Committee Report for JCX-30-09, HR3200
DESCRIPTION OF THE REVENUE PROVISIONS OF H.R. 3200, THE "AMERICA'S AFFORDABLE HEALTH CHOICES ACT OF 2009" [JCX-30-09 7/14/2009]

II Other Revenue Provisions

D.. Codification of Economic Substance Doctrine Present Law
In general

The Code provides detailed rules specifying the computation of taxable income, including the amount, timing, source, and character of items of income, gain, loss, and deduction. These rules permit both taxpayers and the government to compute taxable income with reasonable accuracy and predictability. Taxpayers generally may plan their transactions in reliance on these rules to determine the federal income tax consequences arising from the transactions.
In addition to the statutory provisions, courts have developed several doctrines that can be applied to deny the tax benefits of a tax-motivated transaction, notwithstanding that the transaction may satisfy the literal requirements of a specific tax provision. These common-law doctrines are not entirely distinguishable, and their application to a given set of facts is often blurred by the courts and the IRS. Although these doctrines serve an important role in the administration of the tax system, they can be seen as at odds with an objective, "rule-based" system of taxation.
One common-law doctrine applied over the years is the "economic substance" doctrine. In general, this doctrine denies tax benefits arising from transactions that do not result in a meaningful change to the taxpayer's economic position other than a purported reduction in federal income tax. 76
________________________________________
76
See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1998), aff'g 73 T.C.M. CCH) 2189 (1997), cert. denied 526 U.S. 1017 (1999); Klamath Strategic Investment Fund, LLC v. United States, 472 F. Supp. 2d 885 (E.D. Texas 2007), aff'd 568 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2009); Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), vacating and remanding 62 Fed. Cl. 716 (2004) (slip opinion at 123-124, 128); cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem.) (2007).
Closely related doctrines also applied by the courts (sometimes interchangeable with the economic substance doctrine) include the "sham transaction doctrine" and the "business purpose doctrine." See, e.g., Knetsch v. United States, 364 U.S. 361 (1960) (denying interest deductions on a "sham transaction" whose only purpose was to create the deductions). Certain "substance over form" cases involving tax-indifferent parties, in which courts have found that the substance of the transaction did not comport with the form asserted by the taxpayer, have also involved examination of whether the change in economic position that occurred, if any, was consistent with the form asserted, and whether the claimed business purpose supported the particular tax benefits that were claimed. See, e.g., TIFD- III-E, Inc. v. United States, 459 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2006); BB&T Corporation v. United States, 2007-1 USTC P 50,130 (M.D.N.C. 2007), aff'd 523 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2008).
Economic substance doctrine
Courts generally deny claimed tax benefits if the transaction that gives rise to those benefits lacks economic substance independent of U.S. federal income tax considerations — notwithstanding that the purported activity actually occurred. The Tax Court has described the doctrine as follows:
The tax law . . . requires that the intended transactions have economic substance separate and distinct from economic benefit achieved solely by tax reduction. The doctrine of economic substance becomes applicable, and a judicial remedy is warranted, where a taxpayer seeks to claim tax benefits, unintended by Congress, by means of transactions that serve no economic purpose other than tax savings. 77
________________________________________
77
ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.M. at 2215.
Business purpose doctrine
A common law doctrine that often is considered together with the economic substance doctrine is the business purpose doctrine. The business purpose doctrine involves an inquiry into the subjective motives of the taxpayer — that is, whether the taxpayer intended the transaction to serve some useful non-tax purpose. In making this determination, some courts have bifurcated a transaction in which activities with non-tax objectives have been combined with unrelated activities having only tax-avoidance objectives, in order to disallow the tax benefits of the overall transaction. 78
________________________________________
78
See, ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 256 n.48.
Application by the courts
Elements of the doctrine
There is a lack of uniformity regarding the proper application of the economic substance doctrine. 79 Some courts apply a conjunctive test that requires a taxpayer to establish the presence of both economic substance (i.e., the objective component) and business purpose (i.e., the subjective component) in order for the transaction to survive judicial scrutiny. 80 A narrower approach used by some courts is to conclude that either a business purpose or economic substance is sufficient to respect the transaction. 81 A third approach regards economic substance and business purpose as "simply more precise factors to consider" in determining whether a transaction has any practical economic effects other than the creation of tax benefits. 82
________________________________________
79
"The casebooks are glutted with [economic substance] tests. Many such tests proliferate because they give the comforting illusion of consistency and precision. They often obscure rather than clarify." Collins v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 1383, 1386 (9th Cir. 1988).
________________________________________
80
See, e.g., Pasternak v. Commissioner, 990 F.2d 893, 898 (6th Cir. 1993) ("The threshold question is whether the transaction has economic substance. If the answer is yes, the question becomes whether the taxpayer was motivated by profit to participate in the transaction."). See also, Klamath Strategic Investment Fund v. United States, 568 F. 3d 537, (5th Cir. 2009)(even if taxpayers may have had a profit motive, a transaction was disregarded where it did not in fact have any realistic possibility of profit and funding was never at risk).
________________________________________
81
See, e.g., Rice's Toyota World v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 89, 91-92 (4th Cir. 1985) ("To treat a transaction as a sham, the court must find that the taxpayer was motivated by no business purposes other than obtaining tax benefits in entering the transaction, and, second, that the transaction has no economic substance because no reasonable possibility of a profit exists."); IES Industries v. United States, 253 F.3d 350, 358 (8th Cir. 2001) ("In determining whether a transaction is a sham for tax purposes [under the Eighth Circuit test], a transaction will be characterized as a sham if it is not motivated by any economic purpose out of tax considerations (the business purpose test), and if it is without economic substance because no real potential for profit exists (the economic substance test)."). As noted earlier, the economic substance doctrine and the sham transaction doctrine are similar and sometimes are applied interchangeably. For a more detailed discussion of the sham transaction doctrine, see, e.g., Joint Committee on Taxation, Study of Present-Law Penalty and Interest Provisions as Required by Section 3801 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (including Provisions Relating to Corporate Tax Shelters) (JCS-3-99) at 182.
________________________________________
82
See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 247; James v. Commissioner, 899 F.2d 905, 908 (10th Cir. 1995); Sacks v. Commissioner, 69 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Instead, the consideration of business purpose and economic substance are simply more precise factors to consider . . . We have repeatedly and carefully noted that this formulation cannot be used as a 'rigid two-step analysis'.")
One decision by the Court of Federal Claims questioned the continuing viability of the doctrine. That court also stated that "the use of the 'economic substance' doctrine to trump 'mere compliance with the Code' would violate the separation of powers" though that court also found that the particular transaction at issue in the case did not lack economic substance. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit Court") overruled the Court of Federal Claims decision, reiterating the viability of the economic substance doctrine and concluding that the transaction in question violated that doctrine. 83 The Federal Circuit Court stated that "[w]hile the doctrine may well also apply if the taxpayer's sole subjective motivation is tax avoidance even if the transaction has economic substance, [footnote omitted], a lack of economic substance is sufficient to disqualify the transaction without proof that the taxpayer's sole motive is tax avoidance." 84
________________________________________
83
Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 716 (2004) (slip opinion at 123-124, 128); vacated and remanded, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem.) (2007).
________________________________________
84
The Federal Circuit Court stated that "when the taxpayer claims a deduction, it is the taxpayer who bears the burden of proving that the transaction has economic substance." The Federal Circuit Court quoted a decision of its predecessor court, stating that "Gregory v. Helvering requires that a taxpayer carry an unusually heavy burden when he attempts to demonstrate that Congress intended to give favorable tax treatment to the kind of transaction that would never occur absent the motive of tax avoidance." The Court also stated that "while the taxpayer's subjective motivation may be pertinent to the existence of a tax avoidance purpose, all courts have looked to the objective reality of a transaction in assessing its economic substance." Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d at 1355, 1356.
Nontax economic benefits
There also is a lack of uniformity regarding the type of non-tax economic benefit a taxpayer must establish in order to demonstrate that a transaction has economic substance. Some courts have denied tax benefits on the grounds that a stated business benefit of a particular structure was not in fact obtained by that structure. 85 Several courts have denied tax benefits on doctrine, see, e.g., Joint Committee on Taxation, Study of Present-Law Penalty and Interest Provisions as Required by Section 3801 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (including Provisions Relating to Corporate Tax Shelters) (JCS-3-99) at 182. See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 247; James v. Commissioner, 899 F.2d 905, 908 (10th Cir. 1995); Sacks v. Commissioner, 69 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Instead, the consideration of business purpose and economic substance are simply more precise factors to consider . . . We have repeatedly and carefully noted that this formulation cannot be used as a 'rigid two-step analysis'.") the grounds that the subject transactions lacked profit potential. 86 In addition, some courts have applied the economic substance doctrine to disallow tax benefits in transactions in which a taxpayer was exposed to risk and the transaction had a profit potential, but the court concluded that the economic risks and profit potential were insignificant when compared to the tax benefits. 87 Under this analysis, the taxpayer's profit potential must be more than nominal. Conversely, other courts view the application of the economic substance doctrine as requiring an objective determination of whether a "reasonable possibility of profit" from the transaction existed apart from the tax benefits. 88 In these cases, in assessing whether a reasonable possibility of profit exists, it may be sufficient if there is a nominal amount of pre-tax profit as measured against expected tax benefits.
________________________________________
85
See, e.g., Coltec Industries v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The court analyzed the transfer to a subsidiary of a note purporting to provide high stock basis in exchange for a purported assumption of liabilities, and held these transactions unnecessary to accomplish any business purpose of using a subsidiary to manage asbestos liabilities. The court also held that the purported business purpose of adding a barrier to veil-piercing claims by third parties was not accomplished by the transaction. 454 F.3d at 1358-1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
________________________________________
86
See, e.g., Knetsch, 364 U.S. at 361; Goldstein v. Commissioner, 364 F.2d 734 (2d Cir. 1966) (holding that an unprofitable, leveraged acquisition of Treasury bills, and accompanying prepaid interest deduction, lacked economic substance).
________________________________________
87
See, e.g., Goldstein v. Commissioner, 364 F.2d at 739-40 (disallowing deduction even though taxpayer had a possibility of small gain or loss by owning Treasury bills); Sheldon v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 738, 768 (1990) (stating that "potential for gain . . . is infinitesimally nominal and vastly insignificant when considered in comparison with the claimed deductions").
________________________________________
88
See, e.g., Rice's Toyota World v. Commissioner, 752 F. 2d 89, 94 (4th Cir. 1985) (the economic substance inquiry requires an objective determination of whether a reasonable possibility of profit from the transaction existed apart from tax benefits); Compaq Computer Corp. v. Commissioner, 277 F.3d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 2001) (applied the same test, citing Rice's Toyota World); IES Industries v. United States, 253 F.3d 350, 354 (8th Cir. 2001).
Financial accounting benefits
In determining whether a taxpayer had a valid business purpose for entering into a transaction, at least one court has concluded that financial accounting benefits arising from tax savings do not qualify as a non-tax business purpose. 89 However, based on court decisions that recognize the importance of financial accounting treatment, taxpayers have asserted that financial accounting benefits arising from tax savings can satisfy the business purpose test. 90
________________________________________
89
See American Electric Power, Inc. v. United States, 136 F. Supp. 2d 762, 791-92 (S.D. Ohio 2001), aff'd, 326 F.3d.737 (6th Cir. 2003).
________________________________________
90
See, e.g., Joint Committee on Taxation, Report of Investigation of Enron Corporation and Related Entities Regarding Federal Tax and Compensation Issues, and Policy Recommendations (JSC-3-03) February, 2003 ("Enron Report"), Volume III at C-93, 289. Enron Corporation relied on Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 577-78 (1978), and Newman v. Commissioner, 902 F.2d 159, 163 (2d Cir. 1990), to argue that financial accounting benefits arising from tax savings constitute a good business purpose.
Tax-indifferent parties
A number of cases have involved transactions structured to allocate income for Federal tax purposes to a tax-indifferent party, with a corresponding deduction, or favorable basis result, to a taxable person. The income allocated to the tax-indifferent party for tax purposes was structured to exceed any actual economic income to be received by the tax indifferent party from the transaction. Courts have sometimes concluded that a particular type of transaction did not satisfy the economic substance doctrine. 91 In other cases, courts have indicated that the substance of a transaction did not support the form of income allocations asserted by the taxpayer and have questioned whether asserted business purpose or other standards were met. 92
________________________________________
91
See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1998), aff'g 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 2189 (1997), cert. denied 526 U.S. 1017 (1999).
________________________________________
92
See, e.g., TIFD- III-E, Inc. v. United States,
Description of Proposal
The provision clarifies and enhances the application of the economic substance doctrine. Under the provision, in the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant, such transaction shall be treated as having economic substance only if (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position, and (2) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction. 93 The provision provides a uniform definition of economic substance, but does not alter the flexibility of the courts in other respects.
________________________________________
93
In applying these tests, any State or local income tax effect which is related to a Federal income tax effect shall be treated in the same manner as a Federal income tax effect.
The determination of whether the economic substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction shall be made in the same manner as if the provision had never been enacted. Thus, the provision does not change current law standards in determining when to utilize an economic substance analysis. 94
________________________________________
94
If the tax benefits are clearly consistent with all applicable provisions of the Code and the purposes of such provisions, it is not intended that such tax benefits be disallowed if the only reason for such disallowance is that the transaction fails the economic substance doctrine as defined in this provision. See, e.g., Treas. Reg. sec. 1.269-2, stating that characteristic of circumstances in which a deduction otherwise allowed will be disallowed are those in which the effect of the deduction, credit, or other allowance would be to distort the liability of the particular taxpayer when the essential nature of the transaction or situation is examined in the light of the basic purpose or plan which the deduction, credit, or other allowance was designed by the Congress to effectuate.
The provision is not intended to alter the tax treatment of certain basic business transactions that, under longstanding judicial and administrative practice are respected, merely because the choice between meaningful economic alternatives is largely or entirely based on comparative tax advantages. Among 95 these basic transactions are (1) the choice between capitalizing a business enterprise with debt or equity; 96 (2) a U.S. person's choice between utilizing a foreign corporation or a domestic corporation to make a foreign investment; 97 (3) the choice to enter a transaction or series of transactions that constitute a corporate organization or reorganization under subchapter C; 98 and (4) the choice to utilize a related-party entity in a transaction, provided that the arm's length standard of section 482 and other applicable concepts are satisfied. 99 Leasing transactions, like all other types of transactions, will continue to be analyzed in light of all the facts and circumstances. 100 As under present law, whether a particular transaction meets the requirements for specific treatment under any of these provisions can be a question of facts and circumstances. Also, the fact that a transaction does meet the requirements for specific treatment under any provision of the Code is not determinative of whether a transaction or series of transactions of which it is a part has economic substance. 101
________________________________________
95
The examples are illustrative and not exclusive.
________________________________________
96
See, e.g., John Kelley Co. v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 521 (1946) (respecting debt characterization in one case and not in the other, based on all the facts and circumstances).
________________________________________
97
See, e.g., Sam Siegel v. Commissioner, 45. T.C. 566 (1966), acq. 1966-2 C.B. 3. But see Commissioner
________________________________________
98
See, e.g. Rev. Proc. 2009-3 2009-1 I.R.B. 108, Secs. 3.01(38), (39), and (41) (IRS will not rule on certain matters relating to incorporations or reorganizations unless there is a "significant issue"); compare Gregory v. Helvering. 293 U.S. 465 (1935).
________________________________________
99
See, e.g., National Carbide v. Commissioner, 336 U.S. 422 (1949), Moline Properties v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 435 (1943); compare, e.g. Aiken Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 925 (1971), acq., 1972-2 C.B. 1; Commissioner v. Bollinger, 485 U.S. 340 (1988); see also sec. 7701(l).
________________________________________
100
See, e.g., Frank Lyon v. Commissioner, 435 U.S. 561 (1978); Hilton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 305, aff'd, 671 F. 2d 316 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 907 (1982); Coltec Industries v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem) (2007); BB&T Corporation v. United States, 2007-1 USTC P 50,130 (M.D.N.C. 2007), aff'd, 523 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2008).
________________________________________
101
As examples of cases in which courts have found that a transaction does not meet the requirements for the treatment claimed by the taxpayer under the Code, or does not have economic substance, see e.g., TIFD- III-E, Inc. v. United States, 459 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2006); BB&T Corporation v. United States, 2007-1 USTC P 50,130 (M.D.N,C, 2007) aff'd, 523 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2008); Tribune Company and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 110 (2005); H.J. Heinz Company and Subsidiaries v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 570 (2007); Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem.) (2007); Long Term Capital Holdings LP v. United States, 330 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D. Conn. 2004), aff'd, 150 Fed. Appx. 40 (2d Cir. 2005); Klamath Strategic Investment Fund, LLC v. United States, 472 F. Supp. 2d 885 (E.D. Texas 2007); aff'd, 568 F. 3d 537 (5th Cir. 2009); Santa Monica Pictures LLC v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.M. 1157 (2005).
The provision does not alter the court's ability to aggregate, disaggregate, or otherwise recharacterize a transaction when applying the doctrine. For example, the provision reiterates the present-law ability of the courts to bifurcate a transaction in which independent activities with non-tax objectives are combined with an unrelated item having only tax-avoidance objectives in order to disallow those tax-motivated benefits. 102
________________________________________
102 See, e.g., Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem.) (2007) ("the first asserted business purpose focuses on the wrong transaction--the creation of Garrison as a separate subsidiary to manage asbestos liabilities. . . . [W]e must focus on the transaction that gave the taxpayer a high basis in the stock and thus gave rise to the alleged benefit upon sale...") 454 F.3d 1340, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See also ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 256 n.48; Minnesota Tea Co. v. Helvering, 302 U.S. 609, 613 (1938) ("A given result at the end of a straight path is not made a different result because reached by following a devious path.").
Conjunctive analysis
The provision clarifies that the economic substance doctrine involves a conjunctive analysis — there must be an inquiry regarding the objective effects of the transaction on the taxpayer's economic position as well as an inquiry regarding the taxpayer's subjective motives for engaging in the transaction. Under the provision, a transaction must satisfy both tests, i.e., the transaction must change in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position, and the taxpayer must have a substantial non-Federal-income-tax purpose 103 for entering into such transaction, in order to satisfy the economic substance doctrine. This clarification eliminates the disparity that exists among the Federal circuit courts regarding the application of the doctrine, and modifies its application in those circuits in which either a change in economic position or a non-tax business purpose (without having both) is sufficient to satisfy the economic substance doctrine. 104
________________________________________
103
For purposes of these tests, any State or local income tax effect which is related to a Federal income tax effect shall be treated in the same manner as a Federal income tax effect.
________________________________________
104
The provision defines "economic substance doctrine" as the common law doctrine under which tax benefits under subtitle A with respect to a transaction are not allowable if the transaction does not have economic substance or lacks a business purpose. Thus, the definition includes any doctrine that denies tax benefits for lack of economic substance, for lack of business purpose, or for lack of both.
Non-Federal-tax business purpose
Under the provision, a taxpayer's non-Federal-income-tax purpose for entering into a transaction (the second prong in the analysis) must be "substantial." 105 For purposes of this analysis, any State or local income tax effect which is related to a Federal income tax effect shall be treated in the same manner as a Federal income tax effect. Also, a purpose of achieving a favorable accounting treatment for financial reporting purposes shall not be taken into account as a non-Federal-income-tax purpose if the origin of such financial accounting benefit is a reduction of Federal income tax. 106
________________________________________
105
See, e.g., Treas. Reg. sec. 1.269-2(b) (stating that a distortion of tax liability indicating the principal purpose of tax evasion or avoidance might be evidenced by the fact that "the transaction was not undertaken for reasons germane to the conduct of the business of the taxpayer"). Similarly, in ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 2189 (1997), the court stated:
Key to [the determination of whether a transaction has economic substance] is that the transaction must be rationally related to a useful nontax purpose that is plausible in light of the taxpayer's conduct and useful in light of the taxpayer's economic situation and intentions. Both the utility of the stated purpose and the rationality of the means chosen to effectuate it must be evaluated in accordance with commercial practices in the relevant industry. A rational relationship between purpose and means ordinarily will not be found unless there was a reasonable expectation that the nontax benefits would be at least commensurate with the transaction costs. [citations omitted]
________________________________________
106
Claiming that a financial accounting benefit constitutes a substantial non-tax purpose fails to consider the origin of the accounting benefit (i.e., reduction of taxes) and significantly diminishes the purpose for having a substantial non-tax purpose requirement. See, e.g., American Electric Power, Inc. v. United States, 136 F. Supp. 2d 762, 791-92 (S.D. Ohio 2001) ("AEP's intended use of the cash flows generated by the [corporate-owned life insurance] plan is irrelevant to the subjective prong of the economic substance analysis. If a legitimate business purpose for the use of the tax savings 'were sufficient to breathe substance into a transaction whose only purpose was to reduce taxes, [then] every sham tax-shelter device might succeed,'") (citing Winn-Dixie v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 254, 287 (1999)); aff'd, 326 F3d 737 (6th Cir. 2003).
Profit potential
Under the provision, a taxpayer may rely on factors other than profit potential to demonstrate that a transaction results in a meaningful change in the taxpayer's economic position or that the taxpayer has a substantial non-Federal-tax purpose for entering into such transaction. The provision does not require or establish a specified minimum return that will satisfy the profit potential test. However, if a taxpayer relies on a profit potential, the present value of the reasonably expected pre-tax profit must be substantial in relation to the present value of the expected net tax benefits that would be allowed if the transaction were respected. 107 Fees and other transaction expenses and foreign taxes shall be taken into account as expenses in determining pre-tax profit.
________________________________________
107
Thus, a "reasonable possibility of profit" alone will not be sufficient to establish that a transaction has economic substance.
Personal transactions of individuals
In the case of an individual, the provision applies only to transactions entered into in connection with a trade or business or an activity engaged in for the production of income.
Other rules
The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the provision
No inference is intended as to the proper application of the economic substance doctrine under present law. In addition, the provision shall not be construed as altering or supplanting any other rule of law, including any common-law doctrine or provision of the Code or regulations or other guidance thereunder; and the provision shall be construed as being additive to any such other rule of law.
Effective Date
The provision applies to transactions entered into after the date of enactment.
1.. Penalty for understatements attributable to transactions lacking economic substance
Present Law
General accuracy-related penalty
An accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 applies to the portion of any underpayment that is attributable to (1) negligence, (2) any substantial understatement of income tax, (3) any substantial valuation misstatement, (4) any substantial overstatement of pension liabilities, or (5) any substantial estate or gift tax valuation understatement. If the correct income tax liability exceeds that reported by the taxpayer by the greater of 10 percent of the correct tax or $5,000 (or, in the case of corporations, by the lesser of (a) 10 percent of the correct tax (or $10,000 if greater) or (b) $10 million), then a substantial understatement exists and a penalty may be imposed equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax attributable to the understatement. 108 Except in the case of tax shelters, 109 the amount of any understatement is reduced by any portion attributable to an item if (1) the treatment of the item is supported by substantial authority, or (2) facts relevant to the tax treatment of the item were adequately disclosed and there was a reasonable basis for its tax treatment. The Treasury Secretary may prescribe a list of positions which the Secretary believes do not meet the requirements for substantial authority under this provision.
________________________________________
108
Sec. 6662.
________________________________________
109
A tax shelter is defined for this purpose as a partnership or other entity, an investment plan or arrangement, or any other plan or arrangement if a significant purpose of such partnership, other entity, plan, or arrangement is the avoidance or evasion of Federal income tax. Sec. 6662(d)(2)(C).
The section 6662 penalty generally is abated (even with respect to tax shelters) in cases in which the taxpayer can demonstrate that there was "reasonable cause" for the underpayment and that the taxpayer acted in good faith. 110 The relevant regulations provide that reasonable cause exists where the taxpayer "reasonably relies in good faith on an opinion based on a professional tax advisor's analysis of the pertinent facts and authorities [that] . . . unambiguously concludes that there is a greater than 50-percent likelihood that the tax treatment of the item will be upheld if challenged" by the IRS. 111
________________________________________
110
Sec. 6664(c).
________________________________________
111
Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6662-4(g)(4)(i)(B); Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6664-4(c).
Listed transactions and reportable avoidance transactions
In general
A separate accuracy-related penalty under section 6662A applies to any "listed transaction" and to any other "reportable transaction" that is not a listed transactions, if a significant purpose of such transaction is the avoidance or evasion of Federal income tax 112
________________________________________
112
Sec. 6662A(b)(2).
(hereinafter referred to as a "reportable avoidance transaction"). The penalty rate and defenses available to avoid the penalty vary depending on whether the transaction was adequately disclosed.
Both listed transactions and other reportable transactions are allowed to be described by the Treasury department under section 6011 as transactions that must be reported, and section 6707A(c) imposes a penalty for failure adequately to report such transactions under section 6011. A reportable transaction is defined as one that the Treasury Secretary determines is required to be disclosed because it is determined to have a potential for tax avoidance or evasion. 113 A listed transaction is defined as a reportable transaction which is the same as, or substantially similar to, a transaction specifically identified by the Secretary as a tax avoidance transaction for purposes of the reporting disclosure requirements. 114
________________________________________
113
Sec. 6707A(c)(1).
________________________________________
114
Sec. 6707A(c)(2).
Disclosed transactions
In general, a 20-percent accuracy-related penalty is imposed on any understatement attributable to an adequately disclosed listed transaction or reportable avoidance transaction. 115 The only exception to the penalty is if the taxpayer satisfies a more stringent reasonable cause and good faith exception (hereinafter referred to as the "strengthened reasonable cause exception"), which is described below. The strengthened reasonable cause exception is available only if the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment were adequately disclosed, there is or was substantial authority for the claimed tax treatment, and the taxpayer reasonably believed that the claimed tax treatment was more likely than not the proper treatment. A "reasonable belief" must be based on the facts and law as they exist at the time that the return in question is filed, and not take into account the possibility that a return would not be audited. Moreover, reliance on professional advice may support a "reasonable belief" only in certain circumstances. 116
________________________________________
115
Sec. 6662A(a).
________________________________________
116
Section 6664(d)(3)(B) would not allow a reasonable belief to be based on a "disqualified opinion" or on an opinion from a "disqualified tax advisor".
Undisclosed transactions
If the taxpayer does not adequately disclose the transaction, the strengthened reasonable cause exception is not available (i.e., a strict-liability penalty generally applies), and the taxpayer is subject to an increased penalty equal to 30 percent of the understatement. 117 However, a taxpayer will be treated as having adequately disclosed a transaction for this purpose if the IRS Commissioner has separately rescinded the separate penalty under section 6707A for failure to disclose a reportable transaction. 118 The IRS Commissioner is authorized to do this only if the failure does not relate to a listed transaction and only if rescinding the penalty would promote compliance and effective tax administration. 119
________________________________________
117
Sec. 6662A(c).
________________________________________
118
Sec. 6664(d).
________________________________________
119
Sec. 6707A(d).
A public entity that is required to pay a penalty for an undisclosed listed or reportable transaction must disclose the imposition of the penalty in reports to the SEC for such periods as the Secretary shall specify. The disclosure to the SEC applies without regard to whether the taxpayer determines the amount of the penalty to be material to the reports in which the penalty must appear, and any failure to disclose such penalty in the reports is treated as a failure to disclose a listed transaction. A taxpayer must disclose a penalty in reports to the SEC once the taxpayer has exhausted its administrative and judicial remedies with respect to the penalty (or if earlier, when paid). 120
________________________________________
120
Sec. 6707A(e).
Determination of the understatement amount
The penalty is applied to the amount of any understatement attributable to the listed or reportable avoidance transaction without regard to other items on the tax return. For purposes of this provision, the amount of the understatement is determined as the sum of: (1) the product of the highest corporate or individual tax rate (as appropriate) and the increase in taxable income resulting from the difference between the taxpayer's treatment of the item and the proper treatment of the item (without regard to other items on the tax return); 121 and (2) the amount of any decrease in the aggregate amount of credits which results from a difference between the taxpayer's treatment of an item and the proper tax treatment of such item.
________________________________________
121
For this purpose, any reduction in the excess of deductions allowed for the taxable year over gross income for such year, and any reduction in the amount of capital losses which would (without regard to section 1211) be allowed for such year, shall be treated as an increase in taxable income. Sec. 6662A(b).
Except as provided in regulations, a taxpayer's treatment of an item shall not take into account any amendment or supplement to a return if the amendment or supplement is filed after the earlier of when the taxpayer is first contacted regarding an examination of the return or such other date as specified by the Secretary. 122
________________________________________
122
Sec. 6662A(e)(3).
Strengthened reasonable cause exception
A penalty is not imposed with respect to any portion of an understatement if it is shown that there was reasonable cause for such portion and the taxpayer acted in good faith. Such a showing requires: (1) adequate disclosure of the facts affecting the transaction in accordance with the regulations under section 6011; 123 (2) that there is or was substantial authority for such treatment; and (3) that the taxpayer reasonably believed that such treatment was more likely than not the proper treatment. For this purpose, a taxpayer will be treated as having a reasonable belief with respect to the tax treatment of an item only if such belief: (1) is based on the facts and law that exist at the time the tax return (that includes the item) is filed; and (2) relates solely to the taxpayer's chances of success on the merits and does not take into account the possibility that (a) a return will not be audited, (b) the treatment will not be raised on audit, or (c) the treatment will be resolved through settlement if raised. 24
________________________________________
123
See the previous discussion regarding the penalty for failing to disclose a reportable transaction.
________________________________________
24
Sec. 6664(d).
A taxpayer may (but is not required to) rely on an opinion of a tax advisor in establishing its reasonable belief with respect to the tax treatment of the item. However, a taxpayer may not rely on an opinion of a tax advisor for this purpose if the opinion (1) is provided by a "disqualified tax advisor" or (2) is a "disqualified opinion."
Disqualified tax advisor
A disqualified tax advisor is any advisor who: (1) is a material advisor 125 and who participates in the organization, management, promotion, or sale of the transaction or is related (within the meaning of section 267(b) or 707(b)(1)) to any person who so participates; (2) is compensated directly or indirectly 126 by a material advisor with respect to the transaction; (3) has a fee arrangement with respect to the transaction that is contingent on all or part of the intended tax benefits from the transaction being sustained; or (4) as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, has a disqualifying financial interest with respect to the transaction.
________________________________________
125
The term "material advisor" means any person who provides any material aid, assistance, or advice with respect to organizing, managing, promoting, selling, implementing, or carrying out any reportable transaction, and who derives gross income in excess of $50,000 in the case of a reportable transaction substantially all of the tax benefits from which are provided to natural persons ($250,000 in any other case). Sec. 6111(b)(1).
________________________________________
126
This situation could arise, for example, when an advisor has an arrangement or understanding (oral or written) with an organizer, manager, or promoter of a reportable transaction that such party will recommend or refer potential participants to the advisor for an opinion regarding the tax treatment of the transaction.
A material advisor is considered as participating in the "organization" of a transaction if the advisor performs acts relating to the development of the transaction. This may include, for example, preparing documents: (1) establishing a structure used in connection with the transaction (such as a partnership agreement); (2) describing the transaction (such as an offering memorandum or other statement describing the transaction); or (3) relating to the registration of the transaction with any federal, state,or local government body. 127 Participation in the "management" of a transaction means involvement in the decision-making process regarding any business activity with respect to the transaction. Participation in the "promotion or sale" of a transaction means involvement in the marketing or solicitation of the transaction to others. Thus, an advisor who provides information about the transaction to a potential participant is involved in the promotion or sale of a transaction, as is any advisor who recommends the transaction to a potential participant.
________________________________________
127
An advisor should not be treated as participating in the organization of a transaction if the advisor's only involvement with respect to the organization of the transaction is the rendering of an opinion regarding the tax consequences of such transaction. However, such an advisor may be a "disqualified tax advisor" with respect to the transaction if the advisor participates in the management, promotion, or sale of the transaction (or if the advisor is compensated by a material advisor, has a fee arrangement that is contingent on the tax benefits of the transaction, or as determined by the Secretary, has a continuing financial interest with respect to the transaction). See Notice 200512, 2005-1 C.B. 494 regarding disqualified compensation arrangements.
Disqualified opinion
An opinion may not be relied upon if the opinion: (1) is based on unreasonable factual or legal assumptions (including assumptions as to future events); (2) unreasonably relies upon representations, statements, finding or agreements of the taxpayer or any other person; (3) does not identify and consider all relevant facts; or (4) fails to meet any other requirement prescribed by the Secretary.
Coordination with other penalties
To the extent a penalty on an understatement is imposed under section 6662A, that same amount of understatement is not also subject to the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) or to the valuation misstatement penalties under section 6662(e) or 6662(h). However, such amount of understatement is included for purposes of determining whether any understatement (as defined in sec. 6662(d)(2)) is a substantial understatement as defined under section 6662(d)(1) and for purposes of identifying an underpayment under the section 6663 fraud penalty.
The penalty imposed under section 6662A does not apply to any portion of an understatement to which a fraud penalty is applied under section 6663.
Erroneous claim for refund or credit
If a claim for refund or credit with respect to income tax (other than a claim relating to the earned income tax credit) is made for an excessive amount, unless it is shown that the claim for such excessive amount has a reasonable basis, the person making such claim is subject to a penalty in an amount equal to 20 percent of the excessive amount. 128
________________________________________
128
Sec. 6667.
The term "excessive amount" means the amount by which the amount of the claim for refund for any taxable year exceeds the amount of such claim allowable for the taxable year.
This penalty does not apply to any portion of a the excessive amount of a claim for refund or credit which is subject to a penalty imposed under the accuracy related or fraud penalty provisions (including the general accuracy related penalty, or the penalty with respect to listed and reportable transactions, described above).
Description of Proposal
The provision imposes a new, stronger penalty under section 6662 for an understatement attributable to any disallowance of claimed tax benefits by reason of a transaction lacking economic substance, as defined in new section 7701(p), 129 or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law. 130 The penalty rate is 20 percent (increased to 40 percent if the taxpayer does not adequately disclose the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment in the return or a statement attached to the return). Except as provided in regulations, an amended return or supplement to a return is not taken into account if filed after the taxpayer has been contacted for audit or such other date as is specified by the Secretary. No exceptions (including the reasonable cause rules) to the penalty are available (i.e., the penalty is a strict-liability penalty). Thus, under the provision, outside opinions or in-house analysis would not protect a taxpayer from imposition of a penalty if it is determined that the transaction lacks economic substance or fails to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law. Similarly, a claim for refund that is excessive under section 6676 due to a claim that is lacking in economic substance or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law is subject to the 20 percent penalty under that section, and the reasonable basis exception is not available.
________________________________________
129
That provision generally provides that in any case in which a court determines that the economic substance doctrine is relevant, a transaction has economic substance only if: (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position, and (2) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction. Specific other rules also apply. See "Description of Proposal" for the immediately preceding provision, "Clarification of the economic substance doctrine."
________________________________________
130
For example, the penalty would apply to a transaction that is disregarded as a result of the application of the same factors and analysis that is required under the provision for an economic substance analysis, even if a different term is used to describe the doctrine.
The penalty does not apply to any portion of an underpayment on which a fraud penalty is imposed. 131 The new 20 percent penalty (and 40 percent penalty for nondisclosed transactions) is also added to the penalties to which section 6662A will not also apply. 132
________________________________________
131
I.e., section 6662(b) of present law applies to the new penalty as well.
________________________________________
132
As under present law, the penalties under section 6662 (including the new penalty) do not apply to any portion of an underpayment on which a fraud penalty is imposed.
As described above, under the provision, the reasonable cause and good faith exception of present law section 6664(c)(1) does not apply to any portion of an underpayment which is attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance, as defined in section 7701(p), or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law, or to any tax shelter (as defined in present law section 6662(d)(2)(C)). In addition, the reasonable cause and good faith exception of present law section 6664(c)(1) also does not apply to any underpayment in which the taxpayer is a specified person. A specified person is defined as (i) any person required to file periodic or other reports under section 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) any corporation with gross receipts in excess of $100 million for the taxable year involved. 133
________________________________________
133
For purposes of this rule, all persons treated as a single employer under section 52(a) are treated as one person.
In the case of a substantial understatement of income tax (which is a separate type of understatement under new section 6662(b) than an understatement attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law), 134 the rules of section 6662(d) still apply, but are changed in the case of a specified person (as defined above). In the case of such a person, it is no longer the case that a substantial understatement is reduced if there is or was substantial authority for the taxpayer's treatment, or if the relevant facts were disclosed and there is a reasonable basis for the taxpayer's tax treatment. Under the provision, a substantial understatement of a specified person can be reduced only by that portion attributable to any item with respect to which the taxpayer had a reasonable belief that the tax treatment by the taxpayer is more likely than not the proper treatment.
________________________________________
134
The rules and exceptions of section 6662(d) do not apply to any understatement attributable to a transaction that lacks economic substance or fails to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law.


Effective Date
The provision aommittee Report for jcx-47-09, hr3962



TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF THE REVENUE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN H.R. 3962, THE "AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA ACT OF 2009," AS AMENDED
Prepared by the Staff of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

November 5, 2009

JCX-47-09

pplies to transactions entered into after the date of enactment.

T.. Codification of Economic Substance Doctrine; Penalties (sec. 562 of the bill and sec. 7701 of the Code)

Present Law

In general

The Code provides detailed rules specifying the computation of taxable income, including the amount, timing, source, and character of items of income, gain, loss, and deduction. These rules permit both taxpayers and the government to compute taxable income with reasonable accuracy and predictability. Taxpayers generally may plan their transactions in reliance on these rules to determine the federal income tax consequences arising from the transactions.

In addition to the statutory provisions, courts have developed several doctrines that can be applied to deny the tax benefits of a tax-motivated transaction, notwithstanding that the transaction may satisfy the literal requirements of a specific tax provision. These common-law doctrines are not entirely distinguishable, and their application to a given set of facts is often blurred by the courts, the IRS, and litigants. Although these doctrines serve an important role in the administration of the tax system, they can be seen as at odds with an objective, "rule-based" system of taxation.

One common-law doctrine applied over the years is the "economic substance" doctrine. In general, this doctrine denies tax benefits arising from transactions that do not result in a meaningful change to the taxpayer's economic position other than a purported reduction in federal income tax. 220
________________________________________
220
See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1998), aff'g 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 2189 (1997), cert. denied 526 U.S. 1017 (1999); Klamath Strategic Investment Fund, LLC v. United States, 472 F. Supp. 2d 885 (E.D. Texas 2007), aff'd 568 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2009); Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), vacating and remanding 62 Fed. Cl. 716 (2004) (slip opinion at 123-124, 128); cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem.) (2007).
Closely related doctrines also applied by the courts (sometimes interchangeable with the economic substance doctrine) include the "sham transaction doctrine" and the "business purpose doctrine." See, e.g., Knetsch v. United States, 364 U.S. 361 (1960) (denying interest deductions on a "sham transaction" whose only purpose was to create the deductions). Certain "substance over form" cases involving tax-indifferent parties, in which courts have found that the substance of the transaction did not comport with the form asserted by the taxpayer, have also involved examination of whether the change in economic position that occurred, if any, was consistent with the form asserted, and whether the claimed business purpose supported the particular tax benefits that were claimed. See, e.g., TIFD III-E, Inc. v. United States, 459 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2006); BB&T Corporation v. United States, 2007-1 USTC P 50,130 (M.D.N.C. 2007), aff'd 523 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2008). Although the Second Circuit found for the government in TIFD III-E, Inc., on remand to consider issues under section 704(e), the District Court found for the taxpayer. See, TIFD III-E Inc. v. United States, No. 3:01-cv-01839 (Oct. 23, 2009).
Economic substance doctrine
Courts generally deny claimed tax benefits if the transaction that gives rise to those benefits lacks economic substance independent of U.S. federal income tax considerations —notwithstanding that the purported activity actually occurred. The Tax Court has described the doctrine as follows:
The tax law . . . requires that the intended transactions have economic substance separate and distinct from economic benefit achieved solely by tax reduction. The doctrine of economic substance becomes applicable, and a judicial remedy is warranted, where a taxpayer seeks to claim tax benefits, unintended by Congress, by means of transactions that serve no economic purpose other than tax savings. 221
________________________________________
221
ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.M. at 2215.
Business purpose doctrine
A common law doctrine that often is considered together with the economic substance doctrine is the business purpose doctrine. The business purpose doctrine involves an inquiry into the subjective motives of the taxpayer —that is, whether the taxpayer intended the transaction to serve some useful non-tax purpose. In making this determination, some courts have bifurcated a transaction in which activities with non-tax objectives have been combined with unrelated activities having only tax-avoidance objectives, in order to disallow the tax benefits of the overall transaction. 222
________________________________________
222
See, ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 256 n.48.
Application by the courts
Elements of the doctrine
There is a lack of uniformity regarding the proper application of the economic substance doctrine. 223 Some courts apply a conjunctive test that requires a taxpayer to establish the presence of both economic substance (i.e., the objective component) and business purpose (i.e., the subjective component) in order for the transaction to survive judicial scrutiny. 224 A narrower approach used by some courts is to conclude that either a business purpose or economic substance is sufficient to respect the transaction. 225 A third approach regards economic substance and business purpose as "simply more precise factors to consider" in determining whether a transaction has any practical economic effects other than the creation of tax benefits. 226
________________________________________
223
"The casebooks are glutted with [economic substance] tests. Many such tests proliferate because they give the comforting illusion of consistency and precision. They often obscure rather than clarify." Collins v. Commissioner, 857 F.2d 1383, 1386 (9th Cir. 1988).
________________________________________
224
See, e.g., Pasternak v. Commissioner, 990 F.2d 893, 898 (6th Cir. 1993) ("The threshold question is whether the transaction has economic substance. If the answer is yes, the question becomes whether the taxpayer was motivated by profit to participate in the transaction."). See also, Klamath Strategic Investment Fund v. United States, 568 F. 3d 537, (5th Cir. 2009) (even if taxpayers may have had a profit motive, a transaction was disregarded where it did not in fact have any realistic possibility of profit and funding was never at risk).
________________________________________
225
See, e.g., Rice's Toyota World v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 89, 91-92 (4th Cir. 1985) ("To treat a transaction as a sham, the court must find that the taxpayer was motivated by no business purposes other than obtaining tax benefits in entering the transaction, and, second, that the transaction has no economic substance because no reasonable possibility of a profit exists."); IES Industries v. United States, 253 F.3d 350, 358 (8th Cir. 2001) ("In determining whether a transaction is a sham for tax purposes [under the Eighth Circuit test], a transaction will be characterized as a sham if it is not motivated by any economic purpose out of tax considerations (the business purpose test), and if it is without economic substance because no real potential for profit exists (the economic substance test)."). As noted earlier, the economic substance doctrine and the sham transaction doctrine are similar and sometimes are applied interchangeably. For a more detailed discussion of the sham transaction doctrine, see, e.g., Joint Committee on Taxation, Study of Present-Law Penalty and Interest Provisions as Required by Section 3801 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (including Provisions Relating to Corporate Tax Shelters) (JCS-3-99) at 182.
________________________________________
226
See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 247; James v. Commissioner, 899 F.2d 905, 908 (10th Cir. 1995); Sacks v. Commissioner, 69 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Instead, the consideration of business purpose and economic substance are simply more precise factors to consider . . . We have repeatedly and carefully noted that this formulation cannot be used as a 'rigid two-step analysis'.").
One decision by the Court of Federal Claims questioned the continuing viability of the doctrine. That court also stated that "the use of the 'economic substance' doctrine to trump 'mere compliance with the Code' would violate the separation of powers" though that court also found that the particular transaction at issue in the case did not lack economic substance. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit Court") overruled the Court of Federal Claims decision, reiterating the viability of the economic substance doctrine and concluding that the transaction in question violated that doctrine. 227 The Federal Circuit Court stated that "[w]hile the doctrine may well also apply if the taxpayer's sole subjective motivation is tax avoidance even if the transaction has economic substance, [footnote omitted], a lack of economic substance is sufficient to disqualify the transaction without proof that the taxpayer's sole motive is tax avoidance." 228
________________________________________
227
Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 716 (2004) (slip opinion at 123-124, 128); vacated and remanded, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem.) (2007).
________________________________________
228
The Federal Circuit Court stated that "when the taxpayer claims a deduction, it is the taxpayer who bears the burden of proving that the transaction has economic substance." The Federal Circuit Court quoted a decision of its predecessor court, stating that "Gregory v. Helvering requires that a taxpayer carry an unusually heavy burden when he attempts to demonstrate that Congress intended to give favorable tax treatment to the kind of transaction that would never occur absent the motive of tax avoidance." The Court also stated that "while the taxpayer's subjective motivation may be pertinent to the existence of a tax avoidance purpose, all courts have looked to the objective reality of a transaction in assessing its economic substance." Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d at 1355, 1356.
Nontax economic benefits
There also is a lack of uniformity regarding the type of non-tax economic benefit a taxpayer must establish in order to demonstrate that a transaction has economic substance. Some courts have denied tax benefits on the grounds that a stated business benefit of a particular structure was not in fact obtained by that structure. 229 Several courts have denied tax benefits on the grounds that the subject transactions lacked profit potential. 230 In addition, some courts have applied the economic substance doctrine to disallow tax benefits in transactions in which a taxpayer was exposed to risk and the transaction had a profit potential, but the court concluded that the economic risks and profit potential were insignificant when compared to the tax benefits. 231 Under this analysis, the taxpayer's profit potential must be more than nominal. Conversely, other courts view the application of the economic substance doctrine as requiring an objective determination of whether a "reasonable possibility of profit" from the transaction existed apart from the tax benefits. 232 In these cases, in assessing whether a reasonable possibility of profit exists, it may be sufficient if there is a nominal amount of pre-tax profit as measured against expected tax benefits.
________________________________________
229
See, e.g., Coltec Industries v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The court analyzed the transfer to a subsidiary of a note purporting to provide high stock basis in exchange for a purported assumption of liabilities, and held these transactions unnecessary to accomplish any business purpose of using a subsidiary to manage asbestos liabilities. The court also held that the purported business purpose of adding a barrier to veil-piercing claims by third parties was not accomplished by the transaction. 454 F.3d at 1358-1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
________________________________________
230
See, e.g., Knetsch, 364 U.S. at 361; Goldstein v. Commissioner, 364 F.2d 734 (2d Cir. 1966) (holding that an unprofitable, leveraged acquisition of Treasury bills, and accompanying prepaid interest deduction, lacked economic substance).
________________________________________
231
See, e.g., Goldstein v. Commissioner, 364 F.2d at 739-40 (disallowing deduction even though taxpayer had a possibility of small gain or loss by owning Treasury bills); Sheldon v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 738, 768 (1990) (stating that "potential for gain . . . is infinitesimally nominal and vastly insignificant when considered in comparison with the claimed deductions").
________________________________________
232
See, e.g., Rice's Toyota World v. Commissioner, 752 F. 2d 89, 94 (4th Cir. 1985) (the economic substance inquiry requires an objective determination of whether a reasonable possibility of profit from the transaction existed apart from tax benefits); Compaq Computer Corp. v. Commissioner, 277 F.3d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 2001) (applied the same test, citing Rice's Toyota World); IES Industries v. United States, 253 F.3d 350, 354 (8th Cir. 2001).
Financial accounting benefits
In determining whether a taxpayer had a valid business purpose for entering into a transaction, at least one court has concluded that financial accounting benefits arising from tax savings do not qualify as a non-tax business purpose. 233 However, based on court decisions that recognize the importance of financial accounting treatment, taxpayers have asserted that financial accounting benefits arising from tax savings can satisfy the business purpose test. 234
________________________________________
233
See American Electric Power, Inc. v. United States, 136 F. Supp. 2d 762, 791-92 (S.D. Ohio 2001), aff'd, 326 F.3d.737 (6th Cir. 2003).
________________________________________
234
See, e.g., Joint Committee on Taxation, Report of Investigation of Enron Corporation and Related Entities Regarding Federal Tax and Compensation Issues, and Policy Recommendations (JSC-3-03) February, 2003 ("Enron Report"), Volume III at C-93, 289. Enron Corporation relied on Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 577-78 (1978), and Newman v. Commissioner, 902 F.2d 159, 163 (2d Cir. 1990), to argue that financial accounting benefits arising from tax savings constitute a good business purpose.

Tax-indifferent parties

A number of cases have involved transactions structured to allocate income for Federal tax purposes to a tax-indifferent party, with a corresponding deduction, or favorable basis result, to a taxable person. The income allocated to the tax-indifferent party for tax purposes was structured to exceed any actual economic income to be received by the tax indifferent party from the transaction. Courts have sometimes concluded that a particular type of transaction did not satisfy the economic substance doctrine. 235 In other cases, courts have indicated that the substance of a transaction did not support the form of income allocations asserted by the taxpayer and have questioned whether asserted business purpose or other standards were met. 236
________________________________________
235
See, e.g., ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1998), aff'g 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 2189 (1997), cert. denied 526 U.S. 1017 (1999).
________________________________________
236
See, e.g., TIFD III-E, Inc. v. United States, 459 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2006). Although the Second Circuit found for the government in TIFD III-E, Inc., on remand to consider issues under section 704(e), the District Court found for the taxpayer. See, TIFD III-E Inc. v. United States, No. 3:01-cv-01839 (Oct. 23, 2009).
Penalty regime
General accuracy-related penalty
An accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 applies to the portion of any underpayment that is attributable to (1) negligence, (2) any substantial understatement of income tax, (3) any substantial valuation misstatement, (4) any substantial overstatement of pension liabilities, or (5) any substantial estate or gift tax valuation understatement. If the correct income tax liability exceeds that reported by the taxpayer by the greater of 10 percent of the correct tax or $5,000 (or, in the case of corporations, by the lesser of (a) 10 percent of the correct tax (or $10,000 if greater) or (b) $10 million), then a substantial understatement exists and a penalty may be imposed equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax attributable to the understatement. 237 Except in the case of tax shelters, 238 the amount of any understatement is reduced by any portion attributable to an item if (1) the treatment of the item is supported by substantial authority, or (2) facts relevant to the tax treatment of the item were adequately disclosed and there was a reasonable basis for its tax treatment. The Treasury Secretary may prescribe a list of positions which the Secretary believes do not meet the requirements for substantial authority under this provision.
________________________________________
237
Sec. 6662.
________________________________________
238
A tax shelter is defined for this purpose as a partnership or other entity, an investment plan or arrangement, or any other plan or arrangement if a significant purpose of such partnership, other entity, plan, or arrangement is the avoidance or evasion of Federal income tax. Sec. 6662(d)(2)(C).
The section 6662 penalty generally is abated (even with respect to tax shelters) in cases in which the taxpayer can demonstrate that there was "reasonable cause" for the underpayment and that the taxpayer acted in good faith. 239 The relevant regulations for a tax shelter provide that reasonable cause exists where the taxpayer "reasonably relies in good faith on an opinion based on a professional tax advisor's analysis of the pertinent facts and authorities [that] . . . unambiguously concludes that there is a greater than 50-percent likelihood that the tax treatment of the item will be upheld if challenged" by the IRS. 240 For transactions other than tax shelters, the relevant regulations provide a facts and circumstances test, the most important factor generally being the extent of the taxpayer's effort to assess the proper tax liability. If a taxpayer relies on an opinion, reliance is not reasonable if the taxpayer knows or should have known that the advisor lacked knowledge in the relevant aspects of Federal tax law, or if the taxpayer fails to disclose a fact that it knows or should have known is relevant. Certain additional requirements apply with respect to the advice. 241
________________________________________
239
Sec. 6664(c).
________________________________________
240
Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6662-4(g)(4)(i)(B); Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6664-4(c).
________________________________________
241
See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6664-4(c). In addition to the requirements applicable to taxpayers under the regulations, advisors may be subject to potential penalties under section 6694 (applicable to return preparers), and to monetary penalties and other sanctions under Circular 230 (which provides rules governing persons practicing before the IRS). Under Circular 230, if a transaction is a "covered transaction" (a term that includes listed transactions and certain non-listed reportable transactions) a "more likely than not" confidence level is required for written tax advice that may be relied upon by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties, and certain other standards must also be met. Treasury Dept. Circular 230 (Rev. 4-2008) Sec. 10.35. For other tax advice, Circular 230 generally requires a lower "realistic possibility" confidence level or a "non-frivolous" confidence level coupled with advising the client of any opportunity to avoid the accuracy related penalty under section 6662 by adequate disclosure. Treasury Dept. Circular 230 (Rev. 4-2008) Sec. 10.34.
Listed transactions and reportable avoidance transactions
In general
A separate accuracy-related penalty under section 6662A applies to any "listed transaction" and to any other "reportable transaction" that is not a listed transaction, if a significant purpose of such transaction is the avoidance or evasion of Federal income tax 242 (hereinafter referred to as a "reportable avoidance transaction"). The penalty rate and defenses available to avoid the penalty vary depending on whether the transaction was adequately disclosed.
________________________________________
242
Sec. 6662A(b)(2).
Both listed transactions and other reportable transactions are allowed to be described by the Treasury department under section 6011 as transactions that must be reported, and section 6707A(c) imposes a penalty for failure adequately to report such transactions under section 6011. A reportable transaction is defined as one that the Treasury Secretary determines is required to be disclosed because it is determined to have a potential for tax avoidance or evasion. 243 A listed transaction is defined as a reportable transaction which is the same as, or substantially similar to, a transaction specifically identified by the Secretary as a tax avoidance transaction for purposes of the reporting disclosure requirements. 244
________________________________________
243
Sec. 6707A(c)(1).
________________________________________
244
Sec. 6707A(c)(2).
Disclosed transactions

In general, a 20-percent accuracy-related penalty is imposed on any understatement attributable to an adequately disclosed listed transaction or reportable avoidance transaction. 245 The only exception to the penalty is if the taxpayer satisfies a more stringent reasonable cause and good faith exception (hereinafter referred to as the "strengthened reasonable cause exception"), which is described below. The strengthened reasonable cause exception is available only if the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment were adequately disclosed, there is or was substantial authority for the claimed tax treatment, and the taxpayer reasonably believed that the claimed tax treatment was more likely than not the proper treatment. A "reasonable belief" must be based on the facts and law as they exist at the time that the return in question is filed, and not take into account the possibility that a return would not be audited. Moreover, reliance on professional advice may support a "reasonable belief" only in certain circumstances. 246
________________________________________
245
Sec. 6662A(a).
________________________________________
246
Section 6664(d)(3)(B) would not allow a reasonable belief to be based on a "disqualified opinion" or on an opinion from a "disqualified tax advisor".
Undisclosed transactions
If the taxpayer does not adequately disclose the transaction, the strengthened reasonable cause exception is not available (i.e., a strict-liability penalty generally applies), and the taxpayer is subject to an increased penalty equal to 30 percent of the understatement. 247 However, a taxpayer will be treated as having adequately disclosed a transaction for this purpose if the IRS Commissioner has separately rescinded the separate penalty under section 6707A for failure to disclose a reportable transaction. 248 The IRS Commissioner is authorized to do this only if the failure does not relate to a listed transaction and only if rescinding the penalty would promote compliance and effective tax administration. 249
________________________________________
247
Sec. 6662A(c).
________________________________________
248
Sec. 6664(d).
________________________________________
249
Sec. 6707A(d).
A public entity that is required to pay a penalty for an undisclosed listed or reportable transaction must disclose the imposition of the penalty in reports to the SEC for such periods as the Secretary shall specify. The disclosure to the SEC applies without regard to whether the taxpayer determines the amount of the penalty to be material to the reports in which the penalty must appear, and any failure to disclose such penalty in the reports is treated as a failure to disclose a listed transaction. A taxpayer must disclose a penalty in reports to the SEC once the taxpayer has exhausted its administrative and judicial remedies with respect to the penalty (or if earlier, when paid). 250
________________________________________
250
Sec. 6707A(e).
Determination of the understatement amount
The penalty is applied to the amount of any understatement attributable to the listed or reportable avoidance transaction without regard to other items on the tax return. For purposes of this provision, the amount of the understatement is determined as the sum of: (1) the product of the highest corporate or individual tax rate (as appropriate) and the increase in taxable income resulting from the difference between the taxpayer's treatment of the item and the proper treatment of the item (without regard to other items on the tax return); 251 and (2) the amount of any decrease in the aggregate amount of credits which results from a difference between the taxpayer's treatment of an item and the proper tax treatment of such item.
________________________________________
251
For this purpose, any reduction in the excess of deductions allowed for the taxable year over gross income for such year, and any reduction in the amount of capital losses which would (without regard to section 1211) be allowed for such year, shall be treated as an increase in taxable income. Sec. 6662A(b).
Except as provided in regulations, a taxpayer's treatment of an item shall not take into account any amendment or supplement to a return if the amendment or supplement is filed after the earlier of when the taxpayer is first contacted regarding an examination of the return or such other date as specified by the Secretary. 252
________________________________________
252
Sec. 6662A(e)(3).
Strengthened reasonable cause exception
A penalty is not imposed under section 6662A with respect to any portion of an understatement if it is shown that there was reasonable cause for such portion and the taxpayer acted in good faith. Such a showing requires: (1) adequate disclosure of the facts affecting the transaction in accordance with the regulations under section 6011; 253 (2) that there is or was substantial authority for such treatment; and (3) that the taxpayer reasonably believed that such treatment was more likely than not the proper treatment. For this purpose, a taxpayer will be treated as having a reasonable belief with respect to the tax treatment of an item only if such belief: (1) is based on the facts and law that exist at the time the tax return (that includes the item) is filed; and (2) relates solely to the taxpayer's chances of success on the merits and does not take into account the possibility that (a) a return will not be audited, (b) the treatment will not be raised on audit, or (c) the treatment will be resolved through settlement if raised. 254
________________________________________
253
See the previous discussion regarding the penalty for failing to disclose a reportable transaction.
________________________________________
254
Sec. 6664(d).
A taxpayer may (but is not required to) rely on an opinion of a tax advisor in establishing its reasonable belief with respect to the tax treatment of the item. However, a taxpayer may not rely on an opinion of a tax advisor for this purpose if the opinion (1) is provided by a "disqualified tax advisor" or (2) is a "disqualified opinion."
Disqualified tax advisor
A disqualified tax advisor is any advisor who: (1) is a material advisor 255 and who participates in the organization, management, promotion, or sale of the transaction or is related (within the meaning of section 267(b) or 707(b)(1)) to any person who so participates; (2) is compensated directly or indirectly 256 by a material advisor with respect to the transaction; (3) has a fee arrangement with respect to the transaction that is contingent on all or part of the intended tax benefits from the transaction being sustained; or (4) as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, has a disqualifying financial interest with respect to the transaction.
________________________________________
255
The term "material advisor" means any person who provides any material aid, assistance, or advice with respect to organizing, managing, promoting, selling, implementing, or carrying out any reportable transaction, and who derives gross income in excess of $50,000 in the case of a reportable transaction substantially all of the tax benefits from which are provided to natural persons ($250,000 in any other case). Sec. 6111(b)(1).
________________________________________
256
This situation could arise, for example, when an advisor has an arrangement or understanding (oral or written) with an organizer, manager, or promoter of a reportable transaction that such party will recommend or refer potential participants to the advisor for an opinion regarding the tax treatment of the transaction.
A material advisor is considered as participating in the "organization" of a transaction if the advisor performs acts relating to the development of the transaction. This may include, for example, preparing documents: (1) establishing a structure used in connection with the transaction (such as a partnership agreement); (2) describing the transaction (such as an offering memorandum or other statement describing the transaction); or (3) relating to the registration of the transaction with any federal, state, or local government body. 257 Participation in the "management" of a transaction means involvement in the decision-making process regarding any business activity with respect to the transaction. Participation in the "promotion or sale" of a transaction means involvement in the marketing or solicitation of the transaction to others. Thus, an advisor who provides information about the transaction to a potential participant is involved in the promotion or sale of a transaction, as is any advisor who recommends the transaction to a potential participant.
________________________________________
257
An advisor should not be treated as participating in the organization of a transaction if the advisor's only involvement with respect to the organization of the transaction is the rendering of an opinion regarding the tax consequences of such transaction. However, such an advisor may be a "disqualified tax advisor" with respect to the transaction if the advisor participates in the management, promotion, or sale of the transaction (or if the advisor is compensated by a material advisor, has a fee arrangement that is contingent on the tax benefits of the transaction, or as determined by the Secretary, has a continuing financial interest with respect to the transaction). See Notice 200512, 2005-1 C.B. 494 regarding disqualified compensation arrangements.
Disqualified opinion
An opinion may not be relied upon if the opinion: (1) is based on unreasonable factual or legal assumptions (including assumptions as to future events); (2) unreasonably relies upon representations, statements, finding or agreements of the taxpayer or any other person; (3) does not identify and consider all relevant facts; or (4) fails to meet any other requirement prescribed by the Secretary.
Coordination with other penalties
To the extent a penalty on an understatement is imposed under section 6662A, that same amount of understatement is not also subject to the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) or to the valuation misstatement penalties under section 6662(e) or 6662(h). However, such amount of understatement is included for purposes of determining whether any understatement (as defined in sec. 6662(d)(2)) is a substantial understatement as defined under section 6662(d)(1) and for purposes of identifying an underpayment under the section 6663 fraud penalty.
The penalty imposed under section 6662A does not apply to any portion of an understatement to which a fraud penalty is applied under section 6663.
Erroneous claim for refund or credit
If a claim for refund or credit with respect to income tax (other than a claim relating to the earned income tax credit) is made for an excessive amount, unless it is shown that the claim for such excessive amount has a reasonable basis, the person making such claim is subject to a penalty in an amount equal to 20 percent of the excessive amount. 258
________________________________________
258
Sec. 6667.
The term "excessive amount" means the amount by which the amount of the claim for refund for any taxable year exceeds the amount of such claim allowable for the taxable year.
This penalty does not apply to any portion of a the excessive amount of a claim for refund or credit which is subject to a penalty imposed under the accuracy related or fraud penalty provisions (including the general accuracy related penalty, or the penalty with respect to listed and reportable transactions, described above).
Explanation of Provision
The provision clarifies and enhances the application of the economic substance doctrine. Under the provision, in the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant, such transaction shall be treated as having economic substance only if (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position, and (2) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction. 259 The provision provides a uniform definition of economic substance, but does not alter the flexibility of the courts in other respects.
________________________________________
259
In applying these tests, any State or local income tax effect which is related to a Federal income tax effect shall be treated in the same manner as a Federal income tax effect.
The determination of whether the economic substance doctrine is relevant to a transaction shall be made in the same manner as if the provision had never been enacted. Thus, the provision does not change current law standards in determining when to utilize an economic substance analysis. 260
________________________________________
260
If the tax benefits are clearly consistent with all applicable provisions of the Code and the purposes of such provisions, it is not intended that such tax benefits be disallowed if the only reason for such disallowance is that the transaction fails the economic substance doctrine as defined in this provision. See, e.g., Treas. Reg. sec. 1.269-2, stating that characteristic of circumstances in which a deduction otherwise allowed will be disallowed are those in which the effect of the deduction, credit, or other allowance would be to distort the liability of the particular taxpayer when the essential nature of the transaction or situation is examined in the light of the basic purpose or plan which the deduction, credit, or other allowance was designed by the Congress to effectuate.
The provision is not intended to alter the tax treatment of certain basic business transactions that, under longstanding judicial and administrative practice are respected, merely because the choice between meaningful economic alternatives is largely or entirely based on comparative tax advantages. Among 261 these basic transactions are (1) the choice between capitalizing a business enterprise with debt or equity; 262 (2) a U.S. person's choice between utilizing a foreign corporation or a domestic corporation to make a foreign investment; 263 (3) the choice to enter a transaction or series of transactions that constitute a corporate organization or reorganization under subchapter C; 264 and (4) the choice to utilize a related-party entity in a transaction, provided that the arm's length standard of section 482 and other applicable concepts are satisfied. 265 Leasing transactions, like all other types of transactions, will continue to be analyzed in light of all the facts and circumstances. 266 As under present law, whether a particular transaction meets the requirements for specific treatment under any of these provisions can be a question of facts and circumstances. Also, the fact that a transaction does meet the requirements for specific treatment under any provision of the Code is not determinative of whether a transaction or series of transactions of which it is a part has economic substance. 267
________________________________________
261
The examples are illustrative and not exclusive.
________________________________________
262
See, e.g., John Kelley Co. v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 521 (1946) (respecting debt characterization in one case and not in the other, based on all the facts and circumstances).
________________________________________
263
See, e.g., Sam Siegel v. Commissioner, 45. T.C. 566 (1966), acq. 1966-2 C.B. 3. But see Commissioner v. Bollinger, 485 U.S. 340 (1988) (agency principles applied to title-holding corporation under the facts and circumstances).
________________________________________
264
See, e.g., Rev. Proc. 2009-3 2009-1 I.R.B. 108, Secs. 3.01(38), (39), and (41) (IRS will not rule on certain matters relating to incorporations or reorganizations unless there is a "significant issue"); compare Gregory v. Helvering. 293 U.S. 465 (1935).
________________________________________
265
See, e.g., National Carbide v. Commissioner, 336 U.S. 422 (1949), Moline Properties v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 435 (1943); compare, e.g. Aiken Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 925 (1971), acq., 1972-2 C.B. 1; Commissioner v. Bollinger, 485 U.S. 340 (1988); see also sec. 7701(l).
________________________________________
266
See, e.g., Frank Lyon v. Commissioner, 435 U.S. 561 (1978); Hilton v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 305, aff'd, 671 F. 2d 316 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 907 (1982); Coltec Industries v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem) (2007); BB&T Corporation v. United States, 2007-1 USTC P 50,130 (M.D.N.C. 2007), aff'd, 523 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2008).
________________________________________
267
As examples of cases in which courts have found that a transaction does not meet the requirements for the treatment claimed by the taxpayer under the Code, or does not have economic substance, see e.g., BB&T Corporation v. United States, 2007-1 USTC P 50,130 (M.D.N.C. 2007) aff'd, 523 F.3d 461 (4th Cir. 2008); Tribune Company and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. 110 (2005); H.J. Heinz Company and Subsidiaries v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 570 (2007); Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem.) (2007); Long Term Capital Holdings LP v. United States, 330 F. Supp. 2d 122 (D. Conn. 2004), aff'd, 150 Fed. Appx. 40 (2d Cir. 2005); Klamath Strategic Investment Fund, LLC v. United States, 472 F. Supp. 2d 885 (E.D. Texas 2007); aff'd, 568 F. 3d 537 (5th Cir. 2009); Santa Monica Pictures LLC v. Commissioner, 89 T.C.M. 1157 (2005).
The provision does not alter the court's ability to aggregate, disaggregate, or otherwise recharacterize a transaction when applying the doctrine. For example, the provision reiterates the present-law ability of the courts to bifurcate a transaction in which independent activities with non-tax objectives are combined with an unrelated item having only tax-avoidance objectives in order to disallow those tax-motivated benefits. 268
________________________________________
268
See, e.g., Coltec Industries, Inc. v. United States, 454 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cert. denied 127 S. Ct. 1261 (Mem.) (2007) ("the first asserted business purpose focuses on the wrong transaction--the creation of Garrison as a separate subsidiary to manage asbestos liabilities. . . . [W]e must focus on the transaction that gave the taxpayer a high basis in the stock and thus gave rise to the alleged benefit upon sale...") 454 F.3d 1340, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See also ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d at 256 n.48; Minnesota Tea Co. v. Helvering, 302
U.S. 609, 613 (1938) ("A given result at the end of a straight path is not made a different result because reached by following a devious path.").
Conjunctive analysis
The provision clarifies that the economic substance doctrine involves a conjunctive analysis —there must be an inquiry regarding the objective effects of the transaction on the taxpayer's economic position as well as an inquiry regarding the taxpayer's subjective motives for engaging in the transaction. Under the provision, a transaction must satisfy both tests, i.e., the transaction must change in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position, and the taxpayer must have a substantial non-Federal-income-tax purpose 269 for entering into such transaction, in order to satisfy the economic substance doctrine. This clarification eliminates the disparity that exists among the Federal circuit courts regarding the application of the doctrine, and modifies its application in those circuits in which either a change in economic position or a non-tax business purpose (without having both) is sufficient to satisfy the economic substance doctrine. 270
________________________________________
269
For purposes of these tests, any State or local income tax effect that is related to a Federal income tax effect is treated in the same manner as a Federal income tax effect.
________________________________________
270
The provision defines "economic substance doctrine" as the common law doctrine under which tax benefits under subtitle A with respect to a transaction are not allowable if the transaction does not have economic substance or lacks a business purpose. Thus, the definition includes any doctrine that denies tax benefits for lack of economic substance, for lack of business purpose, or for lack of both.
Non-Federal-tax business purpose
Under the provision, a taxpayer's non-Federal-income-tax purpose for entering into a transaction (the second prong in the analysis) must be "substantial." 271 For purposes of this analysis, any State or local income tax effect which is related to a Federal income tax effect shall be treated in the same manner as a Federal income tax effect. Also, a purpose of achieving a favorable accounting treatment for financial reporting purposes is not to be taken into account as a non-Federal-income-tax purpose if the origin of the financial accounting benefit is a reduction of Federal income tax. 272
________________________________________
271
See, e.g., Treas. Reg. sec. 1.269-2(b) (stating that a distortion of tax liability indicating the principal purpose of tax evasion or avoidance might be evidenced by the fact that "the transaction was not undertaken for reasons germane to the conduct of the business of the taxpayer"). Similarly, in ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 2189 (1997), the court stated:
Key to [the determination of whether a transaction has economic substance] is that the transaction must be rationally related to a useful nontax purpose that is plausible in light of the taxpayer's conduct and useful in light of the taxpayer's economic situation and intentions. Both the utility of the stated purpose and the rationality of the means chosen to effectuate it must be evaluated in accordance with commercial practices in the relevant industry. A rational relationship between purpose and means ordinarily will not be found unless there was a reasonable expectation that the nontax benefits would be at least commensurate with the transaction costs. [citations omitted]
________________________________________
272
Claiming that a financial accounting benefit constitutes a substantial non-tax purpose fails to consider the origin of the accounting benefit (i.e., reduction of taxes) and significantly diminishes the purpose for having a substantial non-tax purpose requirement. See, e.g., American Electric Power, Inc. v. United States, 136 F. Supp. 2d 762, 791-92 (S.D. Ohio 2001) ("AEP's intended use of the cash flows generated by the [corporate-owned life insurance] plan is irrelevant to the subjective prong of the economic substance analysis. If a legitimate business purpose for the use of the tax savings 'were sufficient to breathe substance into a transaction whose only purpose was to reduce taxes, [then] every sham tax-shelter device might succeed,'") (citing Winn-Dixie v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 254, 287 (1999)); aff'd, 326 F3d 737 (6 t h Cir. 2003).
Profit potential
Under the provision, a taxpayer may rely on factors other than profit potential to demonstrate that a transaction results in a meaningful change in the taxpayer's economic position or that the taxpayer has a substantial non-Federal-tax purpose for entering into such transaction. The provision does not require or establish a minimum return that will satisfy the profit potential test. However, if a taxpayer relies on a profit potential, the present value of the reasonably expected pre-tax profit must be substantial in relation to the present value of the expected net tax benefits that would be allowed if the transaction were respected. 273 Fees and other transaction expenses and foreign taxes are taken into account as expenses in determining pre-tax profit.
________________________________________
273
See, e.g., Rice's Toyota World v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d at 94 (the economic substance inquiry requires an objective determination of whether a reasonable possibility of profit from the transaction existed apart from tax benefits); Compaq Computer Corp. v. Commissioner, 277 F.3d at 781 (applied the same test, citing Rice's Toyota World); IES Industries v. United States, 253 F.3d at 354 (the application of the objective economic substance test involves determining whether there was a "reasonable possibility of profit . . . apart from tax benefits.").
Personal transactions of individuals
In the case of an individual, the provision applies only to transactions entered into in connection with a trade or business or an activity engaged in for the production of income.
Other rules
The Secretary is to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of the provision.
No inference is intended as to the proper application of the economic substance doctrine under present law. In addition, the provision does not alter or supplant any other rule of law, including any common-law doctrine or provision of the Code or regulations or other guidance thereunder; and the provision should be construed as being additive to any such other rule of law.
Penalty for understatements attributable to transactions lacking economic substance
The provision imposes a new strict liability penalty under section 6662 for an understatement attributable to any disallowance of claimed tax benefits by reason of a transaction lacking economic substance, as defined in new section 7701(p), 274 or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law. 275 The penalty rate is 20 percent (increased to 40 percent if the taxpayer does not adequately disclose the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment in the return or a statement attached to the return). Except as provided in regulations, an amended return or supplement to a return is not taken into account if filed after the taxpayer has been contacted for audit or such other date as is specified by the Secretary. No exceptions (including the reasonable cause rules) to the penalty are available. Thus, under the provision, outside opinions or in-house analysis would not protect a taxpayer from imposition of a penalty if it is determined that the transaction lacks economic substance or fails to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law. Similarly, a claim for refund that is excessive under section 6676 due to a claim that is lacking in economic substance or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law is subject to the 20 percent penalty under that section, and the reasonable basis exception is not available.
________________________________________
274
That provision generally provides that in any case in which a court determines that the economic substance doctrine is relevant, a transaction has economic substance only if: (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer's economic position, and (2) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction. Specific other rules also apply. See "Description of Proposal" for the immediately preceding provision, "Clarification of the economic substance doctrine."
________________________________________
275
For example, the penalty applies to a transaction that is disregarded as a result of the application of the same factors and analysis that is required under the provision for an economic substance analysis, even if a different term is used to describe the doctrine.
The penalty does not apply to any portion of an underpayment on which a fraud penalty is imposed. 276 The new 40-percent penalty for nondisclosed transactions is added to the penalties to which section 6662A will not also apply. 277
________________________________________
276
I.e., section 6662(b) of present law applies to the new penalty as well.
________________________________________
277
As under present law, the penalties under section 6662 (including the new penalty) do not apply to any portion of an underpayment on which a fraud penalty is imposed.
As described above, under the provision, the reasonable cause and good faith exception of present law section 6664(c)(1) does not apply to any portion of an underpayment which is attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance, as defined in section 7701(p), or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law. In addition, the exception of present law section 6664(c)(1) does not apply to any tax shelter (as defined in present law section 6662(d)(2)(C)). Likewise, the reasonable cause and good faith exception of present law section 6664(d)(1) does not apply to any portion of a reportable transaction understatement which is attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance, as defined in section 7701(p), or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law, or to any tax shelter (as defined in present law section 6662(d)(2)(C)).
Effective Date
The provision applies to transactions entered into after the date of enactment. Additionally, the provision applies to underpayments, understatements, and refunds and credits attributable to transactions entered into after the date of enactment.
U.. Certain Large or Publicly Traded Persons Made Subject to a More Likely Than Not Standard for Avoiding Penalties on Underpayments (sec. 563 of the bill and secs. 6662 and 6664 of the Code)
Present Law
General accuracy-related penalty
An accuracy-related penalty under section 6662 applies to the portion of any underpayment that is attributable to (1) negligence, (2) any substantial understatement of income tax, (3) any substantial valuation misstatement, (4) any substantial overstatement of pension liabilities, or (5) any substantial estate or gift tax valuation understatement. If the correct income tax liability exceeds that reported by the taxpayer by the greater of 10 percent of the correct tax or $5,000 (or, in the case of corporations, by the lesser of (a) 10 percent of the correct tax (or $10,000 if greater) or (b) $10 million), then a substantial understatement exists and a penalty may be imposed equal to 20 percent of the underpayment of tax attributable to the understatement. 278 Except in the case of tax shelters, 279 the amount of any understatement is reduced by any portion of the understatement attributable to an item if (1) the treatment of the item is supported by substantial authority, or (2) facts relevant to the tax treatment of the item were adequately disclosed and there was a reasonable basis for its tax treatment. The Treasury Secretary may prescribe a list of positions which the Secretary believes do not meet the requirements for substantial authority under this provision.
________________________________________
278
Sec. 6662.
________________________________________
279
A tax shelter is defined for this purpose as a partnership or other entity, an investment plan or arrangement, or any other plan or arrangement if a significant purpose of such partnership, other entity, plan, or arrangement is the avoidance or evasion of Federal income tax. Sec. 6662(d)(2)(C).
The section 6662 penalty generally is abated (even with respect to tax shelters) in cases in which the taxpayer can demonstrate that there was "reasonable cause" for the underpayment and that the taxpayer acted in good faith. 280 Treasury regulations provide that reasonable cause exists where the understatement is attributable to a tax shelter where the taxpayer "reasonably relies in good faith on an opinion based on a professional tax advisor's analysis of the pertinent facts and authorities [that] . . . unambiguously concludes that there is a greater than 50-percent likelihood that the tax treatment of the item will be upheld if challenged" by the IRS. 281 For transactions other than tax shelters, Treasury regulations provide a facts and circumstances test, the most important factor generally being the extent of the taxpayer's effort to assess the proper tax liability. If a taxpayer relies on an opinion, reliance is not reasonable if the taxpayer knows or should have known that the advisor lacked knowledge in the relevant aspects of Federal tax law, or if the taxpayer fails to disclose a fact that it knows or should have known is relevant. Certain additional requirements apply with respect to the advice. 282
________________________________________
280
Sec. 6664(c).
________________________________________
281
Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6662-4(g)(4)(i)(B); Treas. Reg. sec. 1.6664-4(c).
________________________________________
282
See Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6664-4(c). In addition to the requirements applicable to taxpayers under the regulations, advisors may be subject to potential penalties under section 6694 (applicable to return preparers), and to monetary penalties and other sanctions under Circular 230 (which provides rules governing persons practicing before the IRS). Under Circular 230, if a transaction is a "covered transaction" (a term that includes listed transactions and certain non-listed reportable transactions) a "more likely than not" confidence level is required for written tax advice that may be relied upon by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties, and certain other standards must also be met. Treasury Dept. Circular 230 (Rev. 4-2008) Sec. 10.35. For other tax advice, Circular 230 generally requires a lower "realistic possibility" confidence level or a "non-frivolous" confidence level coupled with advising the client of any opportunity to avoid the accuracy related penalty under section 6662 by adequate disclosure. Treasury Dept. Circular 230 (Rev. 4-2008) Sec. 10.34.
Listed transactions and reportable avoidance transactions
In general
A separate accuracy-related penalty under section 6662A applies to any "listed transaction" and to any other "reportable transaction" that is not a listed transaction, if a significant purpose of such transaction is the avoidance or evasion of Federal income tax 283 (a "reportable avoidance transaction"). The penalty rate and defenses available to avoid the penalty vary depending on whether the transaction was adequately disclosed.
________________________________________
283
Sec. 6662A(b)(2).
Section 6707A(c) imposes a penalty for failure adequately to report listed transactions and reportable transactions under section 6011. A reportable transaction is defined as one that the Treasury Secretary determines is required to be disclosed because it is determined to have a potential for tax avoidance or evasion. 284 A listed transaction is defined as a reportable transaction which is the same as, or substantially similar to, a transaction specifically identified by the Secretary as a tax avoidance transaction for purposes of the reporting disclosure requirements. 285 For reportable transactions, the penalty is $10,000 for natural persons and $50,000 in any other case. The penalty for a listed transaction is $100,000 for natural persons and $200,000 in any other case. 286 The Commissioner of the IRS may rescind all or any portion of any penalty imposed under section 6707A if the violation is with respect to a reportable transaction other than a listed transaction and rescinding the penalty would promote compliance with the requirements of this title and effective tax administration. 287
________________________________________
284
Sec. 6707A(c)(1).
________________________________________
285
Sec. 6707A(c)(2).
________________________________________
286
Sec. 6707A(b).
________________________________________
287
Sec. 6707A(d).
Disclosed transactions
In general, a 20-percent accuracy-related penalty is imposed on any understatement attributable to an adequately disclosed listed transaction or reportable avoidance transaction. 288 The only exception to the penalty is if the taxpayer satisfies a more stringent reasonable cause and good faith exception ("strengthened reasonable cause exception"), which is described below. The strengthened reasonable cause exception is available only if the relevant facts affecting the tax treatment were adequately disclosed, there is or was substantial authority for the claimed tax treatment, and the taxpayer reasonably believed that the claimed tax treatment was more likely than not the proper treatment. A "reasonable belief" must be based on the facts and law as they exist at the time that the return in question is filed, and must not take into account the possibility that a return would not be audited. Moreover, reliance on professional advice may support a "reasonable belief" only in certain circumstances. 289
________________________________________
288
Sec. 6662A(a).
________________________________________
289
Section 6664(d)(3)(B) would not allow a reasonable belief to be based on a "disqualified opinion" or on an opinion from a "disqualified tax advisor".
Undisclosed transactions
If the taxpayer does not adequately disclose the transaction, the strengthened reasonable cause exception is not available (i.e., a strict-liability penalty generally applies), and the taxpayer is subject to an increased penalty equal to 30 percent of the understatement. 290 However, a taxpayer will be treated as having adequately disclosed a transaction for this purpose if the Commissioner of the IRS has separately rescinded the separate penalty under section 6707A for failure to disclose a reportable transaction. 291
________________________________________
290
Sec. 6662A(c).
________________________________________
291
Sec. 6664(d).
A public entity that is required to pay a penalty for an undisclosed listed or reportable transaction must disclose the imposition of the penalty in reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for such periods as the Secretary specifies. The disclosure to the SEC applies without regard to whether the taxpayer determines the amount of the penalty to be material to the reports in which the penalty must appear, and any failure to disclose such penalty in the reports is treated as a failure to disclose a listed transaction. A taxpayer must disclose a penalty in reports to the SEC once the taxpayer has exhausted its administrative and judicial remedies with respect to the penalty (or if earlier, when paid). 292
________________________________________
292
Sec. 6707A(e).
Determination of the understatement amount
The penalty is applied to the amount of any understatement attributable to the listed or reportable avoidance transaction without regard to other items on the tax return. For purposes of this provision, the amount of the understatement is determined as the sum of: (1) the product of the highest corporate or individual tax rate (as appropriate) and the increase in taxable income resulting from the difference between the taxpayer's treatment of the item and the proper treatment of the item (without regard to other items on the tax return); 293 and (2) the amount of any decrease in the aggregate amount of credits which results from the difference between the taxpayer's treatment of an item and the proper tax treatment of such item.
________________________________________
293
For this purpose, any reduction in the excess of deductions allowed for the taxable year over gross income for such year, and any reduction in the amount of capital losses which would (without regard to section 1211) be allowed for such year, shall be treated as an increase in taxable income. Sec. 6662A(b).
Except as provided in regulations, a taxpayer's treatment of an item may not take into account any amendment or supplement to a return if the amendment or supplement is filed after the earlier of when the taxpayer is first contacted regarding an examination of the return or such other date as specified by the Secretary. 294
________________________________________
294
Sec. 6662A(e)(3).
Strengthened reasonable cause exception
A penalty is not imposed under section 6662A with respect to any portion of an understatement if it is shown that there was reasonable cause for such portion and the taxpayer acted in good faith. Such a showing requires: (1) adequate disclosure of the facts affecting the transaction in accordance with the regulations under section 6011; 295 (2) that there is or was substantial authority for such treatment; and (3) that the taxpayer reasonably believed that such treatment was more likely than not the proper treatment. For this purpose, a taxpayer will be treated as having a reasonable belief with respect to the tax treatment of an item only if such belief: (1) is based on the facts and law that exist at the time the tax return (that includes the item) is filed; and (2) relates solely to the taxpayer's chances of success on the merits and does not take into account the possibility that (a) a return will not be audited, (b) the treatment will not be raised on audit, or (c) the treatment will be resolved through settlement if raised. 296
________________________________________
295
See the previous discussion regarding the penalty for failing to disclose a reportable transaction.
________________________________________
296
Sec. 6664(d).
A taxpayer may (but is not required to) rely on an opinion of a tax advisor in establishing its reasonable belief with respect to the tax treatment of the item. However, a taxpayer may not rely on an opinion of a tax advisor for this purpose if the opinion (1) is provided by a "disqualified tax advisor" or (2) is a "disqualified opinion."
Disqualified tax advisor
A disqualified tax advisor is any advisor who: (1) is a material advisor 297 and who participates in the organization, management, promotion, or sale of the transaction or is related
________________________________________
297
The term "material advisor" means any person who provides any material aid, assistance, or advice with respect to organizing, managing, promoting, selling, implementing, or carrying out any reportable transaction, and who derives gross income in excess of $50,000 in the case of a reportable transaction substantially all of the tax benefits from which are provided to natural persons ($250,000 in any other case). Sec. 6111(b)(1).
(within the meaning of section 267(b) or 707(b)(1)) to any person who so participates; (2) is compensated directly or indirectly 298 by a material advisor with respect to the transaction; (3) has a fee arrangement with respect to the transaction that is contingent on all or part of the intended tax benefits from the transaction being sustained; or (4) as determined under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, has a disqualifying financial interest with respect to the transaction.
________________________________________
298
This situation could arise, for example, when an advisor has an arrangement or understanding (oral or written) with an organizer, manager, or promoter of a reportable transaction that such party will recommend or refer potential participants to the advisor for an opinion regarding the tax treatment of the transaction.
A material advisor is considered as participating in the "organization" of a transaction if the advisor performs acts relating to the development of the transaction. This may include, for example, preparing documents: (1) establishing a structure used in connection with the transaction (such as a partnership agreement); (2) describing the transaction (such as an offering memorandum or other statement describing the transaction); or (3) relating to the registration of the transaction with any federal, state, or local government body. 299 Participation in the "management" of a transaction means involvement in the decision-making process regarding any business activity with respect to the transaction. Participation in the "promotion or sale" of a transaction means involvement in the marketing or solicitation of the transaction to others. Thus, an advisor who provides information about the transaction to a potential participant is involved in the promotion or sale of a transaction, as is any advisor who recommends the transaction to a potential participant.
________________________________________
299
An advisor should not be treated as participating in the organization of a transaction if the advisor's only involvement with respect to the organization of the transaction is the rendering of an opinion regarding the tax consequences of such transaction. However, such an advisor may be a "disqualified tax advisor" with respect to the transaction if the advisor participates in the management, promotion, or sale of the transaction (or if the advisor is compensated by a material advisor, has a fee arrangement that is contingent on the tax benefits of the transaction, or as determined by the Secretary, has a continuing financial interest with respect to the transaction). See Notice 200512, 2005-1 C.B. 494 regarding disqualified compensation arrangements.
Disqualified opinion
An opinion may not be relied upon if the opinion: (1) is based on unreasonable factual or legal assumptions (including assumptions as to future events); (2) unreasonably relies upon representations, statements, finding or agreements of the taxpayer or any other person; (3) does not identify and consider all relevant facts; or (4) fails to meet any other requirement prescribed by the Secretary.
Coordination with other penalties
To the extent a penalty on an understatement is imposed under section 6662A, that same amount of understatement is not also subject to the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) or to the valuation misstatement penalties under section 6662(e) or section 6662(h). However, such amount of understatement is included for purposes of determining whether any understatement (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)) is a substantial understatement as defined under section 6662(d)(1) and for purposes of identifying an underpayment under the section 6663 fraud penalty.
The penalty imposed under section 6662A does not apply to any portion of an understatement to which a fraud penalty is applied under section 6663.
Erroneous claim for refund or credit
If a claim for refund or credit with respect to income tax (other than a claim relating to the earned income tax credit) is made for an excessive amount, unless it is shown that the claim for such excessive amount has a reasonable basis, the person making such claim is subject to a penalty in an amount equal to 20 percent of the excessive amount. 300
________________________________________
300
Sec. 6667.
The term "excessive amount" means the amount by which the amount of the claim for refund for any taxable year exceeds the amount of such claim allowable for the taxable year.
This penalty does not apply to any portion of the excessive amount of a claim for refund or credit which is subject to a penalty imposed under the accuracy-related or fraud penalty provisions (including the general accuracy-related penalty, or the penalty with respect to listed and reportable transactions, described above).
Explanation of Provision
Under the provision, in the case of a "specified person," the reasonable cause and good faith exception of present law section 6664(c)(1) applies to a portion of an underpayment only if the taxpayer has a reasonable belief that the tax treatment is more likely than not the proper treatment of the item. This reasonable belief exception is not available to any portion of the underpayment that is attributable to one or more tax shelters (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)), transactions lacking economic substance or failing to meet the requirements of any similar rule of law, or reportable transaction understatements which are attributable to one or more tax shelters (as defined in section 6662(d)(2)(C)) or transactions lacking economic substance.
A specified person is defined as (i) any person required to file periodic or other reports under section 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) any corporation with gross receipts in excess of $100 million for the taxable year involved. 301
________________________________________
301
For purposes of this rule, all persons treated as a single employer under section 52(a) are treated as one person.
In the case of a specified person, it is no longer the case that a substantial understatement (as defined in section 6662(d)(1)) is reduced if there is or was substantial authority for the taxpayer's treatment, or if the relevant facts were disclosed and there is a reasonable basis for the taxpayer's tax treatment.
Effective Date
The provision applies to underpayments and understatements attributable to transactions entered into after the date of enactment

IR- 2010-44

Preparers of returns: Accountability: Need for regulation


IRS Continues to Increase Oversight of Tax Return Preparers to Improve Compliance, Taxpayer Service
IR-2010-44 , April 7, 2010

WASHINGTON — As the April 15 tax deadline approaches, the Internal Revenue Service today announced initial results from its stepped-up effort involving enforcement and education to combat unscrupulous tax return preparers and protect the nation's taxpayers.

The IRS said it has conducted more than 5,000 field visits to tax return preparers this fiscal year. In addition, the IRS has worked with the Department of Justice to pursue questionable return preparers, an effort that has led to 56 indictments, 25 convictions and 21 civil injunctions since Jan. 1, 2010.

“We are working to help ensure taxpayers receive competent and ethical service from qualified tax professionals,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. “Our efforts this tax season are part of a longer-term effort to improve the oversight of this critical part of the tax system. The vast majority of tax return preparers provide solid service, but we need to do more to protect taxpayers.”

Shulman announced in January the results of a six-month study of the tax return preparer industry, which proposed new registration, testing and continuing education of tax return preparers. With more than 80 percent of American households using a tax preparer or tax software to help them prepare and file their taxes, higher standards for the tax return preparer community will significantly enhance protections and service for taxpayers, increase confidence in the tax system and result in greater compliance with tax laws over the long term. While this longer-term effort is underway, the IRS has taken several immediate steps this filing season to assist taxpayers.

Enforcement Efforts
The IRS has worked closely with the Justice Department this tax season to increase legal actions against unscrupulous tax return preparers, obtaining 21 civil injunctions, 56 indictments and 25 convictions of return preparers so far in 2010. More information is available at the IRS Civil and Criminal Actions page on irs.gov. and at the Department of Justice Tax Division page on DOJ.gov.

“The IRS appreciates the strong support of the Justice Department for its efforts to pursue and shut down bad actors in the tax return industry,” Shulman said. “This effort makes a real difference for the nation's taxpayers and helps protect the many tax professionals who play by the rules.”

“While the majority of return preparers provide excellent service to their clients, a few unscrupulous tax preparers file false and fraudulent returns to defraud the government and the tax-paying public. Those actions are illegal, and can result in substantial civil penalties as well as criminal prosecution, for both the return preparers and their customers who knew or should have known better. Taxpayers should choose carefully when hiring a tax preparer,” said John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department's Tax Division.

Also during this filing season, the IRS used investigative tools on a broad basis, including agents posing as taxpayers, to seek out and stop unscrupulous preparers from filing inaccurate returns. To date, the IRS conducted 230 undercover visits to tax return preparers. In addition, dozens of search warrants have been completed.

The IRS will continue to work closely with the Department of Justice to pursue civil and criminal action as appropriate.

Education Efforts
In January, the IRS sent more than 10,000 letters to tax return preparers. These letters reminded them of their obligation to prepare accurate returns for their clients, reviewed common errors, and outlined the consequences of filing incorrect returns. The letters went to preparers with large volumes of specific tax returns where the IRS typically sees frequent errors, although simply receiving a letter was not an indication the preparer had problems.

The IRS followed up with field visits to about 2,400 tax return preparers who received these letters to discuss many of the issues mentioned in the letter. Separately, the IRS conducted other compliance and educational visits with return preparers on a variety of other issues. All told, IRS representatives visited more than 5,000 paid preparers to encourage and help them avoid filing incorrect or fraudulent returns for their clients.

The IRS will be reviewing the results of these letters and visits to determine steps for future filing seasons.

Future Efforts
The IRS has recently begun to implement a number of steps to increase oversight of federal tax return preparers. This includes proposed regulations that would require paid tax return preparers to obtain and use a preparer tax identification number (PTIN). Later this year, the IRS will propose additional regulations requiring competency tests and continuing professional education for paid tax return preparers who are not attorneys, certified public accountants and enrolled agents.

Setting higher standards for the tax preparer community will significantly enhance protections and services for taxpayers, increase confidence in the tax system and result in greater compliance with tax laws over the long term. Other measures the IRS anticipates taking are highlighted in Publication 4832 , Return Preparer Review , issued earlier this year.

Help for Taxpayers before April 15
As the tax deadline approaches, the IRS reminds taxpayers that most tax return preparers are professional, honest and provide excellent service to their clients. But a few simple steps can help people choose a good tax return preparer and avoid fraud:

Be wary of tax preparers who claim they can obtain larger refunds than others.

Avoid tax preparers who base their fees on a percentage of the refund.

Use a reputable tax professional who signs the tax return and provides a copy. Consider whether the individual or firm will be around months or years after the return has been filed to answer questions about the preparation of the tax return.

Check the person's credentials. Only attorneys, CPAs and enrolled agents can represent taxpayers before the IRS in all matters, including audits, collection and appeals. Other return preparers may only represent taxpayers for audits of returns they actually prepared.

Find out if the return preparer is affiliated with a professional organization that provides its members with continuing education and other resources and holds them to a code of ethics.

More information is available on IRS.gov, including IRS Fact Sheet 2010-03 , How to Choose a Tax Preparer and Avoid Tax Fraud.

National Taxpayer Advocate: Taxpayer Advocate Service: Proposed levy: Economic hardship: Returns


March 23, 2010

Control No: TAS-13.1-0110-001

Expires: March 23, 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR TAXPAYER ADVOCATE SERVICE EMPLOYEES

FROM: /s/ Nina E. Olson

National Taxpayer Advocate

SUBJECT: Interim Guidance on Handling Collection Cases where Economic Hardship is Present but the Taxpayer has not Filed all Required Returns

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance to Taxpayer Advocate Service (TAS) employees on collection cases involving taxpayers with economic hardships and unfiled returns. These circumstances were discussed in a recent Tax Court opinion, Vinatieri v. Commissioner, 133 T .C. No.16 (Dec. 21, 2009). The Tax Court held that if, during a Collection Due Process (CDP) levy hearing, the taxpayer establishes that the proposed levy will create an economic hardship, the IRS cannot proceed with the proposed levy action, even if the taxpayer has not filed all returns that are due.

During the CDP hearing, Ms. Vinatieri submitted financial information to support her claim that she could not pay an outstanding income tax liability. The Appeals officer found that although she established economic hardship (within the meaning of IRC § 6343(a)(1)(D)), he could not place her account in a Currently Not Collectible (CNC) status because she had not filed two income tax returns. Instead, the Appeals officer issued a notice of determination sustaining the proposed levy action. The Tax Court held that as a matter of law, the Appeals determination to proceed with a levy was wrong. IRC § 6343 requires the release of a levy if the taxpayer is experiencing an economic hardship, even if the taxpayer has not filed all returns. The court also held that rather than proceeding with the levy, the Appeals officer should have considered alternatives to the proposed levy action.

Note : IRC § 6343(a)(1)(D) states that a levy shall be released if “the Secretary has determined that such levy is creating an economic hardship due to the financial condition of the taxpayer”. Treasury Regulation § 301.6343-1(b)(4), defines economic hardship as when: “The levy is creating an economic hardship due to the financial condition of an individual taxpayer. This condition applies if satisfaction of the levy in whole or in part will cause an individual taxpayer to be unable to pay his or her reasonable basic living expenses. The determination of a reasonable amount for basic living expenses will be made by the director and will vary according to the unique circumstances of the individual taxpayer. Unique circumstances, however, do not include the maintenance of an affluent or luxurious standard of living.”

TAS employees need to advocate for the taxpayer suffering from economic hardship when the IRS has issued a notice of levy or a Final Notice of Intent to Levy, but the IRS will not place the account in CNC status or release a levy because of unfiled returns. Most TAS cases will be in the Automated Collection System (ACS), but could also involve a Revenue Officer or Appeals (either in the form of a Collection Appeal Program (CAP) conference or CDP hearing).

A more detailed discussion of relevant IRC sections, regulations, and IRM references for assistance in case building and advocating for taxpayers are included in the attachment to this memorandum.

Attach a copy of the Vinatieri opinion and use Special Case code LE when making these arguments to the IRS. If the IRS disagrees and does not provide a compelling reason to support its disagreement, immediately elevate the case to a manager for consideration of a taxpayer assistance order (TAO). Also, consider whether referral to a Revenue Officer Technical Advisor (ROTA) may also be appropriate. However, remember that often “time is of the essence” in these cases, and a TAO may be necessary so the taxpayer is not further harmed.

Attachment 1
RELEASE OF LEVY AND PREVENTING DETERMINATIONS TO PROCEED WITH LEVY
If a notice of levy or Final Notice of Intent to Levy is issued, submit an operations assistance request (OAR) to the appropriate Collection function advising them:

1) The levy or proposed levy action should not go forward and all existing levies must be released immediately per IRC § 6343(a)(1)(D). Neither the IRC nor the regulations require the taxpayer to file delinquent returns to obtain a release of levy on the grounds of economic hardship.

2) Even if the IRS has not actually levied, the court in Vinatieri held it is unreasonable for the IRS to proceed with a levy if the taxpayer's has an economic hardship.

Note: Be sure to include full documentation of the taxpayer's economic hardship. See Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) 5.19.4.4.10(4)(j), Levy Release: General Information ).

3) IRM 5.19.4.4.10(4)(j) provides that where the “financial analysis shows that the taxpayer merits a full or partial levy release to relieve economic hardship, the taxpayer has a statutory right to enough relief to end the hardship. We cannot refuse, delay or understate the release amount as a means to secure other compliance, e.g., missing tax returns. The levy release should be faxed.”


Be aware that some portions of the IRM and the Electronic ACS guide may appear to contradict IRM 5.19.4.4.10(4)(j), Levy Release: General Information which explicitly require the IRS employee to secure all delinquent returns before releasing the levy.

If the IRS cites any of these provisions or other authority in support of its refusal to release a levy (or its determination to proceed with a levy) where the taxpayer has demonstrated economic hardship but has not filed required returns, explain that the cited provision is inconsistent with the Code, the regulations, and the Vinatieri decision and therefore should not be followed. If the IRS employee still refuses to release the levy, elevate the case for consideration of the issuance of a TAO directing the IRS to release the levy immediately.

PLACING THE TAXPAYER'S ACCOUNT INTO CNC STATUS
If a taxpayer is experiencing economic hardship and meets the requirements for placement in CNC status, but has not filed all required returns, send an OAR to the appropriate Collection function advising:

1) Based on the facts of the case, the account should be put into CNC status.

2) Explain that the facts establish economic hardship and that CNC status is appropriate.

Note : See the note above for provisions pertaining to economic hardship.

3) Point out that some IRM provisions do not explicitly require the securing of unfiled returns before placing an account in CNC status, even though they refer to compliance checks or require that delinquent return modules be “resolved.” Examples of these provisions are:

IRM 5.16.1.1(5), Currently Not Collectible Policy and Procedure Overview , which states: “Conduct a compliance check and document the results in the case history in circumstances when the taxpayer is contacted;”

IRM 5.16.1.1(6), Currently Not Collectible Policy and Procedure Overview , which states: ”All open filing requirements or Delinquent Return (Del Ret) modules must generally be resolved and closed appropriately when reporting an account CNC.”

4) Always address how the delinquent return modules can be resolved , even if returns cannot be secured. For example:

IRM 5.19.2-2, Policy Statement P-5-133, Little or No Tax Due , provides for closing a return delinquency without securing a return.

IRM 5.1.11.7.3, Option C — No Return Secured Taxpayer Not Required To File For This Period Only , also explains how to close a return delinquency without securing the tax return. If TAS can substantiate the taxpayer has no filing requirement for a given year, this is another means of resolving the accounts in the case.

IRM 5.1.11.6.1 (8), Enforcement Determination , is another basis for closing a return delinquency without securing the tax return. It reads in part: “service employees will apply prudence when it is clear from information available that the non-filer does not have or will not have the ability to pay some if not all of the potential tax liability…”


If the IRS employee cites a conflicting manual or other source and refuses to place the account in CNC status, immediately elevate the case to a manager for consideration of a taxpayer assistance order (TAO). Also, consider whether referral to a Revenue Officer Technical Advisor (ROTA) may also be appropriate. However, remember that often “time is of the essence” in these cases, and a TAO may be necessary so the taxpayer is not further harmed.

HIRE Act: Questions and Answers for Employers

Under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, enacted March 18, 2010, two new tax benefits are available to employers who hire certain previously unemployed workers (“qualified employees”).

The first, referred to as the payroll tax exemption, provides employers with an exemption from the employer’s 6.2 percent share of social security tax on wages paid to qualifying employees, effective for wages paid from March 19, 2010 through December 31, 2010.

In addition, for each qualified employee retained for at least 52 consecutive weeks, businesses will also be eligible for a general business tax credit, referred to as the new hire retention credit, of 6.2 percent of wages paid to the qualified employee over the 52 week period, up to a maximum credit of $1,000.



FAQs About the Payroll Tax Exemption and Qualified Employers

Q: What is the payroll tax exemption?
A: The payroll tax exemption is an exemption from the employer’s 6.2 percent share of social security tax on all wages paid to qualified employees from March 19, 2010 (the day after the date of enactment of the HIRE Act) through December 31, 2010. The employee’s 6.2 percent share of social security tax and the employer and employee’s shares of Medicare tax still apply to all wages.
Q: Which employers qualify for the payroll tax exemption?
A: Taxable businesses and tax-exempt organizations qualify for the payroll tax exemption. Such employers in U.S. possessions, such as Puerto Rico or the Northern Mariana Islands, that are subject to social security tax also qualify for the payroll tax exemption. Federal, State or local government employers generally do not qualify for the payroll tax exemption. However, public colleges and universities can qualify for the exemption.
Q: Does the payroll tax exemption apply to household employers?
A: No. The payroll tax exemption applies only to wages paid to a qualified employee performing services in the employer’s trade or business or in activities in furtherance of a tax-exempt organization’s exempt purpose.
Q: If an employer starts a new business, does the payroll tax exemption apply to wages paid to employees hired for the new business?
A: Yes, if they are qualified employees.
Q: If an employee laid off in 2009 has been receiving COBRA premium assistance, for which the employer has been taking the COBRA premium assistance credit, and the employer rehires the employee, can the employer take the payroll tax exemption under the HIRE Act for wages paid to the employee?
A: Yes, if the employee is a qualified employee.

HIRE Act: Questions and Answers for Employers

Under the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, enacted March 18, 2010, two new tax benefits are available to employers who hire certain previously unemployed workers (“qualified employees”).
The first, referred to as the payroll tax exemption, provides employers with an exemption from the employer’s 6.2 percent share of social security tax on wages paid to qualifying employees, effective for wages paid from March 19, 2010 through December 31, 2010.
In addition, for each qualified employee retained for at least 52 consecutive weeks, businesses will also be eligible for a general business tax credit, referred to as the new hire retention credit, of 6.2 percent of wages paid to the qualified employee over the 52 week period, up to a maximum credit of $1,000.

Business Credit for Retention of Certain Newly Hired Individuals in 2010

Q: What is the new hire retention credit and what does it apply to?
A: This is a general business credit to encourage retention of the new hires. The employer may claim the credit for each employee who is a qualified employee for purposes of the payroll tax exemption and who remains an employee for 52 consecutive weeks, provided that the employee’s pay does not decrease significantly in the second half of the year. The amount of the credit is the lesser of $1,000 or 6.2 percent of wages (as defined for income tax withholding purposes) paid by the employer to the retained qualified employee during the 52 consecutive week period. The credit cannot be carried back but may be carried forward.
Q: How will the new hire retention credit be claimed?
A: The new hire retention credit will be claimed on the employer’s 2011 income tax return.


Two New Tax Benefits Aid Employers Who Hire and Retain Unemployed Workers

FAQs About Claiming the Payroll Exemption

Q: How does the employer claim the payroll tax exemption for wages paid to qualified employees?
A: The payroll tax exemption is claimed on Form 941, Employer's QUARTERLY Federal Tax Return, beginning with the second quarter of 2010.
Q: How does the employer claim the payroll tax exemption for wages paid to qualified employees during the period March 19 through March 31, 2010 (the first quarter of 2010)?
A: The payroll tax exemption for wages paid during this period will be claimed on the employer's Form 941 for the second quarter of 2010.
Q: Can an employer claim the COBRA premium assistance credit and the payroll tax exemption for new hires on the same employment tax return?
A: Yes.
Q: How does application of the payroll tax exemption to wages paid to a qualified employee affect the availability of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit with respect to that employee?
A: If an employer applies the payroll tax exemption to wages paid to a qualified employee, such wages paid to the employee during the one-year period beginning with the employee's hiring date may not be taken into account for purposes of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. An employer that wishes to claim the Work Opportunity Tax Credit with respect to a qualified employee can elect out of the payroll tax exemption with respect to wages paid to that qualified employee.

IR-2010-33, March 18, 2010
WASHINGTON — Two new tax benefits are now available to employers hiring workers who were previously unemployed or only working part time. These provisions are part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act enacted into law today.
Employers who hire unemployed workers this year (after Feb. 3, 2010 and before Jan. 1, 2011) may qualify for a 6.2-percent payroll tax incentive, in effect exempting them from their share of Social Security taxes on wages paid to these workers after March 18, 2010. This reduced tax withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits, and employers would still need to withhold the employee’s 6.2-percent share of Social Security taxes, as well as income taxes. The employer and employee’s shares of Medicare taxes would also still apply to these wages.
In addition, for each worker retained for at least a year, businesses may claim an additional general business tax credit, up to $1,000 per worker, when they file their 2011 income tax returns.
“These tax breaks offer a much-needed boost to employers willing to expand their payrolls, and businesses and nonprofits should keep these benefits in mind as they plan for the year ahead,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman.
The two tax benefits are especially helpful to employers who are adding positions to their payrolls. New hires filling existing positions also qualify but only if the workers they are replacing left voluntarily or for cause. Family members and other relatives do not qualify.
In addition, the new law requires that the employer get a statement from each eligible new hire certifying that he or she was unemployed during the 60 days before beginning work or, alternatively, worked fewer than a total of 40 hours for someone else during the 60-day period. The IRS is currently developing a form employees can use to make the required statement.
Businesses, agricultural employers, tax-exempt organizations and public colleges and universities all qualify to claim the payroll tax benefit for eligible newly-hired employees. Household employers cannot claim this new tax benefit.
Employers claim the payroll tax benefit on the federal employment tax return they file, usually quarterly, with the IRS. Eligible employers will be able to claim the new tax incentive on their revised employment tax form for the second quarter of 2010. Revised forms and further details on these two new tax provisions will be posted on IRS.gov during the next few weeks.