and (iii) which set the standards for relevant technical "analysis" of all of the relevant technical "authority," as referenced in the proposed regulations. That Reg. reference was necessary in the prior draft because the standard of conduct was the "more likely than not" standard. That reference in the final regulations was not necessary because section 6694(a) as amended uses "substantial authority" as the standard of conduct and that definition is already located in Reg. 1.6662-4(d)(3).
Similarly, the same analysis and technical authority will be used for disclosed positions and the "reasonable basis" standard.

The bottom line is that return preparers will have to support ALL positions taken with relevant "analyis" of the applicable technical "authorities" or else be hit with 6694 penalties.

You can no longer put numbers in software without knowing or understanding the underlying technical support. Obviously, you will have to understand the technical basis of all of your entries in any income tax return. Hopefully, you will know enough to support the positions taken.

MOST IMPORTANT! Section 1.6694-1(e)(1)warns return preparers that you may not ignore the implications of information furnished to you AND you must make appropriate inquiries to determine the existenc of facts and circumstances required by a Code section or regulation as a consition of claiming a deduction or credit.

What I have just pointed out is the most important part of the 6694 final regulations, even for disclosed positions. If you do not strictly follow the detailed standards for the entertainment regulations, the charitable deductions regulations, etc. where there is great specificity for these deductions, you will be hit with 6694 penalties. That means that you CANNOT just rely on client data for those items; you will be required to make sure that data meets all of the regulatory standards for those deductions.

Even if you are preparing a small tax return, if someone is claiming nothing other than a charitable deduction, and ends up with an understatement of tax, you will have earned at least a $1,000 6694 penalty even if that understatement is $5 (an example of a small understatement of liability).

Do not even think that the 6694 penalties will not apply to small tax return preparers. Further, ignoring the applicable regulatory requirements is "reckless" conduct which would support the $5,000 6694(b) penalty (even for that hypothetical $5underpayment of tax).

You will be shortly preparing tax returns for the 2008 tax year and you better know your risks and responsibilities in preparing those tax returns. The era of just putting numbers into software without checking the underlying technical substantiation is a long gone era. We are into a new era where you need to take more time to make sure that all of the data in your client's tax returns is technically valid and accurate.

Also understand that the IRS software may be programed to coordinate IRS examination focus on the 6694 penalties when that software identifies apparent tax return error and negligence.

For any questions, continue to send inquiries to ab@irstaxattorney.com or add your comment to this blog.

Labels:

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

T.D. 9436 - the final 6694 regulations

T.D. 9436

December 16, 2008

Code Sec. 6060

Code Sec. 6107

Code Sec. 6109

Code Sec. 6694

Code Sec. 6695

Code Sec. 6696

Code Sec. 7701

Tax return preparers : Definitions : Penalties : Standards : Calculation : Disclosure requirements . --



DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY



Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

26 CFR Parts 1, 20, 25, 26, 31, 40, 41, 44, 53, 54, 55, 56, 156, 157, 301, and 602

[ TD 9436 ]

RIN 1545-BG83

Tax Return Preparer Penalties under Sections 6694 and 6695

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Final regulations.

SUMMARY: This document contains final regulations implementing amendments to the tax return preparer penalties under sections 6694 and 6695 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and related provisions under sections 6060 , 6107, 6109, 6696, and 7701(a)(36) reflecting amendments to the Code made by section 8246 of the Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 and section 506 of the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008. The final regulations affect tax return preparers and provide guidance regarding the amended provisions.

DATES: Effective Date : These regulations are effective on [ INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ] .

Applicability Date : For dates of applicability, see §§1.6060-1(d) , 1.6107-1(e), 1.6109-2(d), 1.6694-1(g), 1.6694-2(f), 1.6694-3(g), 1.6694-4(d), 1.6695-1(g), 1.6695-2(d), 1.6696-1(k), 20.6060-1(b), 20.6107-1(b), 20.6109-1(b), 20.6694-1(b), 20.6694-2(b), 20.6694-3(b), 20.6694-4(b), 20.6695-1(b), 20.6696-1(b), 20.7701-1(b), 25.6060-1(b), 25.6107-1(b), 25.6109-1(b), 25.6694-1(b), 25.6694-2(b), 25.6694-3(b), 25.6694-4(b), 25.6695-1(b), 25.6696-1(b), 25.7701-1(b), 26.6060-1(b), 26.6107-1(b), 26.6109-1(b), 26.6694-1(b), 26.6694-2(b), 26.6694-3(b), 26.6694-4(b), 26.6695-1(b), 26.6696-1(b), 26.7701-1(b), 31.6060-1(b), 31.6107-1(b), 31.6109-2(b), 31.6694-1(b), 31.6694-2(b), 31.6694-3(b), 31.6694-4(b), 31.6695-1(b), 31.6696-1(b), 31.7701-1(b), 40.6060-1(b), 40.6107-1(b), 40.6109-1(b), 40.6694-1(b), 40.6694-2(b), 40.6694-3(b), 40.6694-4(b), 40.6695-1(b), 40.6696-1(b), 40.7701-1(b), 41.6060-1(b), 41.6107-1(b), 41.6109-2(b), 41.6694-1(b), 41.6694-2(b), 41.6694-3(b), 41.6694-4(b), 41.6695-1(b), 41.6696-1(b), 41.7701-1(b), 44.6060-1(b), 44.6107-1(b), 44.6109-1(b), 44.6694-1(b), 44.6694-2(b), 44.6694-3(b), 44.6694-4(b), 44.6695-1(b), 44.6696-1(b), 44.7701-1(b), 53.6060-1(b), 53.6107-1(b), 53.6109-1(b), 53.6694-1(b), 53.6694-2(b), 53.6694-3(b), 53.6694-4(b), 53.6695-1(b), 53.6696-1(b), 53.7701-1(b), 54.6060-1(b), 54.6107-1(b), 54.6109-1(b), 54.6694-1(b), 54.6694-2(b), 54.6694-3(b), 54.6694-4(b), 54.6695-1(b), 54.6696-1(b), 54.7701-1(b), 55.6060-1(b), 55.6107-1(b), 55.6109-1(b), 55.6694-1(b), 55.6694-2(b), 55.6694-3(b), 55.6694-4(b), 55.6695-1(b), 55.6696-1(b), 55.7701-1(b), 56.6060-1(b), 56.6107-1(b), 56.6109-1(b), 56.6694-1(b), 56.6694-2(b), 56.6694-3(b), 56.6694-4(b), 56.6695-1(b), 56.6696-1(b), 56.7701-1(b), 156.6060-1(b), 156.6107-1(b), 156.6109-1(b), 156.6694-1(b), 156.6694-2(b), 156.6694-3(b), 156.6694-4(b), 156.6695-1(b), 156.6696-1(b), 156.7701-1(b), 157.6060-1(b), 157.6107-1(b), 157.6109-1(b), 157.6694-1(b), 157.6694-2(b), 157.6694-3(b), 157.6694-4(b), 157.6695-1(b), 157.6696-1(b), 157.7701-1(b), and 301.7701-15(g).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael E. Hara, (202) 622-4910, and Matthew S. Cooper, (202) 622-4940 (not tollfree numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:



Paperwork Reduction Act

The collections of information contained in these final regulations were previously reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) under control number 1545-1231. The collections of information in this final regulation are in §§1.6060-1(a)(1) , 1.6107-1, 1.6694-2(d)(3), 20.6060-1(a)(1), 20.6107-1, 25.6060-1(a)(1), 25.6107-1, 26.6060-1(a)(1), 26.6107-1, 31.6060-1(a)(1), 31.6107-1, 40.6060-1(a)(1), 40.6107-1, 41.6060-1(a)(1), 41.6107-1, 44.6060-1(a)(1), 44.6107-1, 53.6060-1(a)(1), 53.6107-1, 54.6060-1(a)(1), 54.6107-1, 55.6060-1(a)(1), 55.6107-1, 56.6060-1(a)(1), 56.6107-1, 156.6060-1(a)(1), 156.6107-1, 157.6060-1(a)(1), and 157.6107-1.

This information is necessary to make the record of the name, taxpayer identification number, and principal place of work of each tax return preparer, make each return or claim for refund prepared available for inspection by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and to document that the tax return preparer advised the taxpayer of the penalty standards applicable to the taxpayer in order for the tax return preparer to avoid penalties under section 6694 . The collection of information is required to comply with the provisions of section 8246 of the Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007 and section 506 of the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008. The likely respondents are tax return preparers and their employers.

Estimated total annual reporting burden: 10,679,320 hours.

Estimated average annual burden per respondent: 15.6 hours.

Estimated number of respondents: 684,268.

Estimated frequency of responses: 127,801,426.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.



Background

This document contains final amendments to the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1), the Estate Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 20), the Gift Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 25), the Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 26), the Employment Tax and Collection of Income Tax at Source Regulations (26 CFR part 31), the Excise Tax Procedural Regulations (26 CFR part 40), the Highway Use Tax Regulations, (26 CFR part 41), the Wagering Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 44), the Foundation and Similar Excise Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 53), the Pension Excise Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 54), the Excise Tax on Real Estate Investment Trusts and Regulated Investment Companies Regulations (26 CFR part 55), the Public Charity Excise Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 56), the Excise Tax on Greenmail Regulations (26 CFR part 156), the Excise Tax on Structured Settlement Factoring Transactions Regulations (26 CFR part 157), and the Regulations on Procedure and Administration (26 CFR part 301) implementing the amendments to tax return preparer penalties under sections 6694 and 6695 (and the related provisions under sections 6060 , 6107, 6109, 6696, and 7701(a)(36)) made by section 8246 of the Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act of 2007, Title VIII-B of Public Law 110-28 (121 Stat. 190) (May 25, 2007) (the 2007 Act) and section 506 of the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, Div. C of Public Law 110- 343 (122 Stat. 3765) (October 3, 2008) (the 2008 Act).

Section 8246 of the 2007 Act amended sections 6694 and 7701(a)(36) and made conforming changes to other Code provisions to make tax return preparer penalties applicable to a broader range of tax returns and claims for refund. The 2007 Act's amendments to section 6694 also changed the standards of conduct that tax return preparers must meet in order to avoid imposition of penalties in the event that a return prepared results in an understatement of tax. For undisclosed positions, the 2007 Act replaced the "realistic possibility" standard with a standard requiring the tax return preparer to have a "reasonable belief that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits." For disclosed positions, the 2007 Act replaced the "not-frivolous" standard with a standard requiring the tax return preparer to have a "reasonable basis" for the tax treatment of the position.

The 2007 Act also increased the first-tier penalty under section 6694(a) from $250 to the greater of $1,000 or 50 percent of the income derived (or to be derived) by the tax return preparer from the preparation of a return or claim for refund with respect to which the penalty was imposed. In addition, the 2007 Act increased the secondtier penalty under section 6694(b) from $1,000 to the greater of $5,000 or 50 percent of the income derived (or to be derived) by the tax return preparer. The amendments made by the 2007 Act were effective for tax returns prepared after the date of enactment, May 25, 2007.

The Treasury Department and the IRS released Notice 2008-13 (2008-3 IRB 282) on December 31, 2007, to provide interim guidance under the 2007 Act. Additional guidance was simultaneously provided in Notice 2008-12 (2008-3 IRB 280) with respect to the implementation of the tax return preparer signature requirement of section 6695(b) , and in Notice 2008-11 (2008-3 IRB 279), which clarified the earlier transition relief provided in Notice 2007-54 (2007- 27 IRB 12 (July 2, 2007)). Notice 2008-46 (2008-18 IRB 868) was released on April 16, 2008, to add certain returns and documents to Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 of Notice 2008-13 .

On June 17, 2008, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (73 FR 34560) proposed amendments to the regulations (REG-129243-07) reflecting amendments made by the 2007 Act and comments received on the notices. A public hearing was held on these proposals on August 18, 2008. Written public comments responding to the proposed regulations were received.

On October 3, 2008, section 506 of the 2008 Act modified the standards of conduct that tax return preparers must meet in order to avoid imposition of the section 6694(a) penalty. Specifically, the 2008 Act changed the standard for undisclosed positions from "reasonable belief that the position more likely than not will be sustained on the merits" to "substantial authority for the position." The 2008 Act maintained the "reasonable basis" standard for disclosed positions. If a position is with respect to a tax shelter (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii) ) or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies, it must be "reasonable to believe that the position more likely than not will be sustained on the merits." The amendments made by the 2008 Act are retroactively effective for tax returns prepared after May 25, 2007, except that the special rules applicable to positions with respect to tax shelters and reportable transactions to which section 6662A applies are effective for tax returns or claims for refund prepared for tax years ending after October 3, 2008, the date of enactment of the 2008 Act.

After consideration of the public comments and the amendments made by the 2008 Act, the proposed regulations are adopted as revised by this Treasury decision. Section 1.6694-2 of these final regulations does not provide substantive guidance reflecting amendments to the Code made by the 2008 Act. Rather, the Treasury Department and the IRS are reserving §1.6694-2(c) in these final regulations and are simultaneously issuing a notice in the Internal Revenue Bulletin providing interim guidance on the amendments to the Code made by the 2008 Act. With these final regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS are also simultaneously issuing a revenue procedure in the Internal Revenue Bulletin that specifically identifies the returns and claims for refund subject to penalty under sections 6694 and 6695.



Summary of Comments and Explanation of Revisions

Over 30 written comments were received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. All comments were considered and are available for public inspection upon request. A number of these comments are summarized in this preamble. The changes included in these final regulations are discussed in order of the Code sections to which they relate.

In accordance with the 2007 Act, these final regulations amend existing regulations defining tax return preparers, which were previously limited to income tax return preparers, to broaden the scope of that definition to include preparers of estate, gift, and generationskipping transfer tax returns, employment tax returns, excise tax returns, and returns of exempt organizations. These final regulations also revise current regulations to amend the standards of conduct that must be met to avoid imposition of the tax return preparer penalty under section 6694 . In addition, these final regulations reflect changes to the computation of the section 6694 tax return preparer penalty made by the 2007 Act. These final regulations also amend current regulations under the penalty provisions of section 6695 to conform them with changes made by the 2007 Act expanding the scope of that statute beyond income tax returns. These final regulations are applicable to returns and claims for refund filed (and advice given) after December 31, 2008.



Furnishing of Copy of the Tax Return and Retaining Copy

The final regulations adopt the proposed amendments to §1.6107-1 regarding the requirement of a signing tax return preparer to furnish a copy of the completed tax return to the taxpayer and also to retain a copy, with modification.

One commentator requested that the final regulations make clear that a tax return preparer may provide copies of tax returns to taxpayers in either hard copy or electronic formats. The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that because many returns are prepared and filed electronically and consist of electronic data, it may be unclear what is an acceptable copy of a return that must be furnished to the taxpayer. Upon further consideration, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that clarification is necessary. Under §1.6107-1(a) of the final regulations, the tax return preparer must provide a complete copy of the return filed with the IRS to the taxpayer in any medium, including electronic, that is acceptable to both the taxpayer and the return preparer. In the case of an electronically-filed return, a complete copy of a taxpayer's return consists of the electronic portion of the return, including all schedules, forms, pdf attachments, and jurats, that was filed with the IRS. The copy provided to the taxpayer must include all information submitted to the IRS to enable the taxpayer to determine which schedules, forms, electronic files, and other supporting materials have been filed with the return. The copy, however, need not contain the identification number of the tax return preparer. The electronic portion of the return can be contained on a replica of an official form or on an unofficial form. On an unofficial form, however, data entries must reference the line numbers or descriptions on an official form.

The same commentator requested that the final regulations specifically provide that the copy of the tax return retained by tax return preparers may be retained electronically. The Treasury Department and the IRS, however, have concluded that revising the existing regulations to include this rule is not necessary. Existing revenue procedures address the maintenance of business records through use of electronic storage systems. See, for example, Rev. Proc. 97-22 , 1997-1 CB 652. Tax return preparers may retain copies of tax returns in accordance with existing revenue procedures to comply with the final regulations.

Another commentator agreed with the general approach taken in §1.6107-1(c) but suggested clarification of the language regarding who is a signing tax return preparer for purposes of the section 6107 requirements. Upon consideration, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that there is a potential for the proposed language to be misconstrued. Section 1.6107-1(c) of the final regulations clarifies that for purposes of complying with the requirements of section 6107 , a corporation, partnership or other organization that employs a signing tax return preparer to prepare for compensation (or in which a signing tax return preparer is compensated as a partner or member to prepare) a return of tax or claim for refund shall be treated as the sole signing tax return preparer.



Furnishing Identification Number

A commentator requested that the final regulations clarify whether the tax return preparer's identifying number must be included on the taxpayer's copy of the tax return as well as on the copy filed with the I RS. Section 6109(a)(4) provides that any return or claim for refund prepared by a tax return preparer shall bear an identification number for securing proper identification of the tax return preparer, his employer, or both as may be prescribed. Upon further consideration, the Treasury Department and the IRS agree that for identification purposes, it is only important for the tax return preparer identification number to be included on the return that is filed with the IRS. Section 1.6109-2(a) of the final regulations, therefore, is amended to provide that each filed return or claim for refund containing the identification number of the tax return preparer required to sign the return (and the identification number of the person who has an employment arrangement or association with the individual tax return preparer, if applicable) will meet the needs of the IRS. This modification will assist in maintaining the privacy of the tax return preparer's information. Additional guidance may be provided in the future regarding tax return preparer identification numbers under section 6109 .



Defining the Preparer Within a Firm

The final regulations adopt the proposed amendments to §1.6694-1(b)(1) , with modification. Accordingly, the final regulations maintain a framework defining a "preparer per position within a firm", with the focus of any penalty on the position(s) giving rise to the understatement on the return or claim for refund and any responsible parties with respect to such position(s).

Under this framework, an individual is a tax return preparer subject to section 6694 if the individual is primarily responsible for the position on the return or claim for refund giving rise to the understatement. Under §1.6694-1(b)(1) , only one person within a firm will be considered primarily responsible for each position giving rise to an understatement and, accordingly, be subject to the penalty.

Three commentators questioned whether this framework will lead to significant problems in return preparer firms, in particular whether the framework may discourage any particular person within the firm from looking at the return in whole. These commentators also questioned whether the IRS will be able to identify the responsible party if individuals at the firm attempt to identify others at the firm who may be more responsible for the position. Two other commentators, however, agreed with this framework in light of the high level of specialization that exists in modern tax practice. The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to conclude that the expansion from a "one preparer per firm" to a "one preparer per position within a firm" will further compliance and will result in more equitable administration of the tax return preparer penalty regime. This framework, therefore, is adopted in the final regulations.

Section 1.6694-1(b)(2) of the proposed regulations provided that the individual who signs the return or claim for refund as the tax return preparer generally will be considered the person within a firm who is primarily responsible for all of the positions on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. This language is finalized as proposed except for some minor conforming changes.

Proposed §1.6694-1(b)(3) established a similar rule for situations when there are one or more nonsigning tax return preparers at the same firm and either no signing tax return preparer within the firm, it is concluded that the signer is not primarily responsible for the position, or the IRS cannot conclude which individual is primarily responsible for the position for purposes of section 6694 . In these situations, the proposed regulations stated that the individual within the firm with overall supervisory responsibility for the position(s) giving rise to the understatement is the tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position for purposes of section 6694 .

Several commentators requested that this rule for nonsigning tax return preparers not be adopted as proposed because it will lead to more harm than good. Specifically, one commentator requested the deletion of the clause "or the IRS cannot conclude which individual (as between the signing tax return preparer and other persons within the firm) is primarily responsible for the position" from proposed §1.6694-1(b)(3) because a tax return preparer penalty is not appropriate when the IRS is not able to reach a conclusion as to who is primarily responsible for the conduct giving rise to the position. The other commentator recommended qualifying the rule in proposed §1.6694-1(b)(3) with the requirement that the individual with overall supervisory responsibility for the position either possess actual knowledge of the position or fail to exercise appropriate diligence in the review of the position subject to penalty through willfulness, recklessness, or gross indifference.

Upon consideration of these comments, the Treasury Department and the IRS have revised §1.6694-1(b)(3) to provide that if there is no signing tax return preparer for the return or claim for refund within that firm or if, after the application of §1.6694-1(b)(2) , it is concluded that the signing tax return preparer is not primarily responsible for the position, the nonsigning tax return preparer within the firm with overall supervisory responsibility for the position(s) giving rise to the understatement generally will be considered the tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position for purposes of section 6694 . Based upon credible information from any source, however, it may be concluded that another nonsigning tax return preparer within the firm is primarily responsible for the position(s) on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement.

In response to the commentators' concerns that the default rule in proposed §1.6694-1(b)(3) assigning liability for the penalty to the nonsigning tax return preparer may lead to more harm than good, §1.6694-1(b)(4) of the final regulations is added. The final regulations in §1.6694-1(b)(4) provide that, if the information presented would support a finding that either the signing tax return preparer or a nonsigning tax return preparer within a firm is primarily responsible for the position(s) giving rise to the understatement, the IRS may assess the penalty against either one of the individuals within the firm, but not both, as the primarily responsible tax return preparer. This determination will be based upon all the evidence presented and will allow for certainty regarding the identification of the primarily responsible tax return preparer within the expiration of the period of limitations on making an assessment under section 6694(a) . It is expected that the IRS will assess the penalty under section 6694 under these rules against the tax return preparer with the greatest amount of responsibility for the position based upon the best information available to the IRS. The rule adopted in §1.6694-1(b)(4) is not a rule reflecting joint and several liability for the penalty among the signing tax return preparer and nonsigning tax return preparer as the penalty may be assessed against one of these individuals, but not both.



Reliance on Information Provided

The final regulations adopt the proposed amendments to §1.6694-1(e) , with modification. Most commentators supported expanding the regulations in §1.6694-1(e) to provide that a tax return preparer may rely in good faith and without verification on information furnished by another advisor, another tax return preparer, or other party (even if the advisor or tax return preparer is within the tax return preparer's same firm) as long as the tax return preparer does not ignore the implications of information furnished to the tax return preparer or actually known by the tax return preparer, and makes reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect or incomplete.

Commentators, however, requested that the final regulations clarify that a tax return preparer may rely on "advice" furnished by another advisor, another tax return preparer, or other party (even if the advisor or tax return preparer is within the tax return preparer's same firm.) This recommendation is adopted in §1.6694-1(e)(1) of the final regulations. The same changes are made for conformity to the definitions of "reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits" in §1.6694-2(b)(1) , "reasonable basis" in §1.6694-2(d)(2) and "reasonable cause" in §1.6694-2(e)(5) . These modifications are consistent with the intent of the rules in the proposed regulations regarding reliance given the heightened standards imposed on tax return preparers by the 2007 and 2008 Acts and the increased complexity of the law.

Section 1.6694-1(e) of the proposed regulations also proposed a new rule providing that a tax return preparer may not rely on legal conclusions regarding Federal tax issues furnished by taxpayers. The purpose behind this proposal was the belief that in general, although it was reasonable to allow a tax return preparer to rely on facts furnished by the taxpayer in good faith without verification, the tax return preparer should not be able to rely on legal conclusions on issues when the taxpayer may not be an expert and looked to the tax return preparer to determine the legal issue for purposes of preparing the return or claim for refund.

Most commentators expressed concern, however, that tax return preparers have long relied on information that involve mixed questions of fact and law furnished by taxpayers, in addition to legal conclusions. Moreover, the commentators point out that many large entity taxpayers have in-house tax departments staffed by tax professionals who are qualified to perform research and analysis necessary to address many legal issues.

The Treasury Department and the IRS acknowledge that the proposed regulations may be unclear on how the "no reliance on legal conclusions by taxpayers" language in proposed §1.6694-1(e) interacts with the language in proposed §1.6694-2(b)(2) regarding unreasonable assumptions. Accordingly, the "no reliance on legal conclusions by taxpayers" is removed from §1.6694-1(e) of the final regulations. While this phrase is removed from the text of the final regulations, the tax return preparer nevertheless must meet the diligence standards otherwise imposed by this regulation in order to rely properly on information and advice provided by taxpayers or other individuals. Tax return preparers must have no reason to believe that the taxpayer is incompetent to make these conclusions, have no knowledge that the conclusions are incorrect or incomplete, and make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect or incomplete.



Use of Estimates

One commentator noted that the nature of accounting, upon which calculations of taxable income are based, requires the use of estimates, and urged the Treasury Department and the IRS to include a specific reference to allow the use of estimates in the final regulations. The Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that there are some circumstances when the use of reasonable estimates may be appropriate in the preparation of tax returns (see, for example, §§1.448-2(d) , 1.451-1(a), and 1.451-5(c)(1)(ii)), and there are some circumstances in which there may be no practical alternative to the use of reasonable estimates, for example, when the taxpayer's records are destroyed accidentally or through computer failure. The Treasury Department and the IRS, however, conclude that including a general rule regarding the use of estimates in the preparer penalty regulations that could impact other substantive tax provisions is not appropriate.



Income Derived Determination in Computing Penalty Amount

The final regulations adopt the proposed amendments to §1.6694-1(f) , with minor modification. Section 1.6694-1(f) defines "income derived (or to be derived)" with respect to a return or claim for refund as all compensation the tax return preparer receives or expects to receive with respect to the engagement of preparing the return or claim for refund or providing tax advice (including research and consultation) with respect to the position(s) taken on the return or claim for refund that gave rise to the understatement.

Several commentators requested clarification on this definition of "income derived (or to be derived)" for purposes of computing the section 6694 penalty because it is not necessarily clear what compensation is captured by this definition, which could be interpreted broadly. The final regulations maintain the same definition of "income derived (or to be derived)" as proposed because the Treasury Department and the IRS conclude that the other rules described in §1.6694-1(f) provide appropriate limitations to this definition.

In response to a commentator's request, the final regulations in §1.6694-1(f)(4) also add an example illustrating how the penalty will be computed in cases involving employees and partners who spend a portion of their time on a particular position subject to the section 6694 penalty for which the firm earns a specific amount.



Firm Liability

The final regulations adopt the proposed amendments to §§1.6694-2(a)(2) and 1.6694-3(a)(2), without modification. One commentator requested examples of a firm disregarding its review procedures through willfulness, recklessness, or gross indifference in the formulation of the advice, or the preparation of the return or claim for refund, that included the position for which the penalty is imposed. The determination as to whether a firm disregards its review procedures will be made based upon all facts and circumstances. Because any example necessarily would be limited to the facts of a particular firm's review procedures, additional examples on this issue would not meaningfully add to the guidance provided in the proposed regulations.



Reasonable to Believe That More Likely Than Not

Section 1.6694-2(b) of the final regulations defines the "reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits" standard that now applies to positions that are tax shelters and reportable transactions to which section 6662A applies. While the 2008 Act amendment to section 6694 includes a "reasonable to believe" standard rather than the "reasonable belief" standard used in the 2007 Act, the Treasury Department and the IRS are of the view that the two standards have the same meaning. Conforming changes are made throughout the final regulations to reflect the 2008 Act terminology.

Proposed §1.6694-2(b)(1) provided that the "reasonable belief that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits" standard will be satisfied if the tax return preparer analyzes the pertinent facts and authorities and, in reliance upon that analysis, reasonably concludes in good faith that the position has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being sustained on its merits. The proposed regulations stated that whether a tax return preparer meets this standard will be determined based upon all facts and circumstances, including the tax return preparer's due diligence. Moreover, in determining the level of diligence in a particular case, the proposed regulations provided that the IRS would take into account the tax return preparer's experience with the area of tax law and familiarity with the taxpayer's affairs, as well as the complexity of the issues and facts in the case.

Several commentators requested that the final regulations specify that the amount of due diligence required on the part of the tax return preparer should not be disproportionate to the amount of the tax liability that would be affected by the position at issue. There was also some confusion on whether the due diligence rules in the proposed regulations allowed a less educated, sophisticated, or experienced tax return preparer to escape penalty liability more easily than educated, sophisticated, or experienced tax return preparers. This was not the intent of this rule in the proposed regulations. Due diligence is only one of many factors to consider in determining whether a tax return preparer meets the "reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits" standard and all of the facts and circumstances of each specific case will need to be evaluated in making this determination.

Several commentators suggested that the provisions in §1.6694-2(d)(5) of the proposed regulations permitting tax return preparers to rely upon generally accepted administrative or industry practice in establishing reasonable cause relief from penalties under section 6694 should be extended to allow consideration of generally accepted administrative or industry practice in determining whether the "reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits" standard is satisfied. These comments are not adopted in the final regulations because the Treasury Department and the IRS continue to conclude that the authorities contained in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) (or any successor provision) are the appropriate authorities to be considered in determining whether it is reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits. The "reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits" standard relates to the tax return preparer's evaluation of the merits of a return position, and the merits of a tax return position must be considered in light of established relevant legal authorities. Generally accepted administrative or industry practice are less relevant in considering the merits of a tax return position under applicable law and guidance, although they may be appropriate factors to consider in the context of a tax return preparer's reasonable cause and good faith.

Based upon a comment received, the final regulations in §1.6694-2(b)(4) adopt the same rule as in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iv)(B) regarding the effect of the taxpayer's jurisdiction on meeting the appropriate standard. The Treasury Department and the IRS are of the view that it is appropriate that the same rule apply for purposes of satisfying the "reasonable to believe that the position more likely than not be sustained on its merits" standard. This approach supports uniform disclosure by taxpayers and tax return preparers and prevents conflicts between taxpayers and tax return preparers in complying with the federal tax laws.



Adequate Disclosure

The final regulations adopt the proposed amendments to §1.6694-2(d)(3) , with modification based upon comments received and revisions made in the 2008 Act. For a signing tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(1) , the final regulations provide that disclosure of a position for which there is a reasonable basis but for which there is not substantial authority is adequate in one of three ways. First, the position may be disclosed on a properly completed and filed Form 8275, Disclosure Statement, or Form 8275-R, Regulation Disclosure Statement, as appropriate, or on the tax return in accordance with the applicable annual revenue procedure. See Revenue Procedure 2008-14 (2008-7 IRB 435 (February 19, 2008)). Second, disclosure of the position is adequate if the tax return preparer provides the taxpayer with a prepared tax return that includes the appropriate disclosure in accordance with §1.6662-4(f) . Third, for tax returns or claims for refund that are subject to penalties other than the accuracy-related penalty for substantial understatements under sections 6662(b)(2) and (d), the tax return preparer advises the taxpayer of the penalty standards applicable to the taxpayer under section 6662 . This third rule is intended to address the situation when the penalty standard applicable to the taxpayer is based on compliance with requirements other than disclosure on the return (for example, section 6662(e) ). In the case of a nonsigning tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(2) , the final regulations in §1.6694-2(d)(3)(ii) maintain the same three disclosure rules that were in the proposed regulations.

Two commentators requested clarification of the prohibition against a boilerplate disclaimer and recommended clarifying that a firm does not violate the prohibition simply by adopting a standard approach to disclosure issues. Section 1.6694-2(d)(3)(iii) of the final regulations is revised to provide that no general disclaimer is allowed with respect to the specific facts and circumstances of the taxpayer and the position for which there is no substantial authority. Tax return preparers, and their firms, may use standard language to describe applicable law and may adopt a standard approach to disclosure issues.

One commentator stated that it is unclear what specifically must be documented by the nonsigning tax return preparer in order to avoid imposition of penalties. The final regulations are revised by clarifying that the documented advice that would constitute adequate disclosure in §1.6694-2(d)(3)(ii)(A) with respect to a nonsigning tax return preparer's advice to a taxpayer, if the firm is advising the taxpayer, should confirm that the affected taxpayer has been advised by a tax return preparer in the firm of the potential penalties and the opportunity, if any, to avoid penalty through disclosure.

Similarly, in §1.6694-2(d)(3)(ii)(B) with respect to a nonsigning preparer's advice to another tax return preparer, if providing nonsigning preparer advice to another preparer in the same firm, contemporaneous documentation should be satisfied if there is a single instance of contemporaneous documentation within the firm. If the firm is advising another preparer outside of the firm, the final regulations provide that this documentation should confirm that the preparer outside the firm has been advised that disclosure under section 6694(a) may be required.

Finally, the disclosure rules in §1.6694-3(c)(2) of the final regulations are revised to clarify that a tax return preparer is not considered to have recklessly or intentionally disregarded a rule or regulation if the position contrary to the rule or regulation has a reasonable basis as defined in §1.6694-2(d)(2) and is adequately disclosed in accordance with §§1.6694-2(d)(3)(i)(A) or (C) or 1.6694-2(d)(3)(ii). In the case of a position contrary to a revenue ruling or notice, a tax return preparer also is not considered to have recklessly or intentionally disregarded the ruling or notice if the position meets the substantial authority standard described in §1.6662-4(d) and is not with respect to a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies. This modification ensures that tax return preparers may advise their clients to challenge an IRS ruling or notice under the appropriate circumstances.



Reasonable Cause

The final regulations in §1.6694-2(e) adopt the proposed amendments to §1.6694-2(e) regarding reasonable cause, with minor conforming changes.

Section 1.6694-2(e)(5) permits tax return preparers to rely upon generally accepted administrative or industry practice in establishing reasonable cause relief from penalties under section 6694 . Several commentators indicated that guidance is necessary to explain how a tax return preparer should determine whether a practice is "generally accepted" and "industry practice." The final regulations do not provide further guidance regarding these terms. An accepted administrative or industry practice will be determined based upon all facts and circumstances.



Burden of Proof

One commentator urged that the rules regarding "burden of proof" in tax return preparer penalty litigation cases should be either eliminated or be substantially revised to comport with section 7491 . Section 7427 imposes upon the Secretary the burden of proof on the issue of whether a tax return preparer has willfully attempted in any manner to understate the liability for tax. Section 7491(c) imposes upon the Secretary the burden of production in any court proceeding with respect to the liability of any individual for a penalty. After consideration of the comment, proposed §§1.6694-2(f) and 1.6694-3(g) are removed from the final regulations because these other Code sections as well as case law provide the substantive rules regarding burden of proof and burden of production for penalties.



Negotiation of Check

Section 6695(f) and §1.6695-1(f)(1) prohibit a tax return preparer from endorsing or negotiating a refund check relating to a return for which he or she is a preparer. One commentator recommended that the regulations be clarified to state specifically that a tax return preparer is not prohibited from affixing the taxpayer's name on a refund check (typically accomplished via a mechanical stamp) for the purpose of depositing the check into an account in the name of the taxpayer. This comment is adopted in §1.6695-1(f)(1) of the final regulations.



Due Diligence for Earned Income Credit

Section 1.6695-2(b)(3) of these final regulations adopt the rules regarding a signing tax return preparer's due diligence requirements with respect to determining eligibility for the earned income credit, with minor modification. Based upon the concerns of a commentator about one of the examples in this section addressing the representation of married but separated individuals, Example 3 in the proposed regulations is removed. The Treasury Department and the IRS agree that this example may raise conflict of interest issues and, therefore, replace the example with another example focusing on the need of the tax return preparer to ask relevant questions if a taxpayer attempts to claim a niece or nephew as a qualifying child.



Definition of Tax Return Preparer

The final regulations adopt the proposed amendments to §301.7701-15(b)(1) and (2), with modification. Section 301.7701-15(b)(1) and (2) of the final regulations adds to the section 7701 regulations the definitions of "signing tax return preparer" and "nonsigning tax return preparer."

Several commentators requested that the final regulations expressly state who is required to sign a tax return. Section 301.7701-15(b)(1) of the final regulations is revised to provide that a signing tax return preparer is the individual tax return preparer who has the primary responsibility for the overall substantive accuracy of the preparation of such return or claim for refund. Conforming changes are additionally made to §1.6695-1(b) . The definitions of nonsigning tax return preparer in §301.7701-15(b)(2) and substantial portion in §301.7701-15(b)(3) are generally adopted as proposed. An anti-abuse rule, however, is added in §301.7701-15(b)(2)(i) based upon several commentators' suggestions. The anti-abuse rule provides that time spent on advice given after events have occurred, even if such time is less than 5 percent of the aggregate time incurred by such individual with respect to the position(s) giving rise to the understatement, will be taken into account if all facts and circumstances show that an individual is primarily responsible for a position taken on a return, gave advice on that position before events occurred primarily to avoid treatment as a tax return preparer subject to section 6694 , and for purposes of preparing a tax return the individual confirmed the advice after events had occurred.



List of Returns Subject to Penalty

Several commentators contended that proposed §301.7701-15(b)(4) and the accompanying revenue procedure listing the returns and claims for refund subject to the section 6694 penalty should not include information returns and should limit the definition of return to exclude documents that do not report a tax liability. Similarly, commentators requested excluding Form 8038, Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues, Form 8038-G, Information Return for Government Purpose Tax-Exempt Bond Issues, Form 8038-GC, Consolidated Information Return for Small Tax-Exempt Government Bond Issues, and Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan. After consideration of the comments, the Forms 8038, 8038-G, and 8038-GC are classified in the contemporaneously issued revenue procedure with forms that will not subject the preparer to a penalty under section 6694(a) , but may subject the preparer to a willful or reckless conduct penalty under section 6694(b) if the information reported on the form constitutes a substantial portion of the tax return or claim for refund and is prepared willfully in any manner to understate the liability of tax on a tax return or claim for refund, or in reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations. Also, Form 8038-T, Arbitrage Rebate and Penalty in Lieu of Arbitrage Rebate, and Form 8038-R, Request for Recovery of Overpayment Under Arbitrage Rebate Provisions, are added to the list of forms of returns in the revenue procedure subject to the section 6694 penalties. Form 5500 remains in the same category as in Notice 2008-13 .

The same commentators also raised the issue of whether the Treasury Department and the IRS should publish the list of returns and claims for refund subject to penalty under sections 6694 and 6695 in these final regulations, rather than in separate guidance in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to conclude that it is appropriate to publish a revenue procedure in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Notices 2008-12, -13, and - 46, along with the previously issued proposed regulations, provided the public with notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, the forms subject to penalty.

Another commentator requested that the final regulations in both §301.7701-15(f) and Circular 230 specifically define the terms "in-house tax professional" and "employer" and provide other guidance on the applicability of these return preparer rules to in-house counsel in Circular 230. Section 7701(a)(36) and §301.7701-15(f)(ix) already except from the definition of tax return preparer any person who prepares a return or claim for refund of the employer (or of an officer or employee of the employer) by whom he or she is regularly and continuously employed. Additionally, §301.7701- 15(f)(4) of the final regulations deems an employee of a corporation owning more than 50 percent of the voting power of another corporation, or the employee of a corporation more than 50 percent of the voting power of which is owned by another corporation, to be the employee of the other corporation as well. The Treasury Department and the IRS will consider if any other changes are necessary on this issue in future revisions to §10.34 of Circular 230.



Appraisers

Under Treasury Regulations in place since 1977 and the proposed regulations, an appraiser might be subject to penalties under section 6694 as a nonsigning tax return preparer if the appraisal is a substantial portion of the return or claim for refund and the applicable standards of care under section 6694 are not met. Several commentators have stated that appraisers should not be subject to penalties under section 6694 because they are subject to new, higher standards of conduct under section 6695A as set out in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-280. The commentators have also urged that assessment of penalties under section 6694 against appraisers would result in imposition of a gratuitous and unnecessary layer of requirements and sanctions without any additional public policy benefit.

After consideration of the comment, the Treasury Department and the IRS continue to include appraisers in the definition of both signing and non-signing preparers, thereby providing the IRS with discretion to impose the section 6694 and 6695A penalties in the alternative against an appraiser depending on the facts and circumstances of the appraiser's conduct. The IRS, however, will not stack the penalties under sections 6694 and 6695A with respect to the same conduct. A separate regulation will provide guidance under section 6695A .



Disclosure Under Section 6103

One commentator recommended that the Treasury Department and the IRS issue regulations under section 6103 authorizing the disclosure of tax returns and return information to a tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's request upon initiation of an examination of the tax return preparer for tax return preparer penalties to the extent the returns and return information are relevant and material to the tax return preparer examination. The Treasury Department and the IRS conclude that no further guidance on this issue in these regulations is necessary because section 6103(h)(4) already authorizes the disclosure of returns and return information by the Government in federal or state, judicial or administrative tax proceedings if the disclosure meets an item or transaction test and the third-party return or return information is directly related to the resolution of an issue in the case.



Appeal Rights

A number of individual commentators questioned whether the proposed regulations would remove the administrative appeal rights available to tax return preparers who are subject to penalty under section 6694 . Under Treasury Regulations in place since 1991, the IRS will send a 30-day letter to the tax return preparer notifying the tax return preparer of the proposed penalty or penalties and offering an opportunity to the tax return preparer to request further administrative consideration and a final administrative determination by the IRS concerning the proposed assessment prior to assessment of a penalty under section 6694 (unless the period of limitations (if any) under section 6696(d) may expire without adequate opportunity for assessment). If the tax return preparer then makes a timely request, assessment may not be made until the IRS makes a final administrative determination adverse to the tax return preparer. These appeal rights are maintained in §1.6694-4(a) of the final regulations.



Applicability Dates

To eliminate any adverse impact that the adoption of these final regulations could have on pending or recently filed returns, these final regulations will apply to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.



Availability of IRS Documents

The IRS notices referred to in this preamble are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and are available at http://www.irs.gov.



Effect on Other Documents

The following publications are obsolete as of January 1, 2009:
Notice 2007-54 (2007-27 IRB 12).

Notice 2008-11 (2008-3 IRB 279).

Notice 2008-12 (2008-3 IRB 280).

Notice 2008-13 (2008-3 IRB 282).

Notice 2008-46 (2008-18 IRB 868).



Special Analyses

It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations.

When an agency issues a rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) (RFA), requires the agency to "prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis" that will "describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities." (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA provides an exception to this requirement if the agency certifies that the final rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The final rules affect tax return preparers. The IRS estimates there are 38,566 tax return preparation firms and 260,338 self-employed tax return preparers that qualify as small entities. Therefore, the IRS has determined that these final rules will have an impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The IRS has determined, however, that the impact on entities affected by the final rule will not be significant. The statute and final regulations would require entities that employ tax return preparers to retain a record of the name, taxpayer identification number and principal place of work of each tax return preparer employed. The IRS estimates that this would not require purchase of additional software and would take five minutes per tax return preparer employed. The statute and final regulations would also require tax return preparers to retain a complete copy of a return (or claim for refund) or a list of the name, taxpayer identification number and taxable year for each return (or claim for refund) and the name of the tax return preparer required to sign the return or claim for refund. Many tax return preparers have copying machines or scanners and already make copies of the returns prepared, and the IRS estimates this would not require the purchase of additional equipment. The IRS estimates that it would take an average of five minutes to make copies or prepare a record of the returns or claims for refund prepared. Accordingly, the burden on employers of tax return preparers to make a record of the name, taxpayer identification number, and principal place of work of each employed tax return preparer, and a copy of each return or claim for refund prepared, or a record, is insignificant.

The final regulations also conform the standards of conduct for the tax return preparer penalties under section 6694(a) to the provisions of the 2007 and 2008 Acts. Tax return preparers already enroll in educational seminars or training programs to keep up to date with the latest changes to the Code, and the provisions of the 2007 and 2008 Acts and the regulations generally will be part of that training.

Based on these facts, it is certified that the collection of information contained in these final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking preceding these regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.



Drafting Information

The principal authors of these final regulations are Matthew S. Cooper and Michael E. Hara, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).



List of Subjects



26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 20

Generation-skipping transfer taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 25

Gift taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 26

Generation-skipping transfer taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 31

Employment taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Pensions, Railroad Retirement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation.



26 CFR Part 40

Excise taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 41

Excise taxes, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 44

Excise taxes, Gambling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 53

Excise taxes, Foundations, Investments, Lobbying, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 54

Excise taxes, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 55

Excise taxes, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 56

Excise taxes, Lobbying, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 156

Excise taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 157

Excise taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 301

Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



26 CFR Part 602

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.



Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 1, 20, 25, 26, 31, 40, 41, 44, 53, 54, 55, 56, 156, 157, 301, and 602 are amended as follows:



PART 1 --INCOME TAXES

Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 1.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 1.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 1.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 1.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g). * * *

Par. 2. Section 1.6060-1 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (c) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:



§1.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers.

(a) In general . (1) Each person who employs one or more signing tax return preparers to prepare any return of tax or claim for refund of tax, other than for the person, at any time during a return period shall satisfy the requirements of section 6060 of the Internal Revenue Code by --

(i) Retaining a record of the name, taxpayer identification number, and principal place of work during the return period of each tax return preparer employed by the person at any time during that period; and

(ii) Making that record available for inspection upon request by the Commissioner.

(2) The record described in this paragraph (a) must be retained and kept available for inspection for the 3-year period following the close of the return period to which that record relates.

(3) The person may choose any form of documentation to be used under this section as a record of the signing tax return preparers employed during a return period. The record, however, must disclose on its face which individuals were employed as tax return preparers during that period.

(4) For the definition of the term "signing tax return preparer", see §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter. For the definition of the term "return period", see paragraph (b) of this section.

(5)(i) For purposes of this section, any individual who, in acting as a signing tax return preparer, is not employed by another tax return preparer shall be treated as his or her own employer. Thus, a sole proprietor shall retain and make available a record with respect to himself (or herself) as provided in this section.

(ii) A partnership shall, for purposes of this section, be treated as the employer of the partners of the partnership and shall retain and make available a record with respect to the partners and others employed by the partnership as provided in this section.

* * * * *

(c) Penalty . For the civil penalty for failure to retain and make available a record of the tax return preparers employed during a return period as required under this section, or for failure to include an item in the record required to be retained and made available under this section, see §1.6695-1(e) .

(d) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 3. Section 1.6107-1 is revised to read as follows:



§1.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return or claim for refund to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record.

(a) Furnishing copy to taxpayer --(1) A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return of tax or claim for refund of tax under the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer (or nontaxable entity) not later than the time the return or claim for refund is presented for the signature of the taxpayer (or nontaxable entity). The signing tax return preparer may, at its option, request a receipt or other evidence from the taxpayer (or nontaxable entity) sufficient to show satisfaction of the requirement of this paragraph (a).

(2) The tax return preparer must provide a complete copy of the return or claim for refund filed with the IRS to the taxpayer in any media, including electronic media, that is acceptable to both the taxpayer and the tax return preparer. In the case of an electronically filed return, a complete copy of a taxpayer's return or claim for refund consists of the electronic portion of the return or claim for refund, including all schedules, forms, pdf attachments, and jurats, that was filed with the IRS. The copy provided to the taxpayer must include all information submitted to the IRS to enable the taxpayer to determine what schedules, forms, electronic files, and other supporting materials have been filed with the return. The copy, however, need not contain the identification number of the paid tax return preparer. The electronic portion of the return or claim for refund may be contained on a replica of an official form or on an unofficial form. On an unofficial form, however, data entries must reference the line numbers or descriptions on an official form.

(3) For electronically filed Forms 1040EZ, "Income Tax Return for Single Filers and Joint Filers With No Dependents," and Form 1040A, "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return," filed for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 taxable years, the information may be provided on a replica of a Form 1040, "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return", that provides all of the information. For other electronically filed returns, the information may be provided on a replica of an official form that provides all of the information.

(b) Copy or record to be retained . (1) A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund shall --

(i)(A) Retain a completed copy of the return or claim for refund; or

(B) Retain a record, by list, card file, or otherwise of the name, taxpayer identification number, and taxable year of the taxpayer (or nontaxable entity) for whom the return or claim for refund was prepared, and the type of return or claim for refund prepared;

(ii) Retain a record, by retention of a copy of the return or claim for refund, maintenance of a list, card file, or otherwise, for each return or claim for refund presented to the taxpayer (or nontaxable entity), of the name of the individual tax return preparer required to sign the return or claim for refund pursuant to §1.6695-1(b) ; and

(iii) Make the copy or record of returns and claims for refund and record of the individuals required to sign available for inspection upon request by the Commissioner.

(2) The material described in this paragraph (b) shall be retained and kept available for inspection for the 3-year period following the close of the return period during which the return or claim for refund was presented for signature to the taxpayer (or nontaxable entity). In the case of a return that becomes due (with extensions, if any) during a return period following the return period during which the return was presented for signature, the material shall be retained and kept available for inspection for the 3-year period following the close of the later return period in which the return became due. For the definition of "return period," see section 6060(c) . If the person subject to the record retention requirement of this paragraph (b) is a corporation or a partnership that is dissolved before completion of the 3-year period, then all persons who are responsible for the winding up of the affairs of the corporation or partnership under state law shall be subject, on behalf of the corporation or partnership, to these record retention requirements until completion of the 3-year period. If state law does not specify any person or persons as responsible for winding up, then, collectively, the directors or general partners shall be subject, on behalf of the corporation or partnership, to the record retention requirements of this paragraph (b). For purposes of the penalty imposed by section 6695(d) , such designated persons shall be deemed to be the tax return preparer and will be jointly and severally liable for each failure.

(c) Tax return preparer . For the definition of "signing tax return preparer," see §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter. For purposes of applying this section, a corporation, partnership or other organization that employs a signing tax return preparer to prepare for compensation (or in which a signing tax return preparer is compensated as a partner or member to prepare) a return of tax or claim for refund shall be treated as the sole signing tax return preparer.

(d) Penalties . (1) For the civil penalty for failure to furnish a copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayers (or nontaxable entity) as required under paragraphs (a) of this section, see section 6695(a) and §1.6695-1(a) .

(2) For the civil penalty for failure to retain a copy of the return or claim for refund, or to retain a record as required under paragraphs (b) of this section, see section 6695(d) and §1.6695-1(d) .

(e) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 4. Section 1.6109-2 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:



§1.6109-2 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

(a) Furnishing identifying number . (1) Each filed return of tax or claim for refund of tax under the Internal Revenue Code prepared by one or more tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the tax return preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) to sign the return or claim for refund. In addition, if there is an employment arrangement or association between the individual tax return preparer and another person (except to the extent the return prepared is for the person), the identifying number of the other person must also appear on the filed return or claim for refund. For the definition of the term "tax return preparer," see section 7701(a)(36) and §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(2) The identifying number of an individual tax return preparer is that individual's social security account number or such alternative number as may be prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance.

(3) The identifying number of a person (whether an individual or entity) who employs or associates with an individual tax return preparer described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to prepare the return or claim for refund (other than a return prepared for the person) is the person's employer identification number.

* * * * *

(d) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008. For returns or claims for refund filed before January 1, 2000, see §1.6109-2A(a) .

Par 5. Section 1.6694-0 is revised to read as follows:



§1.6694-0 Table of contents .

This section lists the captions that appear in §§1.6694-1 through 1.6694-4.



§1.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparers .

(a) Overview.

(1) In general.

(2) Date return is deemed prepared.

(b) Tax return preparer.

(1) In general.

(2) Responsibility of signing tax return preparer.

(3) Responsibility of nonsigning tax return preparer.

(4) Responsibility of signing and nonsigning tax return preparer.

(5) Tax return preparer and firm responsibility.

(6) Examples.

(c) Understatement of liability.

(d) Abatement of penalty where taxpayer's liability not understated.

(e) Verification of information furnished by taxpayer or other third party.

(1) In general.

(2) Verification of information on previously filed returns.

(3) Examples.

(f) Income derived (or to be derived) with respect to the return or claim for refund.

(1) In general.

(2) Compensation.

(i) Multiple engagements.

(ii) Reasonable allocation.

(iii) Fee refunds.

(iv) Reduction of compensation.

(3) Individual and firm allocation.

(4) Examples.

(g) Effective/applicability date.



§1.6694-2 Penalty for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general.

(1) Proscribed conduct.

(2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms.

(b) Reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits.

(1) In general.

(2) Authorities.

(3) Written determinations.

(4) Taxpayer's jurisdiction.

(5) When "more likely than not" standard must be satisfied.

(c) Substantial authority.

(d) Exception for adequate disclosure of positions with a reasonable basis.

(1) In general.

(2) Reasonable basis.

(3) Adequate disclosure.

(i) Signing tax return preparers.

(ii) Nonsigning tax return preparers.

(A) Advice to taxpayers.

(B) Advice to another tax return preparer.

(iii) Requirements for advice.

(iv) Pass-through entities.

(v) Examples.

(e) Exception for reasonable cause and good faith.

(1) Nature of the error causing the understatement.

(2) Frequency of errors.

(3) Materiality of errors.

(4) Tax return preparer's normal office practice.

(5) Reliance on advice of others.

(6) Reliance on generally accepted administrative or industry practice.

(f) Effective/applicability date.



§1.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general.

(1) Proscribed conduct.

(2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms.

(b) Willful attempt to understate liability.

(c) Reckless or intentional disregard.

(d) Examples.

(e) Rules or regulations.

(f) Section 6694(b) penalty reduced by section 6694(a) penalty.

(g) Effective/applicability date.



§1.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general.

(b) Tax return preparer must bring suit in district court to determine liability for penalty.

(c) Suspension of running of period of limitations on collection.

(d) Effective/applicability date.

Par. 6. Section 1.6694-1 is revised to read as follows:



§1.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparers .

(a) Overview --(1) In general . Sections 6694(a) and (b) impose penalties on tax return preparers for conduct giving rise to certain understatements of liability on a return (including an amended or adjusted return) or claim for refund. For positions other than those with respect to tax shelters (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii) ) and reportable transactions to which section 6662A applies, the section 6694(a) penalty is imposed in an amount equal to the greater of $1,000 or 50 percent of the income derived (or to be derived) by the tax return preparer for an understatement of tax liability that is due to an undisclosed position for which the tax return preparer did not have substantial authority or due to a disclosed position for which there is no reasonable basis. For positions with respect to tax shelters (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii) ) or reportable transactions to which section 6662A applies, the section 6694(a) penalty is imposed in an amount equal to the greater of $1,000 or 50 percent of the income derived (or to be derived) by the tax return preparer for an understatement of tax liability for which it is not reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits. The section 6694(b) penalty is imposed in an amount equal to the greater of $5,000 or 50 percent of the income derived (or to be derived) by the tax return preparer for an understatement of liability with respect to tax that is due to a willful attempt to understate tax liability or that is due to reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations. Refer to §1.6694-2 for rules relating to the penalty under section 6694(a) . Refer to §1.6694-3 for rules relating to the penalty under section 6694(b) .

(2) Date return is deemed prepared . For purposes of the penalties under section 6694 , a return or claim for refund is deemed prepared on the date it is signed by the tax return preparer. If a signing tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter fails to sign the return, the return or claim for refund is deemed prepared on the date the return or claim is filed. See §1.6695-1 of this section. In the case of a nonsigning tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(2) of this chapter, the relevant date is the date the nonsigning tax return preparer provides the tax advice with respect to the position giving rise to the understatement. This date will be determined based on all the facts and circumstances.

(b) Tax return preparer --(1) In general . For purposes of this section, "tax return preparer" means any person who is a tax return preparer within the meaning of section 7701(a)(36) and §301.7701-15 of this chapter. An individual is a tax return preparer subject to section 6694 if the individual is primarily responsible for the position(s) on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. See §301.7701-15(b)(3) . There is only one individual within a firm who is primarily responsible for each position on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. In the course of identifying the individual who is primarily responsible for the position, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may advise multiple individuals within the firm that it may be concluded that they are the individual within the firm who is primarily responsible. In some circumstances, there may be more than one tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position(s) giving rise to an understatement if multiple tax return preparers are employed by, or associated with, different firms.

(2) Responsibility of signing tax return preparer . If there is a signing tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter within a firm, the signing tax return preparer generally will be considered the person who is primarily responsible for all of the positions on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement unless, based upon credible information from any source, it is concluded that the nonsigning tax return preparer is not primarily responsible for the position(s) on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. In that case, a nonsigning tax return preparer within the signing tax return preparer's firm (as determined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section) will be considered the tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position(s) on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement.

(3) Responsibility of nonsigning tax return preparer . If there is no signing tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter for the return or claim for refund within the firm or if, after the application of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, it is concluded that the signing tax return preparer is not primarily responsible for the position, the nonsigning tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(2) of this chapter within the firm with overall supervisory responsibility for the position(s) giving rise to the understatement generally will be considered the tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position for purposes of section 6694 unless, based upon credible information from any source, it is concluded that another nonsigning tax return preparer within that firm is primarily responsible for the position(s) on the return or claim for refund giving rise to the understatement.

(4) Responsibility of signing and nonsigning tax return preparer . If the information presented would support a finding that, within a firm, either the signing tax return preparer or a nonsigning tax return preparer is primarily responsible for the position(s) giving rise to the understatement, the penalty may be assessed against either one of the individuals, but not both, as the primarily responsible tax return preparer.

(5) Tax return preparer and firm responsibility . To the extent provided in §§1.6694-2(a)(2) and 1.6694-3(a)(2), an individual and the firm that employs the individual, or the firm of which the individual is a partner, member, shareholder, or other equity holder, both may be subject to penalty under section 6694 with respect to the position(s) on the return or claim for refund giving rise to an understatement. If an individual (other than the sole proprietor) who is employed by a sole proprietorship is subject to penalty under section 6694 , the sole proprietorship is considered a "firm" for purposes of this paragraph (b).

(6) Examples . The provisions of paragraph (b) of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1 . Attorney A provides advice to Client C concerning the proper treatment of an item with respect to which all events have occurred on C's tax return. In preparation for providing that advice, A seeks advice regarding the proper treatment of the item from Attorney B, who is within the same firm as A, but A is the attorney who signs C's return as a tax return preparer. B provides advice on the treatment of the item upon which A relies. B's advice is reflected on C's tax return but no disclosure was made in accordance with §1.6694-2(d)(3) . The advice constitutes preparation of a substantial portion of the return within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(3) . The IRS later challenges the position taken on the tax return, giving rise to an understatement of liability. For purposes of the regulations under section 6694 , A is initially considered the tax return preparer with respect to C's return, and the IRS advises A that A may be subject to the penalty under section 6694 with respect to C's return. Based upon information received from A or another source, it may be concluded that B, rather than A, had primary responsibility for the position taken on the return that gave rise to the understatement and may be subject to penalty under section 6694 instead of A.

Example 2 . Same as Example 1 , except that neither Attorney A nor any other source produce credible information that Attorney B had primary responsibility for the position on the return giving rise to an understatement. Attorney A is the tax return preparer who may be subject to penalty under section 6694 with respect to C's return.

Example 3 . Same as Example 1 , except that neither Attorney A nor any other attorney within A's firm signs Client C's return as a tax return preparer. Attorney B is the nonsigning tax return preparer within the firm with overall supervisory responsibility for the position giving rise to an understatement. Accordingly, B is the tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position on C's return giving rise to an understatement and may be subject to penalty under section 6694 .

Example 4 . Same as Example 1 , except Attorney D, who works for a different firm than A, also provides advice on the same position upon which A relies. It may be concluded that D is also primarily responsible for the position on the return and may be subject to penalty under section 6694 .

Example 5 . Same as Example 1 , except Attorney B is able to present credible information that A is also responsible for the position on C's return giving rise to an understatement. The IRS may conclude between A and B, the two responsible persons for the position, who is primarily responsible and may assess a section 6694 penalty against A or B, but not both, as the primarily responsible tax return preparer.

(c) Understatement of liability . For purposes of this section, an "understatement of liability" exists if, viewing the return or claim for refund as a whole, there is an understatement of the net amount payable with respect to any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code (Code), or an overstatement of the net amount creditable or refundable with respect to any tax imposed by the Code. The net amount payable in a taxable year with respect to the return for which the tax return preparer engaged in conduct proscribed by section 6694 is not reduced by any carryback. Tax imposed by the Code does not include additions to the tax, additional amounts, and assessable penalties imposed by subchapter 68 of the Code. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the determination of whether an understatement of liability exists may be made in a proceeding involving the tax return preparer that is separate and apart from any proceeding involving the taxpayer.

(d) Abatement of penalty where taxpayer's liability not understated . If a penalty under section 6694(a) or (b) concerning a return or claim for refund has been assessed against one or more tax return preparers, and if it is established at any time in a final administrative determination or a final judicial decision that there was no understatement of liability relating to the position(s) on the return or claim for refund, then --

(1) The assessment shall be abated; and

(2) If any amount of the penalty was paid, that amount shall be refunded to the person or persons who so paid, as if the payment were an overpayment of tax, without consideration of any period of limitations.

(e) Verification of information furnished by taxpayer or other party --(1) In general . For purposes of sections 6694(a) and (b) (including demonstrating that a position complied with relevant standards under section 6694(a) and demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith under §1.6694-2(e)) , the tax return preparer generally may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the taxpayer. A tax return preparer also may rely in good faith and without verification upon information and advice furnished by another advisor, another tax return preparer or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's firm). The tax return preparer is not required to audit, examine or review books and records, business operations, documents, or other evidence to verify independently information provided by the taxpayer, advisor, other tax return preparer, or other party. The tax return preparer, however, may not ignore the implications of information furnished to the tax return preparer or actually known by the tax return preparer. The tax return preparer must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect or incomplete. Additionally, some provisions of the Code or regulations require that specific facts and circumstances exist (for example, that the taxpayer maintain specific documents) before a deduction or credit may be claimed. The tax return preparer must make appropriate inquiries to determine the existence of facts and circumstances required by a Code section or regulation as a condition of the claiming of a deduction or credit.

(2) Verification of information on previously filed returns . For purposes of section 6694(a) and (b) (including meeting the reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits and reasonable basis standards in §§1.6694-2(b) and (d)(2), and demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith under §1.6694-2(e)) , a tax return preparer may rely in good faith without verification upon a tax return that has been previously prepared by a taxpayer or another tax return preparer and filed with the IRS. For example, a tax return preparer who prepares an amended return (including a claim for refund) need not verify the positions on the original return. The tax return preparer, however, may not ignore the implications of information furnished to the tax return preparer or actually known by the tax return preparer. The tax return preparer must make reasonable inquiries if the information as furnished appears to be incorrect or incomplete. The tax return preparer must confirm that the position being relied upon has not been adjusted by examination or otherwise.

(3) Examples . The provisions of this paragraph (e) are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1 . During an interview conducted by Preparer E, a taxpayer stated that he had made a charitable contribution of real estate in the amount of $50,000 during the tax year, when in fact he had not made this charitable contribution. E did not inquire about the existence of a qualified appraisal or complete a Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions, in accordance with the reporting and substantiation requirements under section 170(f)(11) . E reported a deduction on the tax return for the charitable contribution, which resulted in an understatement of liability for tax, and signed the tax return as the tax return preparer. E is subject to a penalty under section 6694 .

Example 2 . While preparing the 2008 tax return for an individual taxpayer, Preparer F realizes that the taxpayer did not provide a Form 1099-INT, "Interest Income", for a bank account that produced significant taxable income in 2007. When F inquired about any other income, the taxpayer furnished the Form 1099-INT to F for use in preparation of the 2008 tax return. F did not know that the taxpayer owned an additional bank account that generated taxable income for 2008, and the taxpayer did not reveal this information to the tax return preparer notwithstanding F's general inquiry about any other income. F signed the taxpayer's return as the tax return preparer. F is not subject to a penalty under section 6694 .

Example 3 . In preparing a tax return, for purposes of determining the deductibility of a contribution by an employer for a qualified pension plan, Accountant G relies on a computation of the section 404 limit on deductible amounts made by the enrolled actuary for the plan. On the basis of this calculation, G completed and signed the tax return. It is later determined that there is an understatement of liability for tax that resulted from the overstatement of the section 404 limit on deductible amounts made by the actuary. G had no reason to believe that the actuary's calculation of the limit on deductible contributions was incorrect or incomplete, and the calculation appeared reasonable on its face. G was also not aware at the time the return was prepared of any reason why the actuary did not know all of the relevant facts or that the calculation of the limit on deductible contributions was no longer reliable due to developments in the law since the time the calculation was given. G is not subject to a penalty under section 6694 . The actuary, however, may be subject to penalty under section 6694 if the calculation provided by the actuary constitutes a substantial portion of the tax return within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(3) of this chapter.

(f) Income derived (or to be derived) with respect to the return or claim for refund --(1) In general . For purposes of sections 6694(a) and (b), income derived (or to be derived) means all compensation the tax return preparer receives or expects to receive with respect to the engagement of preparing the return or claim for refund or providing tax advice (including research and consultation) with respect to the position(s) taken on the return or claim for refund that gave rise to the understatement. In the situation of a tax return preparer who is not compensated directly by the taxpayer, but rather by a firm that employs the tax return preparer or with which the tax return preparer is associated, income derived (or to be derived) means all compensation the tax return preparer receives from the firm that can be reasonably allocated to the engagement of preparing the return or claim for refund or providing tax advice (including research and consultation) with respect to the position(s) taken on the return or claim for refund that gave rise to the understatement. In the situation where a firm that employs the individual tax return preparer (or the firm of which the individual tax return preparer is a partner, member, shareholder, or other equity holder) is subject to a penalty under section 6694(a) or (b) pursuant to the provisions in §§1.6694-2(a)(2) or 1.6694-3(a)(2), income derived (or to be derived) means all compensation the firm receives or expects to receive with respect to the engagement of preparing the return or claim for refund or providing tax advice (including research and consultation) with respect to the position(s) taken on the return or claim for refund that gave rise to the understatement.

(2) Compensation --(i) Multiple engagements . For purposes of applying paragraph (f)(1) of this section, if the tax return preparer or the tax return preparer's firm has multiple engagements related to the same return or claim for refund, only those engagements relating to the position(s) taken on the return or claim for refund that gave rise to the understatement are considered for purposes of calculating the income derived (or to be derived) with respect to the return or claim for refund.

(ii) Reasonable allocation . For purposes of applying paragraph (f)(1) of this section, only compensation for tax advice that is given with respect to events that have occurred at the time the advice is rendered and that relates to the position(s) giving rise to the understatement will be taken into account for purposes of calculating the section 6694(a) and (b) penalties. If a lump sum fee is received that includes amounts not taken into account under the preceding sentence, the amount of income derived will be based on a reasonable allocation of the lump sum fee between the tax advice giving rise to the penalty and the advice that does not give rise to the penalty.

(iii) Fee refunds . For purposes of applying paragraph (f)(1) of this section, a refund to the taxpayer of all or part of the amount paid to the tax return preparer or the tax return preparer's firm will not reduce the amount of the section 6694 penalty assessed. A refund in this context does not include a discounted fee or alternative billing arrangement for the services provided.

(iv) Reduction of compensation . For purposes of applying paragraph (f)(1) of this section, it may be concluded based upon information provided by the tax return preparer or the tax return preparer's firm that an appropriate allocation of compensation attributable to the position(s) giving rise to the understatement on the return or claim for refund is less than the total amount of compensation associated with the engagement. For example, the number of hours of the engagement spent on the position(s) giving rise to the understatement may be less than the total hours associated with the engagement. If this is concluded, the amount of the penalty will be calculated based upon the compensation attributable to the position(s) giving rise to the understatement. Otherwise, the total amount of compensation from the engagement will be the amount of income derived for purposes of calculating the penalty under section 6694 .

(3) Individual and firm allocation . If both an individual within a firm and a firm that employs the individual (or the firm of which the individual is a partner, member, shareholder, or other equity holder) are subject to a penalty under section 6694(a) or (b) pursuant to the provisions in §§1.6694-2(a)(2) or 1.6694-3(a)(2), the amount of penalties assessed against the individual and the firm shall not exceed 50 percent of the income derived (or to be derived) by the firm from the engagement of preparing the return or claim for refund or providing tax advice (including research and consultation) with respect to the position(s) taken on the return or claim for refund that gave rise to the understatement. The portion of the total amount of the penalty assessed against the individual tax return preparer shall not exceed 50 percent of the individual's compensation as determined under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.

(4) Examples . The provisions of this paragraph (f) are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1 . Signing Tax Return Preparer H is engaged by a taxpayer and paid a total of $21,000. Of this amount, $20,000 relates to research and consultation regarding a transaction that is later reported on a return, and $1,000 for the activities relating to the preparation of the return. Based on H's hourly rates, a reasonable allocation of the amount of compensation related to the advice rendered prior to the occurrence of events that are the subject of the advice is $5,000. The remaining compensation of $16,000 is considered to be compensation related to the advice rendered after the occurrence of events that are the subject of the advice and return preparation. The income derived by H with respect to the return for purposes of computing the penalty under section 6694(a) is $16,000, and the amount of the penalty imposed under section 6694(a) is $8,000.

Example 2 . Accountants I, J, and K are employed by Firm L. I is a principal manager of Firm L and provides corporate tax advice for the taxpayer after all events have occurred subject to an engagement for corporate tax advice. J provides international tax advice for the taxpayer after all events have occurred subject to a different engagement for international tax advice. K prepares and signs the taxpayer's return under a general tax services engagement. I's advice is the source of an understatement on the return and the advice constitutes preparation of a substantial portion of the return within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b) of this chapter. I is the nonsigning tax return preparer within the firm with overall supervisory responsibility for the position on the taxpayer's return giving rise to an understatement. Thus, I is the tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the position on the taxpayer's return giving rise to the understatement. Because K's signature as the signing tax return preparer is on the return, the IRS advises K that K may be subject to the section 6694(a) penalty against K to the understatement. K provides credible information that I is the tax return preparer with primary responsibility for the position that gave rise to the understatement. The IRS, therefore, assesses the section 6694 penalty against I. The portion of the total amount of the penalty allocable to I does not exceed 50 percent of that part of I's compensation that is attributable to the corporate tax advice engagement. In the event that Firm L is also liable under the provisions in §1.6694-2(a)(2) , the IRS assesses the section 6694 penalty in an amount not exceeding 50 percent of Firm L's firm compensation based on the engagement relating to the corporate tax advice services provided by I where there is no applicable reduction in compensation pursuant to §1.6694-1(f)(2)(iii) .

Example 3 . Same facts as Example 2 , except that I provides the advice on the corporate matter when the events have not yet occurred. I's advice is the cause of an understatement position on the return, but I is not a tax return preparer pursuant to §301.7701-15(b)(2) or (3) of this chapter. K is not limited to reliance on persons who provide post-transactional advice if such reliance is reasonable and in good faith. Further, K has reasonable cause because K relied on I for the advice on the corporate tax matter. I, K and Firm L are not liable for the section 6694 penalty.

Example 4 . Attorney M is an employee of Firm N with a salary of $75,000 per year. M performs tax preparation work for Client O. Client O's return contains a position that results in an understatement subject to the section 6694 penalty. M spent 100 hours on the position (out of a total 2,000 billed during the year). The total fees earned by Firm N with respect to the position reflected on Client O's return are $50,000. If M is subject to the penalty, the penalty amount computed under the 50 percent of income standard is .5 X (100/2000) X $75,000 = $1,875. If Firm N is subject to the penalty, the penalty amount computed under the 50% of income standard is .5 X $50,000 = $25,000, less any penalty amount imposed against M. If a penalty of $1,875 was assessed against M and Firm N was subject to the penalty, a penalty of $23,125 would be the amount of penalty assessed against Firm N.

(g) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 7. Section 1.6694-2 is revised to read as follows:



§1.6694-2 Penalty for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general --(1) Proscribed conduct . Except as otherwise provided in this section, a tax return preparer is liable for a penalty under section 6694(a) equal to the greater of $1,000 or 50 percent of the income derived (or to be derived) by the tax return preparer for any return or claim for refund that it prepares that results in an understatement of liability due to a position if the tax return preparer knew (or reasonably should have known) of the position and either --

(i) The position is with respect to a tax shelter (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii) ) or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies, and it was not reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits;

(ii) The position was not disclosed as provided in this section, the position is not with respect to a tax shelter (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii) ) or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies, and there was not substantial authority for the position; or

(iii) The position (other than a position with respect to a tax shelter or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies) was disclosed as provided in this section but there was no reasonable basis for the position.

(2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms . A firm that employs a tax return preparer subject to a penalty under section 6694(a) (or a firm of which the individual tax return preparer is a partner, member, shareholder or other equity holder) is also subject to penalty if, and only if --

(i) One or more members of the principal management (or principal officers) of the firm or a branch office participated in or knew of the conduct proscribed by section 6694(a) ;

(ii) The corporation, partnership, or other firm entity failed to provide reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position for which the penalty is imposed; or

(iii) The corporation, partnership, or other firm entity disregarded its reasonable and appropriate review procedures through willfulness, recklessness, or gross indifference (including ignoring facts that would lead a person of reasonable prudence and competence to investigate or ascertain) in the formulation of the advice, or the preparation of the return or claim for refund, that included the position for which the penalty is imposed.

(b) Reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits --(1) In general . If a position is with respect to a tax shelter (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)(ii) ) or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies, it is "reasonable to believe that a position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits" if the tax return preparer analyzes the pertinent facts and authorities and, in reliance upon that analysis, reasonably concludes in good faith that the position has a greater than 50 percent likelihood of being sustained on its merits. In reaching this conclusion, the possibility that the position will not be challenged by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (for example, because the taxpayer's return may not be audited or because the issue may not be raised on audit) is not to be taken into account. The analysis prescribed by §1.6662-4(d)(3)(ii) (or any successor provision) for purposes of determining whether substantial authority is present applies for purposes of determining whether the more likely than not standard is satisfied. Whether a tax return preparer meets this standard will be determined based upon all facts and circumstances, including the tax return preparer's diligence. In determining the level of diligence in a particular situation, the tax return preparer's experience with the area of Federal tax law and familiarity with the taxpayer's affairs, as well as the complexity of the issues and facts, will be taken into account. A tax return preparer may reasonably believe that a position more likely than not would be sustained on its merits despite the absence of other types of authority if the position is supported by a well-reasoned construction of the applicable statutory provision. For purposes of determining whether it is reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on the merits, a tax return preparer may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the taxpayer and information and advice furnished by another advisor, another tax return preparer, or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's firm), as provided in §§1.6694-1(e) and 1.6694-2(e)(5).

(2) Authorities . The authorities considered in determining whether a position satisfies the more likely than not standard are those authorities provided in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iii) (or any successor provision).

(3) Written determinations . The tax return preparer may avoid the section 6694(a) penalty by taking the position that the tax return preparer reasonably believed that the taxpayer's position satisfies the "more likely than not" standard if the taxpayer is the subject of a "written determination" as provided in §1.6662-4(d)(3)(iv)(A) .

(4) Taxpayer's jurisdiction . The applicability of court cases to the taxpayer by reason of the taxpayer's residence in a particular jurisdiction is not taken into account in determining whether it is reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on the merits. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the tax return preparer may reasonably believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on the merits if the position is supported by controlling precedent of a United States Court of Appeals to which the taxpayer has a right of appeal with respect to the item.

(5) When "more likely than not" standard must be satisfied . For purposes of this section, the requirement that a position satisfies the "more likely than not" standard must be satisfied on the date the return is deemed prepared, as prescribed by §1.6694-1(a)(2) .

(c) [Reserved].

(d) Exception for adequate disclosure of positions with a reasonable basis --(1) In general . The section 6694(a) penalty will not be imposed on a tax return preparer if the position taken (other than a position with respect to a tax shelter or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies) has a reasonable basis and is adequately disclosed within the meaning of paragraph (c)(3) of this section. For an exception to the section 6694(a) penalty for reasonable cause and good faith, see paragraph (d) of this section.

(2) Reasonable basis . For purposes of this section, "reasonable basis" has the same meaning as in §1.6662-3(b)(3) or any successor provision of the accuracy-related penalty regulations. For purposes of determining whether the tax return preparer has a reasonable basis for a position, a tax return preparer may rely in good faith without verification upon information furnished by the taxpayer and information and advice furnished by another advisor, another tax return preparer, or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's firm), as provided in §§1.6694-1(e) and 1.6694-2(d)(5).

(3) Adequate disclosure --(i) Signing tax return preparers . In the case of a signing tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter, disclosure of a position (other than a position with respect to a tax shelter or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies) for which there is a reasonable basis but for which there is not substantial authority is adequate if the tax return preparer meets any of the following standards:

(A) The position is disclosed in accordance with §1.6662-4(f) (which permits disclosure on a properly completed and filed Form 8275, "Disclosure Statement," or Form 8275-R, "Regulation Disclosure Statement," as appropriate, or on the tax return in accordance with the annual revenue procedure described in §1.6662-4(f)(2)) ;

(B) The tax return preparer provides the taxpayer with the prepared tax return that includes the disclosure in accordance with §1.6662-4(f) ; or

(C) For returns or claims for refund that are subject to penalties pursuant to section 6662 other than the accuracy-related penalty attributable to a substantial understatement of income tax under section 6662(b)(2) and (d), the tax return preparer advises the taxpayer of the penalty standards applicable to the taxpayer under section 6662 . The tax return preparer must also contemporaneously document the advice in the tax return preparer's files.

(ii) Nonsigning tax return preparers . In the case of a nonsigning tax return preparer within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(2) of this chapter, disclosure of a position (other than a position with respect to a tax shelter or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies) that satisfies the reasonable basis standard but does not satisfy the substantial authority standard is adequate if the position is disclosed in accordance with §1.6662-4(f) (which permits disclosure on a properly completed and filed Form 8275 or Form 8275-R, as applicable, or on the return in accordance with an annual revenue procedure described in §1.6662-4(f)(2)) . In addition, disclosure of a position is adequate in the case of a nonsigning tax return preparer if, with respect to that position, the tax return preparer complies with the provisions of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section, whichever is applicable.

(A) Advice to taxpayers . If a nonsigning tax return preparer provides advice to the taxpayer with respect to a position (other than a position with respect to a tax shelter or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies) for which there is a reasonable basis but for which there is not substantial authority, disclosure of that position is adequate if the tax return preparer advises the taxpayer of any opportunity to avoid penalties under section 6662 that could apply to the position, if relevant, and of the standards for disclosure to the extent applicable. The tax return preparer must also contemporaneously document the advice in the tax return preparer's files. The contemporaneous documentation should reflect that the affected taxpayer has been advised by a tax return preparer in the firm of the potential penalties and the opportunity to avoid penalty through disclosure.

(B) Advice to another tax return preparer . If a nonsigning tax return preparer provides advice to another tax return preparer with respect to a position (other than a position with respect to a tax shelter or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies) for which there is a reasonable basis but for which there is not substantial authority, disclosure of that position is adequate if the tax return preparer advises the other tax return preparer that disclosure under section 6694(a) may be required. The tax return preparer must also contemporaneously document the advice in the tax return preparer's files. The contemporaneous documentation should reflect that the tax return preparer outside the firm has been advised that disclosure under section 6694(a) may be required. If the advice is to another nonsigning tax return preparer within the same firm, contemporaneous documentation is satisfied if there is a single instance of contemporaneous documentation within the firm.

(iii) Requirements for advice . For purposes of satisfying the disclosure standards of paragraphs (d)(3)(i)(C) and (ii) of this section, each return position for which there is a reasonable basis but for which there is not substantial authority must be addressed by the tax return preparer. The advice to the taxpayer with respect to each position, therefore, must be particular to the taxpayer and tailored to the taxpayer's facts and circumstances. The tax return preparer is required to contemporaneously document the fact that the advice was provided. There is no general pro forma language or special format required for a tax return preparer to comply with these rules. A general disclaimer will not satisfy the requirement that the tax return preparer provide and contemporaneously document advice regarding the likelihood that a position will be sustained on the merits and the potential application of penalties as a result of that position. Tax return preparers, however, may rely on established forms or templates in advising clients regarding the operation of the penalty provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. A tax return preparer may choose to comply with the documentation standard in one document addressing each position or in multiple documents addressing all of the positions.

(iv) Pass-through entities . Disclosure in the case of items attributable to a pass-through entity is adequate if made at the entity level in accordance with the rules in §1.6662-4(f)(5) or at the entity level in accordance with the rules in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section.

(v) Examples . The provisions of paragraph (d)(3) of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1 . An individual taxpayer hires Accountant R to prepare its income tax return. A particular position taken on the tax return does not have substantial authority although there is a reasonable basis for the position. The position is not with respect to a tax shelter or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies. R prepares and signs the tax return and provides the taxpayer with the prepared tax return that includes the Form 8275, "Disclosure Statement," disclosing the position taken on the tax return. The individual taxpayer signs and files the tax return without disclosing the position. The IRS later challenges the position taken on the tax return, resulting in an understatement of liability. R is not subject to a penalty under section 6694 .

Example 2 . Attorney S advises a large corporate taxpayer concerning the proper treatment of complex entries on the corporate taxpayer's tax return. S has reason to know that the tax attributable to the entries is a substantial portion of the tax required to be shown on the tax return within the meaning of §301.7701-15(b)(3) . When providing the advice, S concludes that one position does not have substantial authority, although the position meets the reasonable basis standard. The position is not with respect to a tax shelter or a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies. S advises the corporate taxpayer that the position lacks substantial authority and the taxpayer may be subject to an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 unless the position is disclosed in a disclosure statement included in the return. S also documents the fact that this advice was contemporaneously provided to the corporate taxpayer at the time the advice was provided. Neither S nor any other attorney within S's firm signs the corporate taxpayer's return as a tax return preparer, but the advice by S constitutes preparation of a substantial portion of the tax return, and S is the individual with overall supervisory responsibility for the position giving rise to the understatement. Thus, S is a tax return preparer for purposes of section 6694 . S, however, will not be subject to a penalty under section 6694 .

(e) Exception for reasonable cause and good faith . The penalty under section 6694(a) will not be imposed if, considering all the facts and circumstances, it is determined that the understatement was due to reasonable cause and that the tax return preparer acted in good faith. Factors to consider include:

(1) Nature of the error causing the understatement . The error resulted from a provision that was complex, uncommon, or highly technical, and a competent tax return preparer of tax returns or claims for refund of the type at issue reasonably could have made the error. The reasonable cause and good faith exception, however, does not apply to an error that would have been apparent from a general review of the return or claim for refund by the tax return preparer.

(2) Frequency of errors . The understatement was the result of an isolated error (such as an inadvertent mathematical or clerical error) rather than a number of errors. Although the reasonable cause and good faith exception generally applies to an isolated error, it does not apply if the isolated error is so obvious, flagrant, or material that it should have been discovered during a review of the return or claim for refund. Furthermore, the reasonable cause and good faith exception does not apply if there is a pattern of errors on a return or claim for refund even though any one error, in isolation, would have qualified for the reasonable cause and good faith exception.

(3) Materiality of errors . The understatement was not material in relation to the correct tax liability. The reasonable cause and good faith exception generally applies if the understatement is of a relatively immaterial amount. Nevertheless, even an immaterial understatement may not qualify for the reasonable cause and good faith exception if the error or errors creating the understatement are sufficiently obvious or numerous.

(4) Tax return preparer's normal office practice . The tax return preparer's normal office practice, when considered together with other facts and circumstances, such as the knowledge of the tax return preparer, indicates that the error in question would occur rarely and the normal office practice was followed in preparing the return or claim for refund in question. Such a normal office practice must be a system for promoting accuracy and consistency in the preparation of returns or claims for refund and generally would include, in the case of a signing tax return preparer, checklists, methods for obtaining necessary information from the taxpayer, a review of the prior year's return, and review procedures. Notwithstanding these rules, the reasonable cause and good faith exception does not apply if there is a flagrant error on a return or claim for refund, a pattern of errors on a return or claim for refund, or a repetition of the same or similar errors on numerous returns or claims for refund.

(5) Reliance on advice of others . For purposes of demonstrating reasonable cause and good faith, a tax return preparer may rely without verification upon advice and information furnished by the taxpayer and information and advice furnished by another advisor, another tax return preparer or other party, as provided in §1.6694-1(e) . The tax return preparer may rely in good faith on the advice of, or schedules or other documents prepared by, the taxpayer, another advisor, another tax return preparer, or other party (including another advisor or tax return preparer at the tax return preparer's firm), who the tax return preparer had reason to believe was competent to render the advice or other information. The advice or information may be written or oral, but in either case the burden of establishing that the advice or information was received is on the tax return preparer. A tax return preparer is not considered to have relied in good faith if --

(i) The advice or information is unreasonable on its face;

(ii) The tax return preparer knew or should have known that the other party providing the advice or information was not aware of all relevant facts; or

(iii) The tax return preparer knew or should have known (given the nature of the tax return preparer's practice), at the time the return or claim for refund was prepared, that the advice or information was no longer reliable due to developments in the law since the time the advice was given.

(6) Reliance on generally accepted administrative or industry practice . The tax return preparer reasonably relied in good faith on generally accepted administrative or industry practice in taking the position that resulted in the understatement. A tax return preparer is not considered to have relied in good faith if the tax return preparer knew or should have known (given the nature of the tax return preparer's practice), at the time the return or claim for refund was prepared, that the administrative or industry practice was no longer reliable due to developments in the law or IRS administrative practice since the time the practice was developed.

(f) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 8. Section 1.6694-3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a),(c)(2) and (3),(d),(e),(f),and (g) to read as follows:



§1.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general --(1) Proscribed conduct . A tax return preparer is liable for a penalty under section 6694(b) equal to the greater of $5,000 or 50 percent of the income derived (or to be derived) by the tax return preparer if any part of an understatement of liability for a return or claim for refund that is prepared is due to --

(i) A willful attempt by a tax return preparer to understate in any manner the liability for tax on the return or claim for refund; or

(ii) Any reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations by a tax return preparer.

(2) Special rule for corporations, partnerships, and other firms . A firm that employs a tax return preparer subject to a penalty under section 6694(b) (or a firm of which the individual tax return preparer is a partner, member, shareholder or other equity holder) is also subject to penalty if, and only if --

(i) One or more members of the principal management (or principal officers) of the firm or a branch office participated in or knew of the conduct proscribed by section 6694(b) ;

(ii) The corporation, partnership, or other firm entity failed to provide reasonable and appropriate procedures for review of the position for which the penalty is imposed; or

(iii) The corporation, partnership, or other firm entity disregarded its reasonable and appropriate review procedures through willfulness, recklessness, or gross indifference (including ignoring facts that would lead a person of reasonable prudence and competence to investigate or ascertain) in the formulation of the advice, or the preparation of the return or claim for refund, that included the position for which the penalty is imposed.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) A tax return preparer is not considered to have recklessly or intentionally disregarded a rule or regulation if the position contrary to the rule or regulation has a reasonable basis as defined in §1.6694-2(c)(2) and is adequately disclosed in accordance with §§1.6694-2(c)(3)(i)(A) or (C) or 1.6694-2(c)(3)(ii). In the case of a position contrary to a regulation, the position must represent a good faith challenge to the validity of the regulation and, when disclosed in accordance with §§1.6694-2(c)(3)(i)(A) or (C) or 1.6694-2(c)(3)(ii), the tax return preparer must identify the regulation being challenged. For purposes of this section, disclosure on the return in accordance with an annual revenue procedure under §1.6662-4(f)(2) is not applicable.

(3) In the case of a position contrary to a revenue ruling or notice (other than a notice of proposed rulemaking) published by the Internal Revenue Service in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, a tax return preparer also is not considered to have recklessly or intentionally disregarded the ruling or notice if the position meets the substantial authority standard described in §1.6662-4(d) and is not with respect to a reportable transaction to which section 6662A applies.

(d) Examples . The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1 . A taxpayer provided Preparer T with detailed check registers reflecting personal and business expenses. One of the expenses was for domestic help, and this expense was identified as personal on the check register. T knowingly deducted the expenses of the taxpayer's domestic help as wages paid in the taxpayer's business. T is subject to the penalty under section 6694(b) .

Example 2 . A taxpayer provided Preparer U with detailed check registers to compute the taxpayer's expenses. U, however, knowingly overstated the expenses on the return. After adjustments by the examiner, the tax liability increased significantly. Because U disregarded information provided in the check registers, U is subject to the penalty under section 6694(b) .

Example 3 . Preparer V prepares a taxpayer's return in 2009 and encounters certain expenses incurred in the purchase of a business. Final regulations provide that such expenses incurred in the purchase of a business must be capitalized. One U.S. Tax Court case decided in 2006 has expressly invalidated that portion of the regulations. There are no courts that ruled favorably with respect to the validity of that portion of the regulations and there are no other authorities existing on the issue. Under these facts, V will have a reasonable basis for the position as defined in §1.6694-2(d)(2) and will not be subject to the section 6694(b) penalty if the position is adequately disclosed in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section because the position represents a good faith challenge to the validity of the regulations.

(e) Rules or regulations . The term rules or regulations includes the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), temporary or final Treasury regulations issued under the Code, and revenue rulings or notices (other than notices of proposed rulemaking) issued by the Internal Revenue Service and published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

(f) Section 6694(b) penalty reduced by section 6694(a) penalty . The amount of any penalty to which a tax return preparer may be subject under section 6694(b) for a return or claim for refund is reduced by any amount assessed and collected against the tax return preparer under section 6694(a) for the same position on a return or claim for refund.

(g) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 9. Section 1.6694-4 is revised to read as follows:



§1.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . (1) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will investigate the preparation by a tax return preparer of a return of tax under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) or claim for refund of tax under the Code as described in §301.7701-15(b)(4) of this chapter, and will send a report of the examination to the tax return preparer before the assessment of either --

(i) A penalty for understating tax liability due to a position for which either it was not reasonable to believe that the position would more likely than not be sustained on its merits under section 6694(a) or no substantial authority, as applicable (or not a reasonable basis for disclosed positions); or

(ii) A penalty for willful understatement of liability or reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations under section 6694(b) .

(2) Unless the period of limitations (if any) under section 6696(d) may expire without adequate opportunity for assessment, the IRS will also send, before assessment of either penalty, a 30-day letter to the tax return preparer notifying him of the proposed penalty or penalties and offering an opportunity to the tax return preparer to request further administrative consideration and a final administrative determination by the IRS concerning the assessment. If the tax return preparer then makes a timely request, assessment may not be made until the IRS makes a final administrative determination adverse to the tax return preparer.

(3) If the IRS assesses either of the two penalties described in section 6694(a) and section 6694(b) , it will send to the tax return preparer a statement of notice and demand, separate from any notice of a tax deficiency, for payment of the amount assessed.

(4) Within 30 days after the day on which notice and demand of either of the two penalties described in section 6694(a) and section 6694(b) is made against the tax return preparer, the tax return preparer must either --

(i) Pay the entire amount assessed (and may file a claim for refund of the amount paid at any time not later than 3 years after the date of payment); or

(ii) Pay an amount which is not less than 15 percent of the entire amount assessed with respect to each return or claim for refund and file a claim for refund of the amount paid.

(5) If the tax return preparer pays an amount and files a claim for refund under paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, the IRS may not make, begin, or prosecute a levy or proceeding in court for collection of the unpaid remainder of the amount assessed until the later of --

(i) A date which is more than 30 days after the earlier of --

(A) The day on which the tax return preparer's claim for refund is denied; or

(B) The expiration of 6 months after the day on which the tax return preparer filed the claim for refund; and

(ii) Final resolution of any proceeding begun as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

(6) The IRS may counterclaim in any proceeding begun as provided in paragraph (b) of this section for the unpaid remainder of the amount assessed. Final resolution of a proceeding includes any settlement between the IRS and the tax return preparer, any final determination by a court (for which the period for appeal, if any, has expired) and, generally, the types of determinations provided under section 1313(a) (relating to taxpayer deficiencies). Notwithstanding section 7421(a) (relating to suits to restrain assessment or collection), the beginning of a levy or proceeding in court by the IRS in contravention of paragraph (a)(5) of this section may be enjoined by a proceeding in the proper court.

(b) Preparer must bring suit in district court to determine liability for penalty . The IRS may proceed with collection of the amount of the penalty not paid under paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section if the preparer fails to begin a proceeding for refund in the appropriate United States district court within 30 days after the earlier of --

(1) The day on which the preparer's claim for refund filed under paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section is denied; or

(2) The expiration of 6 months after the day on which the preparer filed the claim for refund.

(c) Suspension of running of period of limitations on collection . The running of the period of limitations provided in section 6502 on the collection by levy or by a proceeding in court of the unpaid amount of a penalty or penalties described in section 6694(a) or section 6694(b) is suspended for the period during which the IRS, under paragraph (a)(5) of this section, may not collect the unpaid amount of the penalty or penalties by levy or a proceeding in court.

(d) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 10. Section 1.6695-1 is revised to read as follows:



§1.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns for other persons .

(a) Failure to furnish copy to taxpayer . (1) A person who is a signing tax return preparer as described in §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter of any return of tax or claim for refund of tax under the Internal Revenue Code (Code), and who fails to satisfy the requirements imposed by section 6107(a) and §1.6107-1(a) to furnish a copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer (or nontaxable entity), shall be subject to a penalty of $50 for such failure, with a maximum penalty of $25,000 per person imposed with respect to each calendar year, unless it is shown that the failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

(2) No penalty may be imposed under section 6695(a) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section upon a tax return preparer who furnishes a copy of the return or claim for refund to taxpayers who --

(i) Hold an elected or politically appointed position with the government of the United States or a state or political subdivision thereof; and

(ii) In order to faithfully to carry out their official duties, have so arranged their affairs that they have less than full knowledge of the property that they hold or of the debts for which they are responsible, if information is deleted from the copy in order to preserve or maintain this arrangement.

(b) Failure to sign return . (1) An individual who is a signing tax return preparer as described in §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter with respect to a return of tax or claim for refund of tax under the Code as described in §301.7701-15(b)(4) that is not signed electronically shall sign the return or claim for refund after it is completed and before it is presented to the taxpayer (or nontaxable entity) for signature. For rules covering electronically signed returns, see paragraph (b)(2) of this section. If the signing tax return preparer is unavailable for signature, another tax return preparer shall review the entire preparation of the return or claim for refund, and then shall sign the return or claim for refund. The tax return preparer shall sign the return in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance.

(2) In the case of electronically signed tax returns, the signing tax return preparer need not sign the return prior to presenting a completed copy of the return to the taxpayer. The signing tax return preparer, however, must furnish all of the information that will be transmitted as the electronically signed tax return to the taxpayer contemporaneously with furnishing the Form 8879, "IRS e-file Signature Authorization," or other similar Internal Revenue Service (IRS) e-file signature form. The information may be furnished on a replica of an official form. The signing tax return preparer shall electronically sign the return in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance.

(3) An individual required by this paragraph (b) to sign a return or claim for refund shall be subject to a penalty of $50 for each failure to sign, with a maximum of $25,000 per person imposed with respect to each calendar year, unless it is shown that the failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. If the tax return preparer asserts reasonable cause for failure to sign, the IRS will require a written statement to substantiate the tax return preparer's claim of reasonable cause. For purposes of this paragraph (b), reasonable cause is a cause that arises despite ordinary care and prudence exercised by the individual tax return preparer.

(4) Examples . The application of this paragraph (b) is illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1 . Law Firm A employs B, a lawyer, to prepare for compensation estate tax returns and claims for refund of taxes. Firm A is engaged by C to prepare a Federal estate tax return. Firm A assigns B to prepare the return. B obtains the information necessary for completing the return from C and makes determinations with respect to the proper application of the tax laws to such information in order to determine the estate's tax liability. B then forwards such information to D, a computer tax service that performs the mathematical computations and prints the return by means of computer processing. D then sends the completed estate tax return to B who reviews the accuracy of the return. B is the individual tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the overall accuracy of the estate tax return. B must sign the return as tax return preparer in order to not be subject to the section 6695(b) penalty.

Example 2 . Partnership E is a national accounting firm that prepares returns and claims for refund of taxes for compensation. F and G, employees of Partnership E, are involved in preparing the Form 990-T, Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, for H, a tax exempt organization. After they complete the return, including the gathering of the necessary information, analyzing the proper application of the tax laws to such information, and the performance of the necessary mathematical computations, I, a supervisory employee of Partnership E, reviews the return. As part of this review, I reviews the information provided and the application of the tax laws to this information. The mathematical computations and carriedforward amounts are reviewed by J, an employee of Partnership E. The policies and practices of Partnership E require that K, a partner, finally review the return. The scope of K's review includes reviewing the information provided and applying to this information his knowledge of H's affairs, observing that Partnership E's policies and practices have been followed, and making the final determination with respect to the proper application of the tax laws to determine H's tax liability. K may or may not exercise these responsibilities, or may exercise them to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the degree of complexity of the return, his confidence in I (or F and G), and other factors. K is the individual tax return preparer who is primarily responsible for the overall accuracy of H's return. K must sign the return as tax return preparer in order to not be subject to the section 6695(b) penalty.

Example 3 . L corporation maintains an office in Seattle, Washington, for the purpose of preparing partnership returns for compensation. L makes compensatory arrangements with individuals (but provides no working facilities) in several states to collect information from partners of a partnership and to make decisions with respect to the proper application of the tax laws to the information in order to prepare the partnership return and calculate the partnership's distributive items. M, an individual, who has such an arrangement in Los Angeles with L, collects information from N, the general partner of a partnership, and completes a worksheet kit supplied by L that is stamped with M's name and an identification number assigned to M by L. In this process, M classifies this information in appropriate categories for the preparation of the partnership return. The completed worksheet kit signed by M is then mailed to L. O, an employee in L's office, reviews the worksheet kit to make sure it was properly completed. O does not review the information obtained from N for its validity or accuracy. O may, but did not, make the final decision with respect to the proper application of tax laws to the information provided. The data from the worksheet is entered into a computer and the return form is completed. The return is prepared for submission to N with filing instructions. M is the individual tax return preparer primarily responsible for the overall accuracy of the partnership return. M must sign the return as tax return preparer in order to not be subject to the section 6695(b) penalty.

Example 4 . P employs R, S, and T to prepare gift tax returns for taxpayers. After R and S have collected the information from a taxpayer and applied the tax laws to the information, the return form is completed by a computer service. On the day the returns prepared by R and S are ready for their signatures, R is away from the city for 1 week on another assignment and S is on detail to another office in the same city for the day. T may sign the gift tax returns prepared by R, provided that T reviews the information obtained by R relative to the taxpayer, and T reviews the preparation of each return prepared by R. T may not sign the returns prepared by S because S is available.

(5) Effective/applicability date . This paragraph (b) is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

(c) Failure to furnish identifying number . (1) A person who is a signing tax return preparer as described in §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter of any return of tax under the Code or claim for refund of tax under the Code, and who fails to satisfy the requirement of section 6109(a)(4) and §1.6109-2(a) to furnish one or more identifying numbers of signing tax return preparers or persons employing the signing tax return preparer (or with which the signing tax return preparer is associated) on a return or claim for refund after it is completed and before it is presented to the taxpayer (or nontaxable entity) for signature shall be subject to a penalty of $50 for each failure, with a maximum of $25,000 per person imposed with respect to each calendar year, unless it is shown that the failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

(2) No more than one penalty of $50 may be imposed under section 6695(c) and paragraph (c)(1) of this section with respect to a single return or claim for refund.

(d) Failure to retain copy or record . (1) A person who is a signing tax return preparer as described in §301.7701-15(b)(1) of this chapter of any return of tax under the Code or claim for refund of tax under the Code, and who fails to satisfy the requirements imposed upon him or her by section 6107(b) and §1.6107-1(b) and (c) (other than the record requirement described in both §1.6107-1(b)(2) and (3)) to retain and make available for inspection a copy of the return or claim for refund, or to include the return or claim for refund in a record of returns and claims for refund and make the record available for inspection, shall be subject to a penalty of $50 for the failure, unless it is shown that the failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

(2) A person may not, for returns or claims for refund presented to the taxpayers (or nontaxable entities) during each calendar year, be subject to more than $25,000 in penalties under section 6695(d) and paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(e) Failure to file correct information returns . A person who is subject to the reporting requirements of section 6060 and §1.6060-1 and who fails to satisfy these requirements shall pay a penalty of $50 for each such failure, with a maximum of $25,000 per person imposed for each calendar year, unless such failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.

(f) Negotiation of check . (1) No person who is a tax return preparer as described in §301.7701-15 of this chapter may endorse or otherwise negotiate, directly or through an agent, a check (including an electronic version of a check) for the refund of tax under the Code that is issued to a taxpayer other than the tax return preparer if the person was a tax return preparer of the return or claim for refund which gave rise to the refund check. A tax return preparer will not be considered to have endorsed or otherwise negotiated a check for purposes of this paragraph (f)(1) solely as a result of having affixed the taxpayer's name to a refund check for the purpose of depositing the check into an account in the name of the taxpayer or in the joint names of the taxpayer and one or more other persons (excluding the tax return preparer) if authorized by the taxpayer or the taxpayer's recognized representative.

(2) Section 6695(f) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (3) of this section do not apply to a tax return preparer-bank that --

(i) Cashes a refund check and remits all of the cash to the taxpayer or accepts a refund check for deposit in full to a taxpayer's account, so long as the bank does not initially endorse or negotiate the check (unless the bank has made a loan to the taxpayer on the basis of the anticipated refund); or

(ii) Endorses a refund check for deposit in full to a taxpayer's account pursuant to a written authorization of the taxpayer (unless the bank has made a loan to the taxpayer on the basis of the anticipated refund).

(3) A tax return preparer-bank may also subsequently endorse or negotiate a refund check as a part of the checkclearing process through the financial system after initial endorsement or negotiation.

(4) The tax return preparer shall be subject to a penalty of $500 for each endorsement or negotiation of a check prohibited under section 6695(f) and paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

(g) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 11. Section 1.6695-2 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b)(3), (c) and (d) to read as follows:



§1.6695-2 Tax return preparer due diligence requirements for determining earned income credit eligibility .

(a) Penalty for failure to meet due diligence requirements . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of a tax return or claim for refund under the Internal Revenue Code with respect to determining the eligibility for, or the amount of, the earned income credit (EIC) under section 32 and who fails to satisfy the due diligence requirements of paragraph (b) of this section will be subject to a penalty of $100 for each such failure.

(b) * * *

(3) Knowledge --(i) In general . The tax return preparer must not know, or have reason to know, that any information used by the tax return preparer in determining the taxpayer's eligibility for, or the amount of, the EIC is incorrect. The tax return preparer may not ignore the implications of information furnished to, or known by, the tax return preparer, and must make reasonable inquiries if the information furnished to the tax return preparer appears to be incorrect, inconsistent, or incomplete. A tax return preparer must make reasonable inquiries if a reasonable and well-informed tax return preparer knowledgeable in the law would conclude that the information furnished to the tax return preparer appears to be incorrect, inconsistent, or incomplete. The tax return preparer must also contemporaneously document in the files the reasonable inquiries made and the responses to these inquiries.

(ii) Examples . The provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section are illustrated by the following examples:

Example 1 . A 22 year-old taxpayer wants to claim two sons, ages 10 and 11, as qualifying children for purposes of the EIC. Preparer A must make additional reasonable inquiries regarding the relationship between the taxpayer and the children as the age of the taxpayer appears inconsistent with the ages of the children claimed as sons.

Example 2 . An 18 year-old female taxpayer with an infant has $3,000 in earned income and states that she lives with her parents. Taxpayer wants to claim the infant as a qualifying child for the EIC. This information appears incomplete and inconsistent because the taxpayer lives with her parents and earns very little income. Preparer B must make additional reasonable inquires to determine if the taxpayer is the qualifying child of her parents and, therefore, ineligible to claim the EIC.

Example 3 . Taxpayer asks Preparer C to prepare his tax return and wants to claim his niece and nephew as qualifying children for the EIC. Preparer C should make reasonable inquiries to determine whether the children meet EIC qualifying child requirements and ensure possible duplicate claim situations involving the parents or other relatives are properly considered.

Example 4 . Taxpayer asks Preparer D to prepare her tax return and tells D that she has a Schedule C business, that she has two qualifying children and that she wants to claim the EIC. Taxpayer indicates that she earned $10,000 from her Schedule C business, but that she has no expenses. This information appears incomplete because it is very unlikely that someone who is self-employed has no business expenses. D must make additional reasonable inquiries regarding taxpayer's business to determine whether the information regarding both income and expenses is correct.

(c) Exception to penalty . The section 6695(g) penalty will not be applied with respect to a particular tax return or claim for refund if the tax return preparer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Internal Revenue Service that, considering all the facts and circumstances, the tax return preparer's normal office procedures are reasonably designed and routinely followed to ensure compliance with the due diligence requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, and the failure to meet the due diligence requirements of paragraph (b) of this section with respect to the particular return or claim for refund was isolated and inadvertent.

(d) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 12. Section 1.6696-1 is revised to read as follows:



§1.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers or appraisers .

(a) Notice and demand . (1) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) shall issue to each tax return preparer or appraiser one or more statements of notice and demand for payment for all penalties assessed against the tax return preparer or appraiser under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations).

(2) For the definition of the term "tax return preparer", see section 7701(a)(36) and §301.7701-15 of this chapter. A person who prepares a claim for credit or refund under this section for another person, however, is not, with respect to that preparation, a tax return preparer as defined in section 7701(a)(36) and §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Claim filed by tax return preparer or appraiser . A claim for credit or refund of a penalty (or penalties) assessed against a tax return preparer or appraiser under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations) may be filed under this section only by the tax return preparer or the appraiser (or the tax return preparer's or appraiser's estate) against whom the penalty (or penalties) is assessed and not by, for example, the tax return preparer's or appraiser's employer. This paragraph (b) is not intended, however, to impose any restrictions on the preparation of this claim for credit or refund. The claim may be prepared by the tax return preparer's or appraiser's employer or by other persons. In all cases, however, the claim for credit or refund shall contain the information specified in paragraph (d) of this section and, as required by paragraph (d) of this section, shall be verified by a written declaration by the tax return preparer or appraiser that the information is provided under penalty of perjury.

(c) Separation and consolidation of claims . (1) Unless paragraph (c)(2) of this section applies, a tax return preparer shall file a separate claim for each penalty assessed in each statement of notice and demand issued to the tax return preparer.

(2) A tax return preparer may file one or more consolidated claims for any or all penalties imposed on the tax return preparer by a single IRS campus or office under section 6695(a) and §1.6695-1(a) (relating to failure to furnish copy of return to taxpayer), section 6695(b) and §1.6695-1(b) (relating to failure to sign), section 6695(c) and §1.6695-1(c) (relating to failure to furnish identifying number), or under section 6695(d) and §1.6695-1(d) (relating to failure to retain copy of return or record), whether the penalties are asserted on a single or on separate statements of notice and demand. In addition, a tax return preparer may file one consolidated claim for any or all penalties imposed on the tax return preparer by a single IRS campus or office under section 6695(e) and §1.6695-1(e) (relating to failure to file correct information return), which are asserted on a single statement of notice and demand.

(d) Content of claim . Each claim for credit or refund for any penalty (or penalties) paid by a tax return preparer under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , or under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or paid by an appraiser under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations) shall include the following information, verified by a written declaration by the tax return preparer or appraiser that the information is provided under penalty of perjury:

(1) The tax return preparer's or appraiser's name.

(2) The tax return preparer's or appraiser's identification number. If the tax return preparer or appraiser is --

(i) An individual (not described in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section) who is a citizen or resident of the United States, the tax return preparer's or appraiser's social security account number (or such alternative number as may be prescribed by the IRS in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance) shall be provided;

(ii) An individual who is not a citizen or resident of the United States and also was not employed by another tax return preparer or appraiser to prepare the document (or documents) with respect to which the penalty (or penalties) was assessed, the tax return preparer's or appraiser's employer identification number shall be provided; or

(iii) A person (whether an individual, corporation, or partnership) that employed one or more persons to prepare the document (or documents) with respect to which the penalty (or penalties) was assessed, the tax return preparer's or appraiser's employer identification number shall be provided.

(3) The tax return preparer's or appraiser's address where the IRS mailed the statement (or statements) of notice and demand and, if different, the tax return preparer's or appraiser's address shown on the document (or documents) with respect to which the penalty (or penalties) was assessed.

(4)(i) The address of the IRS campus or office that issued the statement (or statements) of notice and demand for payment of the penalty (or penalties).

(ii) The date (or dates) and identifying number (or numbers) of the statement (or statements) of notice and demand.

(5)(i) The identification, by amount, type, and document to which related, of each penalty included in the claim. Each document referred to in the preceding sentence shall be identified by the form title or number, by the taxpayer's (or nontaxable entity's) name and taxpayer identification number, and by the taxable year to which the document relates.

(ii) The date (or dates) of payment of the amount (or amounts) of the penalty (or penalties) included in the claim.

(iii) The total amount claimed.

(6) A statement setting forth in detail --

(i) Each ground upon which each penalty overpayment claim is based; and

(ii) Facts sufficient to apprise the IRS of the exact basis of each such claim.

(e) Form for filing claim . Notwithstanding §301.6402-2(c) of this chapter, Form 6118, "Claim for Refund of Tax Return Preparer and Promoter Penalties," is the form prescribed for making a claim as provided in this section with respect to penalties under sections 6694 and 6695. Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, is the form prescribed for making a claim as provided in this section with respect to a penalty under section 6695A .

(f) Place for filing claim . A claim filed under this section shall be filed with the IRS campus or office that issued to the tax return preparer or appraiser the statement (or statements) of notice and demand for payment of the penalty (or penalties) included in the claim.

(g) Time for filing claim . (1)(i) Except as provided in section 6694(c)(1) and §1.6694-4(a)(4)(ii) and (5), and in section 6694(d) and §1.6694-1(c) :

(A) A claim for a penalty paid by a tax return preparer under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , or under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or by an appraiser under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations) shall be filed within three years from the date the payment was made.

(B) A consolidated claim, permitted under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, shall be filed within three years from the first date of payment of any penalty included in the claim.

(ii) For purposes of this paragraph (g)(1), payment is considered made on the date payment is received by the IRS or, if applicable, on the date an amount is credited in satisfaction of the penalty.

(2) For purposes of determining whether a claim is timely filed, the rules under sections 7502 and 7503 and the provisions of §§1.7502-1 , 1.7502-2, and 1.7503-1 apply.

(h) Application of refund to outstanding liability of tax return preparer or appraiser . The IRS may, within the applicable period of limitations, credit any amount of an overpayment by a tax return preparer or appraiser of a penalty (or penalties) paid under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations) against any outstanding liability for any tax (or for any interest, additional amount, addition to the tax, or assessable penalty) owed by the tax return preparer or appraiser making the overpayment. If a portion of an overpayment is so credited, only the balance will be refunded to the tax return preparer or appraiser.

(i) Interest . (1) Section 6611 and §301.6611-1 of this chapter apply to the payment by the IRS of interest on an overpayment by a tax return preparer or appraiser of a penalty (or penalties) paid under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations).

(2) Section 6601 and §301.6601-1 of this chapter apply to the payment of interest by a tax return preparer or appraiser to the IRS on any penalty (or penalties) assessed against the tax return preparer under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations).

(j) Suits for refund of penalty . (1) A tax return preparer or appraiser may not maintain a civil action for the recovery of any penalty paid under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations), unless the tax return preparer or appraiser has previously filed a claim for credit or refund of the penalty as provided in this section (and the court has jurisdiction of the proceeding). See sections 6694(c) and 7422.

(2)(i) Except as provided in section 6694(c)(2) and §1.6694-4(b) , the periods of limitation contained in section 6532 and §301.6532-1 of this chapter apply to a tax return preparer's or appraiser's suit for the recovery of any penalty paid under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations).

(ii) The rules under section 7503 and §301.7503-1 of this chapter apply to the timely commencement by a tax return preparer or appraiser of a suit for the recovery of any penalty paid under section 6694 and §1.6694-1 , under section 6695 and §1.6695-1 , or under section 6695A (and any subsequently issued regulations).

(k) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.



PART 20 --ESTATE TAX; ESTATES OF DECEDENTS DYING AFTER AUGUST 16, 1954

Par. 13. The authority citation for part 20 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 20.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 20.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 20.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 20.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g). * * *

Par. 14. Section 20.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§20.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the recordkeeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 15. Section 20.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§20.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 16. Section 20.6109-1 is added to read as follows:



§20.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund.

(a) In general . Each estate tax return or claim for refund prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 17. Section 20.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§20.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of estate tax returns or claims see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 18. Section 20.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§20.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 19. Section 20.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§20.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 20. Section 20.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§20.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of the period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of the taxpayer's liability, and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under sections 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 21. Section 20.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§20.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) of the Code, failure to sign the return under section 6695(b) of the Code, failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) of the Code, failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) of the Code, failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) of the Code, and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) of the Code, in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 22. Section 20.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§20.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers or appraisers .

(a) In general . For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for estate tax under chapter 11 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, or by an appraiser that prepared an appraisal in connection with such a return or claim for refund under section 6695A , the rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 23. Section 20.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§20.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.



PART 25 --GIFT TAX; GIFTS MADE AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1954

Par. 24. The authority citation for part 25 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805* * *

Section 25.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 25.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 25.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 25.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g). * * *

Par. 25. Section 25.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§25.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 26. Section 25.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§25.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer, and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 27. Section 25.6109-1 is added to read as follows:



§25.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund .

(a) In general . Each gift tax return or claim for refund prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 28. Section 25.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§25.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of gift tax returns or claims see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 29. Section 25.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§25.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 30. Section 25.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§25.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 31. Section 25.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§25.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules for the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability, and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 32. Section 25.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§25.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) of the Code, failure to sign the return under section 6695(b) of the Code, failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) of the Code, failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) of the Code, failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) of the Code, and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) of the Code, in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 33. Section 25.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§25.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers .

(a) In general . For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, or by an appraiser that prepared an appraisal in connection with such a return or claim for refund under section 6695A , the rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 34. Section 25.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§25.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.



PART 26 --GENERATION-SKIPPING TRANSFER TAX REGULATIONS UNDER THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1986

Par. 35. The authority citation for part 26 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805* * *

Section 26.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 26.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 26.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 26.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C.6695(g). * * *

Par. 36. Section 26.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§26.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of generation-skipping transfer tax under chapter 13 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 37. Section 26.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§26.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of generation-skipping transfer tax under chapter 13 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer, and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 38. Section 26.6109-1 is added to read as follows:



§26.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund .

(a) In general . Each generation-skipping transfer tax return or claim for refund prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 39. Section 26.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§26.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of generation-skipping transfer tax returns or claims see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 40. Section 26.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§26.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of generationskipping transfer tax under chapter 13 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 41. Section 26.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§26.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of generation-skipping transfer tax under chapter 13 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 42. Section 26.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§26.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for generation-skipping transfer tax under chapter 13 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability, and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 43. Section 26.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§26.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of generation-skipping transfer tax under chapter 13 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) of the Code, failure to sign the return under section 6695(b) of the Code, failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) of the Code, failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) of the Code, failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) of the Code, and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) of the Code, in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 44. Section 26.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§26.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers .

(a) In general . For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for generation-skipping transfer tax under chapter 13 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code, or by an appraiser that prepared an appraisal in connection with such a return or claim for refund under section 6695A , the rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 45. Section 26.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§26.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.



PART 31 --EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT THE SOURCE

Par. 46. The authority citation for part 31 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805* * *

Section 31.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 31.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 31.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 31.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g). * * *

Par. 47. Section 31.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§31.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 48. Section 31.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§31.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 49. Section 31.6109-2 is added to read as follows:



§31.6109-2 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund .

(a) In general . Each employment tax return or claim for refund of employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 50. Section 31.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§31.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of employment tax returns or claims of employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 51. Section 31.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§31.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 52. Section 31.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§31.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in 1.6694- 3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 53. Section 31.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§31.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 54. Section 31.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§31.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) of the Code, failure to sign the return under section 6695(b) of the Code, failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) of the Code, failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) of the Code, failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) of the Code, and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) of the Code, in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 55. Section 31.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§31.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers .

(a) In general . For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for employment tax under chapters 21 through 25 of subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code, the rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 56. Section 31.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§31.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .



PART 40 --EXCISE TAX PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS

Par. 57. The authority citation for part 40 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 40.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 40.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 40.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 40.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g). * * *

Par. 58. Section 40.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§40.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the recordkeeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 59. Section 40.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§40.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable for returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 60. Section 40.6109-1 is added to read as follows:



§40.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund .

(a) In general . Each return or claim for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 61. Section 40.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§40.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of returns or claims for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies, see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 62. Section 40.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§40.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 63. Section 40.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§40.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of return or claim for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 64. Section 40.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§40.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared return or claim for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 65. Section 40.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§40.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of return or claim for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) of the Code, failure to sign the return under section 6695(b) of the Code, failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) , failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) , failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) , and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) , in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable for returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 66. Section 40.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§40.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers .

(a) In general . The rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund of excise tax of any tax to which this part 40 applies.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 67. Section 40.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§40.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.



PART 41 --EXCISE TAX ON USE OF CERTAIN HIGHWAY MOTOR VEHICLES

Par. 68. The authority citation for part 41 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 41.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 41.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 41.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 41.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g). * * *

Par. 69. Section 41.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§41.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of excise tax under section 4481 , other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable for returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 70. Section 41.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§41.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax under section 4481 shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable for returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 71. Section 41.6109-2 is added to read as follows:



§41.6109-2 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

(a) In general . Each excise tax return or claim for refund under section 4481 prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable for returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 72. Section 41.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§41.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer.

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of tax returns or claims for refund, see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 73. Section 41.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§41.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax under section 4481 shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 74. Section 41.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§41.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax under section 4481 shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 75. Section 41.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§41.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for excise tax under section 4481 pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability, and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 76. Section 41.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§41.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax under section 4481 shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) , failure to sign a return under section 6695(b) , failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) , failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) , failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) of the Code, and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) , in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 77. Section 41.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§41.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers .

(a) In general . For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for excise tax under section 4481 , the rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 78. Section 41.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§41.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.



PART 44 --TAXES ON WAGERING; EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1955

Par. 79. The authority citation for part 44 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 44.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 44.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 44.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 44.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g). * * *

Par. 80. Section 44.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§44.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of tax on wagers under sections 4401 or 4411, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 81. Section 44.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§44.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax on wagers under sections 4401 or 4411 shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer, and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable for returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 82. Section 44.6109-1 is added to read as follows:



§44.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund .

(a) In general . Each tax return or claim for refund of tax under sections 4401 or 4411 prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable for returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 83. Section 44.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§44.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of wagering tax returns or claims for refund under sections 4401 or 4411, see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 84. Section 44.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§44.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax on wagers under sections 4401 or 4411 shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 85. Section 44.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§44.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax on wagers under sections 4401 or 4411 shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 86. Section 44.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§44.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for tax on wagers under sections 4401 or 4411 pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 87. Section 44.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§44.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax on wagers under sections 4401 or 4411 shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) , failure to sign the return under section 6695(b) , failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) , failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) , failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) , and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) , in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 88. Section 44.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§44.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers .

(a) In general . For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for tax on wagers under sections 4401 or 4411, the rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 89. Section 44.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§44.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .



PART 53 --FOUNDATION AND SIMILAR EXCISE TAXES

Par. 90. The authority citation for part 53 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Section 53.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 53.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 53.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 53.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g). * * *

Par. 91. Section 53.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§53.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 92. Section 53.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§53.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return or claim for refund to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 93. Section 53.6109-1 is added to read as follows:



§53.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund filed .

(a) In general . Each tax return or claim for refund under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 94. Section 53.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§53.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of tax returns or claims for refund under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 95. Section 53.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§53.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 96. Section 53.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§53.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 97. Section 53.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§53.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 98. Section 53.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§53.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns or claims for refund for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) of the Code, failure to sign the return under section 6695(b) of the Code, failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) of the Code, failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) of the Code, failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) of the Code, and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) of the Code, in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 99. Section 53.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§53.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers .

(a) In general . For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for tax under Chapter 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, the rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 100. Section 53.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§53.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008 .



PART 54 --PENSION EXCISE TAXES

Par. 101. The authority citation for part 54 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805* * *

Section 54.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a). * * *

Section 54.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a). * * *

Section 54.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b). * * *

Section 54.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g). * * *

Par. 102. Section 54.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§54.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund under Chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 103. Section 54.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§54.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return or claims for refund to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer, and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 104. Section 54.6109-1 is added to read as follows:



§54.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund filed .

(a) In general . Each tax return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 43 of subtitle D prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008 .

Par. 105. Section 54.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§54.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of tax returns or claims for refund of tax under Chapter 43 of subtitle D, see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 106. Section 54.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§54.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 107. Section 56.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§54.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax under chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 108. Section 54.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§54.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for tax under chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability, and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 109. Section 54.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§54.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) of the Code, failure to sign the return under section 6695(b) of the Code, failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) of the Code, failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) of the Code, failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) of the Code, and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) of the Code, in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 110. Section 54.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§54.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers .

(a) In general . For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for excise tax under chapter 43 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, the rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 111. Section 54.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§54.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.



PART 55 --EXCISE TAX ON REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS AND REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Par. 112. The authority citation for part 55 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805* * *

Section 55.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a).

* * *

Section 55.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a).

* * *

Section 55.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b).

* * *

Section 55.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g).

* * *

Par. 113. Section 55.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§55.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund under chapter 44 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 114. Section 55.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§55.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return or claim for refund to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 44 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer, and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 115. Section 55.6109-1 is added to read as follows:



§55.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund .

(a) In general . Each tax return or claim for refund of tax under chapter 44 of Subtitle D prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 116. Section 55.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§55.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of tax returns or claims for refund of tax under chapter 44 of Subtitle D see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 117. Section 55.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§55.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax under chapter 44 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 118. Section 55.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§55.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under chapter 44 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 119. Section 55.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§55.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for excise tax under chapter 44 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b), the rules under §1.6694-4 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 120. Section 55.6695-1 is added to read as follows:



§55.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns or claims for refund for other persons .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under chapter 44 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) of the Code, failure to sign the return under section 6695(b) of the Code, failure to furnish an identification number under section 6695(c) of the Code, failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d) of the Code, failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e) of the Code, and negotiation of a check under section 6695(f) of the Code, in the manner stated in §1.6695-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 121. Section 55.6696-1 is added to read as follows:



§55.6696-1 Claims for credit or refund by tax return preparers .

(a) In general . For rules for claims for credit or refund by a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for tax under chapter 44 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, the rules under §1.6696-1 of this chapter will apply.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 122. Section 55.7701-1 is added to read as follows:



§55.7701-1 Tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For the definition of a tax return preparer, see §301.7701-15 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.



PART 56 --PUBLIC CHARITY EXCISE TAXES

Par. 123. The authority citation for part 56 is amended by adding entries in numerical order to read in part as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805* * *

Section 56.6060-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6060(a).

* * *

Section 56.6109-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6109(a).

* * *

Section 56.6695-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(b).

* * *

Section 56.6695-2 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6695(g).

* * *

Par. 124. Section 56.6060-1 is added to read as follows:



§56.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers .

(a) In general . A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of tax under chapter 41 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in §1.6060-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 125. Section 56.6107-1 is added to read as follows:



§56.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return and claim for refund to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record .

(a) In general . A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under Chapter 41 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the public charity and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in §1.6107-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 126. Section 56.6109-1 is added to read as follows:



§56.6109-1 Tax return preparers furnishing identifying numbers for returns or claims for refund .

(a) In general . Each tax return or claim for refund for tax under chapter 41 of subtitle D prepared by one or more signing tax return preparers must include the identifying number of the preparer required by §1.6695-1(b) of this chapter to sign the return or claim for refund in the manner stated in §1.6109-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.

Par. 127. Section 56.6694-1 is added to read as follows:



§56.6694-1 Section 6694 penalties applicable to tax return preparer .

(a) In general . For general definitions regarding section 6694 penalties applicable to preparers of tax returns or claims for refund of tax under chapter 41 of subtitle D see §1.6694-1 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . Paragraph (a) of this section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 128. Section 56.6694-2 is added to read as follows:



§56.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of excise tax under chapter 41 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-2 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 129. Section 56.6694-3 is added to read as follows:



§56.6694-3 Penalty for understatement due to willful, reckless, or intentional conduct .

(a) In general . A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under chapter 41 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(b) of the Code in the manner stated in §1.6694-3 of this chapter.

(b) Effective/applicability date . This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.

Par. 130. Section 56.6694-4 is added to read as follows:



§56.6694-4 Extension of period of collection when tax return preparer pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and certain other procedural matters .

(a) In general . For rules relating to the extension of period of collection when a tax return preparer who prepared a return or claim for refund for tax under chapter 41 of subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code pays 15 percent of a penalty for understatement of taxpayer's liability and procedural matters relating to the investigation, assessment and collection of the penalties under section 6694(a) and (b)