Supreme Court Upholds a 40 Percent Valuation Misstatement Penalty Based on a Misrepresentation of Basis

by Akerman LLP
Contact


In United States v. Woods, No. 12-562, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8776 (December 3, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the imposition of the 40 percent gross valuation misstatement penalty set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 6662 where the underpayment of tax resulted from a misstatement of basis. The Supreme Court’s holding in Woods emphasizes the significant tax consequences that can flow from a misstatement of basis.

Valuation misstatement penalties are ordinarily levied at 20 percent of any misstatement if the property’s value or adjusted basis claimed on the tax return is 150 percent or more of that determined to be the correct amount. 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a), (b)(3). The penalty is doubled to 40 percent in cases of “gross valuation misstatements” where claimed value or adjusted basis exceeds the correct amount by 200 percent or more. 26 U.S.C. § 6662(h). If the taxpayer’s basis in the disallowed losses is reduced to zero, the 40 percent gross valuation misstatement penalty applies. 26 C.F.R. § 1.6662-5(g).

Woods was a so-called “COBRA” tax shelter – a transaction that was designed to artificially inflate a taxpayer’s basis in a partnership interest, thereby creating significant losses on the subsequent disposition of that interest. The IRS instituted a partnership-level proceeding pursuant to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) in which it determined that the transaction was a sham and lacked economic substance. Based on this determination, the IRS reduced the taxpayer’s outside basis in the partnership to zero and determined that any underpayments resulting from this reduction of basis would be subject to the 40 penalty for gross valuation misstatements found in 26 U.S.C. § 6662.

The Supreme Court initially resolved the question of whether the determination that a penalty arising from the misstatement of basis applies can even be made at the partnership level. The circuit courts had been split on this issue.  TEFRA provides that courts reviewing partnership-level proceedings have jurisdiction to determine not only partnership items, but also the applicability of any penalty that “relates to” adjustments of partnership items. 26 U.S.C. § 6226(f).  Several courts had found that valuation misstatement penalties could not be determined at the partnership level because a determination of the applicability of the penalties to any particular partner could not be conclusively made at the partnership level. Some further determination at the partner level was also required.

The Supreme Court concluded that prohibiting courts from considering the applicability of penalties at the partnership level, even if they require some further determination at the partner level, is inconsistent with the purpose behind TEFRA. The two-stage structure of TEFRA is designed to promote judicial economy by allowing some determinations to be made in a single partnership level proceeding and to prevent inconsistent results by applying these determinations uniformly to all the partners. The Supreme Court explained that the imposition of a penalty will always require some further determination that can only be made at the partner level, but that does not preclude the threshold applicability of the penalty being determined at the partnership level. The applicability determination at the partnership level will therefore always be provisional, and each individual partner retains the right to show why the penalty should not be applied against that partner. For example, the partner might not have carried the error over to the partner’s return, or the error may not have resulted in a large enough underpayment to trigger the penalty.

The taxpayers then argued that the gross valuation misstatement penalty cannot be imposed following the IRS’s determination that the tax shelter was a sham and lacked economic substance because the penalty applies only to factual misrepresentations about an asset’s value and excludes legal determinations regarding the broader transaction. The Supreme Court rejected this distinction, observing that value depends on both factual and legal considerations. Even if “value” could be construed as a purely factual consideration, 26 U.S.C. § 6662 provides for a penalty to misstatements of either value or adjusted basis, the latter of which is a creature solely of the tax laws and requires the application of numerous legal rules.

The taxpayers alternatively argued that the penalty could not be imposed on them because any tax underpayment was due to the sham tax shelter determination rather than the misstatement of basis—an argument that had also divided the circuit courts of appeals. Many circuits had held that valuation misstatement penalties are properly assessable where the transaction underlying the tax deficiency lacks economic substance and results in an inflated basis. In contrast, the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have held that such penalties are inapplicable under such circumstances because it is ultimately the IRS’s disallowance of a deduction, not the valuation misstatement, that generated the underpayment of income tax. The Supreme Court held that the economic substance determination and the basis misstatement are not independent of one another – they are inextricably intertwined.  Indeed, the valuation misstatements were the “linchpin” of the operation of the COBRA tax shelter.  As the Court stated: “We therefore have no difficulty concluding that any underpayment resulting from the COBRA tax shelter is attributable to the partners’ misrepresentation of outside basis (a valuation misstatement).”

The Woods ruling is the second decision in as many years that considered the impact of a basis misstatement. In United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 1836 (2012), the Supreme Court held that an overstatement of basis was not an omission of gross income that extended the statute of limitations for making assessments from the ordinary three years to the longer six year period. Although the taxpayer ultimately prevailed in the Home Concrete case, the IRS aggressively pursued a significant tax obligation stemming from the misstatement of basis. Regardless of particular outcome of Woods and Home Concrete, both cases demonstrate that serious consequences can result from the mere misstatement of basis.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Akerman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Akerman LLP
Contact
more
less

Akerman LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.