Opinion
7534-22S
02-08-2023
AMALIA M. MORALES MONSEVAIS, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
ORDER
Diana L. Leyden, Special Trial Judge.
This case is calendared for trial at the April 11, 2023, San Antonio, Texas, Trial Session of the Court. On March 30, 2022, petitioner timely filed a petition challenging a notice of determination dated February 7, 2022, for review of a notice of deficiency in which respondent asserted an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). Petitioner's petition consisted of 15 pages and included unredacted personal identifying information.
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Rule 27(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, generally provides that in an electronic or paper filing with the Court, a party or nonparty making the filing should refrain from including or should take appropriate steps to redact certain specified information, such as taxpayer identification numbers and financial account numbers. Due to the unredacted personal identifying information appearing in the petition, the Court will take steps to seal petitioner's petition to protect her information.
Respondent cannot assess an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) unless he has complied with the requirement of section 6751(b)(1), which provides:
No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level as the Secretary may designate.
To show compliance with this provision, respondent must show (1) the identity of the individual who made the "initial determination", (2) an approval of the penalty "in writing", (3) the identity of the person giving approval and his or her status as the "immediate supervisor", and (4) evidence that the supervisory approval was obtained no later than the issuance to petitioner of the initial formal communication of proposed adjustments that includes penalties and provides the taxpayer the right to protest those proposed adjustments, such as a 30-day letter or Letter 525. See sec. 6751(b)(1); Clay v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. 223, 249 (2019).
If respondent wishes to continue to assert the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) in this case, he shall file a status report and attach thereto a Case History Transcript and any other relevant documents to demonstrate compliance with section 6751(b)(1). Alternatively, if respondent concludes that he did not comply with the requirement under section 6751(b)(1) with respect to the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a), he should consider conceding that penalty and notify the Court by filing a status report. Upon due consideration, it is
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion the unredacted petition filed in this case on March 30, 2022, is sealed to public view. It is further
ORDERED that, if the parties do not submit a proposed decision document which states there is not any section 6662(a) penalty due from petitioner for the year[s] in issue before March 21, 2023, then on or before March 21, 2023, respondent shall file a status report attaching thereto any relevant documents to demonstrate compliance with section 6751(b)(1) or notifying the Court whether he concedes the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).