When we think of penalties we naturally think of punishment. I mean,
to channel Steven Wright, if a penalty is not punishment when why does
the word start with “penal”? Both this week and next week’s lesson
teach us how penalties serve other purposes as well. Today, in Lionel
E. Larochelle and Molly B. Larochelle v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op.
2022-12 (July 12) (Judge Leyden), we learn why non-receipt of a Form
1099 does not constitute reasonable cause to escape the §6662(a)
penalty for making a substantial understatement of tax. Next week we
will look at whether a court-ordered disgorgement of illegal gains is
a penalty for purposes of a §162(f) prohibition on deductions for
governmental fines or penalties. Today’s short lesson awaits below
Purpose of Penalties
It is often said that tax penalties are used to promote voluntary
compliance. That does not mean they are not also penalties. It just
means they serve purposes other than retribution for bad behavior.
You can see that in this explanation given in IRM 126.96.36.199.1
(06-29-2004) (Policy Statement P-1-20):
(1) The Internal Revenue Service has a responsibility to collect the
proper amount of tax revenue in the most efficient manner. Penalties
provide the Service with an important tool to achieve that goal
because they enhance voluntary compliance by taxpayers. In order to
make the most efficient use of penalties, the Service will design,
administer, and evaluate penalty programs based on how those programs
can most efficiently encourage voluntary compliance.
(2) Penalties encourage voluntary compliance by:
(A) demonstrating the fairness of the tax system to compliant taxpayers; and
(B) increasing the cost of non-compliance.
Put another way, Congress (and the IRS) want taxpayers to take proper
care in their tax reporting obligations. The purpose of the penalties
is not to punish people in retribution for their wrong-doing but to
instead deter careless behavior, and also to reassure compliant
taxpayers that non-compliant taxpayers pay a price for their
non-compliance. Deterrence is a classic rationale for penalties: “if
you are careless you will pay a price!” Reassuring compliant
taxpayers that they are not being suckers for voluntarily complying
with the law is an equally important rationale: “see, see, we’re not
letting other folks get away with what you wish you could get away
You see these other purposes most obviously applied in §6651
“additions to tax” for failure to file and failure to pay. Not only
does Congress demur in labeling those as penalties, at least in
§6651(a) (it does use the penalty label for §6651(b), (d), and (f)),
the IRS also has institutionalized an administrative process to give
first-time transgressors a no-fault abatement. See IRM 188.8.131.52.3.2.1
(First Time Abate (FTA)). That abatement is generally available for
taxpayers who have a clean filing and payment compliance record for
the prior three years.
It’s a bit harder to see these other purposes for penalties imposed
under §6662 (titled “Imposition of Accuracy-Related Penalty on
Underpayments. ”) Congress wrote §6662 in 1989, as part of the
Omnibus Reconciliation Act, 103 Stat 2106, 2388, in order to
consolidate a bunch of different penalties into one section. But the
statute is ambiguous. Did Congress mean to create a single penalty
(as the statute’s title suggests) or are the penalties still separate
only now as separate subsections rather than separate Code sections?
For a short lesson on that see Lesson From Tax Court: §6662 Contains
Multiple Penalties For §6751 Supervisory Approval, TaxProf Blog (Aug.
17, 2020). This ambiguity has caused the Tax Court to issue
inconsistent opinions on how the IRS is supposed to comply with the
§6751(b) supervisory approval requirements for §6662. See Lesson From
The Tax Court: §6662 Penalties Treated As One For Supervisory Approval
Requirement, TaxProf Blog (Oct. 19, 2020).
The IRS does not have an FTA program for §6662 penalties. But both
the statute and IRS administration provide guidance on how taxpayers
may be entitled to penalty abatement if they show they had both
reasonable cause for the error and a good faith belief that they had
committed no error.
First, §6664(c) says that “[n]o penalty shall be imposed under section
6662 or 6663 with respect to any portion of an underpayment if it is
shown that there was a reasonable cause for such portion and that the
taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to such portion.”
Second, while the statute appears to create a two-part defense
(reasonable cause plus good faith) the IRS pretty much mashes them up
and simply uses an indeterminate multi-factor test to determine the
reasonable cause. Thus, Treas. Reg. 1.6664-4(b)(1) provides that
“Generally, the most important factor is the extent of the taxpayer’s
effort to assess the taxpayer’s proper tax liability.” But the
regulation goes on to warn that “[r]eliance on an information return
or on the advice of a professional tax advisor or an appraiser does
not necessarily demonstrate reasonable cause and good faith.”
The IRM echoes that regulatory language: “Generally, the most
important factor in determining the reasonable cause is the taxpayer’s
effort to report the proper tax liability. Other factors to consider
are the taxpayer’s experience, knowledge, education, and the
taxpayer’s reliance on the advice of a tax advisor.” IRM 184.108.40.206.1
(“Reasonable Cause”). The IRM then illustrates the idea of reliance
on an information return by saying that a factor favoring taxpayers
will be“reliance on erroneous information reported on Forms W-2, 1099,
etc., provided that the taxpayer did not know or have reason to know
that the information was incorrect.” Exhibit 20.1.5-6 (“Determining
Reasonable Cause and Good Faith”).
The tax year at issue is 2017. That year, Mr. LaRochelle was a very,
very busy man, both on the personal and business fronts. On the
personal side, he and Ms. LaRochelle had changed their home from
Washington D.C. to Florida in 2016 but still owned their former D.C.
home. They had a mail-forwarding order in place with the U.S. Post
Office. On the business side, Mr. LaRochelle was “professionally
engaged in more than ten business partnerships. He was required to
report taxes for those partnerships in more than five states. With
respect to one partnership, which held hotel real estate assets, Mr.
LaRochelle was the overseeing general manager and was in charge of its
day-to-day operations, as well as its recordkeeping.” Op. at 3.
In 2017 Mr. LaRochelle received distributions from two IRA’s, one for
$60k and one for $238k. Each IRA sent a copy of Form 1099-R to the
LaRochelles. The copy of the 1099-R showing the $60,000 distribution
was sent to the LaRochelles at their Florida address. The copy of the
1099-R showing the $238,000 distribution was mailed to their D.C.
address. The LaRochelles apparently never got it.
The LaRochelles hired a CPA/JD to prepare their 2017 return. They
gave him all their documents but since they had not received that
second 1099-R there was no document to give him Nor did they
otherwise disclose the $238,000 to their tax return preparer. As a
result, their return did not report the distribution as income. And,
as a result of that, the creaky IRS computer matching system
eventually coughed out a CP2000 letter telling them that if they did
not explain the discrepancy, the IRS would assess a deficiency of $72k
plus a substantial understatement penalty of $9k. The LaRochelles did
not respond to that CP2000. The IRS followed up with a NOD. That got
their attention. They petitioned Tax Court and, basically, conceded
the deficiency (and paid it). But they wanted the IRS to abate the
penalty. The IRS refused. Thus, we get today’s lesson.
Lesson: Lack of 1099-R Did Not Excuse Failure To Report IRA Distribution
The LaRochelles argued that they had reasonable cause for failing to
report the $238k IRA distribution because they had not received a Form
1099-R for it. They pointed out that they had received the Form
1099-R for the $60k distribution and properly reported that amount.
It’s not entirely clear from the opinion how they framed their
argument. They might have said something to the effect of: “hey, we
gave all the documents we had to our return preparer so that shows our
good faith.” Or they may have said something like: “look, we properly
reported a distribution when we received the proper Form for it, so
that shows our good faith!”
Judge Leyden was unimpressed either way. She first notes that
non-receipt of an information return copy does not excuse the failure
to report amounts that the taxpayer actually knew they received.
Here, “petitioners did not dispute that they received the $238,000
distribution….” So they knew about the transaction and it was their
duty to report it, regardless of whether the IRA custodian issued a
proper 1099-R or sent it to the right address. She then notes that
the LaRochelles could not hide behind their tax return preparer
because they did not even tell him about the $238,000. Instead, they
appeared to have just dumped off the records they had, and let the
preparer do the rest. That’s not good faith. Judge Leyden notes that
“the record does not show that petitioners reviewed the completed
return before it was filed.”
Most likely, the LaRochelles just forgot about the distribution.
Maybe it came early in 2017, which was a busy year for them. Hmmmm.
Doubtful. The proposed underpayment of $72k on the $238k distribution
suggests they were not in that rarefied level of income where a
$238,000 bump in the bank account would go unnoticed. And even if
they were, forgetfulness is not acting with the care and attention
that Congress or the IRS—or the rest of us—want taxpayers to take when
As Judge Leyden put it: “Clearly, petitioners made a mistake.” Yup.
And the purpose of the $9,000 penalty is to (1) encourage these
taxpayers to take more care in the future to not “forget” large
distributions just because there is no Form 1099; and (2) demonstrate
to the rest of us that we are not suckers for being careful. The
system is working: careless taxpayers pay a price—whether you call it
a penalty or a “tax on carelessness.”