31 C.F.R. § 10.50

Sanctions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Authority to censure, suspend, or disbar. The Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate, after notice and an opportunity for a proceeding, may censure, suspend, or disbar any practitioner from practice before the Internal Revenue Service if the practitioner is shown to be incompetent or disreputable (within the meaning of § 10.51), fails to comply with any regulation in this part (under the prohibited conduct standards of § 10.52), or with intent to defraud, willfully and knowingly misleads or threatens a client or prospective client. Censure is a public reprimand.

(b) Authority to disqualify. The Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate, after due notice and opportunity for hearing, may disqualify any appraiser for a violation of these rules as applicable to appraisers.

(1) If any appraiser is disqualified pursuant to this subpart C, the appraiser is barred from presenting evidence or testimony in any administrative proceeding before the Department of Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service, unless and until authorized to do so by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to § 10.81, regardless of whether the evidence or testimony would pertain to an appraisal made prior to or after the effective date of disqualification.

(2) Any appraisal made by a disqualified appraiser after the effective date of disqualification will not have any probative effect in any administrative proceeding before the Department of the Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service. An appraisal otherwise barred from admission into evidence pursuant to this section may be admitted into evidence solely for the purpose of determining the taxpayer's reliance in good faith on such appraisal.

(c) Authority to impose monetary penalty—(1) In general. (i) The Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate, after notice and an opportunity for a proceeding, may impose a monetary penalty on any practitioner who engages in conduct subject to sanction under paragraph (a) of this section.

(ii) If the practitioner described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section was acting on behalf of an employer or any firm or other entity in connection with the conduct giving rise to the penalty, the Secretary of the Treasury, or delegate, may impose a monetary penalty on the employer, firm, or entity if it knew, or reasonably should have known, of such conduct.

(2) Amount of penalty. The amount of the penalty shall not exceed the gross income derived (or to be derived) from the conduct giving rise to the penalty.

(3) Coordination with other sanctions. Subject to paragraph (c)(2) of this section—

(i) Any monetary penalty imposed on a practitioner under this paragraph (c) may be in addition to or in lieu of any suspension, disbarment or censure and may be in addition to a penalty imposed on an employer, firm or other entity under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section.

(ii) Any monetary penalty imposed on an employer, firm or other entity may be in addition to or in lieu of penalties imposed under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.

(d) Authority to accept a practitioner's consent to sanction. The Internal Revenue Service may accept a practitioner's offer of consent to be sanctioned under § 10.50 in lieu of instituting or continuing a proceeding under § 10.60(a).

(e) Sanctions to be imposed. The sanctions imposed by this section shall take into account all relevant facts and circumstances.

(f) Effective/applicability date. This section is applicable to conduct occurring on or after August 2, 2011, except that paragraphs (a), (b)(2), and (e) apply to conduct occurring on or after September 26, 2007, and paragraph (c) applies to prohibited conduct that occurs after October 22, 2004.

[T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54549, Sept. 26, 2007, as amended by T.D. 9527, 76 FR 32308, June 3, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Washburn v. Shapiro, 409 F. Supp. 3 (S.D. Fla. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Washburn v. Shapiro, 409 F. Supp. 3 (S.D. Fla. 1976). · cites it 3× “He held that Washburn had been shown to be disreputable within the meaning of 31 C.F.R. § 10.50 in view of his criminal conviction and the conduct supporting it.”

Charles R. Harary v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Sec'y of the Treasury of the United States of Am., 555 F.2d 1113 (2d Cir. 1977). “§ 1026 ; 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.50 , 10.52. Accordingly, if we are to uphold appellant’s disbarment without a remand, we must determine both the bribery and client deception issues in favor of the Secretary.”

Loving v. Internal Revenue Serv., 917 F. Supp. 2d 67 (D.D.C. 2013). “See 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.50 -.82. These regulations have long applied to attorneys, CPAs, and a handful of other specified tax professionals.”

United States v. Elsass, 978 F. Supp. 2d 901 (S.D. Ohio 2013). “” See 31 C.F.R. § 10.50 (a) (2010). The term practitioner is defined to include specifically listed types of individuals including attorneys, who may generally “practice before the Internal Revenue Service” if certain administrative requirements are satisfied.”

Wright v. Everson, 543 F.3d 649 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 330 (b) and 31 C.F.R. § 10.50 , but could not circumvent 26 U.”

Joseph Banister v. United States Dept. Of the Treasury, 499 F. App'x 668 (9th Cir. 2012). “Banister admitted to conduct that qualifies as disreputable behavior under 31 C.F.R. § 10.50 , rendering him eligible for disbarment under 31 C.”

Sicignano v. United States, 127 F. Supp. 2d 325 (D. Conn. 2001). · cites it 3× “The IRS Complaint alleged that, pursuant to 31 C.F.R. § 10.50 , Sicignano was subject to disbarment or suspension from practice in front of the IRS because he had failed to timely file individual federal income tax returns from 1989 to 1993 and to timely pay his individual tax…”

Wright v. Everson, 543 F.3d 649 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 330 (b) and 31 C.F.R. § 10.50 , but could not circumvent 26 U.”

United States v. Turner (S.D. Cal. 2022). “8 (preparers must have a PTIN); 31 C.F.R. § 10.50 (a) (the IRS 1 may suspend or disbar practitioners for sanctionable conduct); 31 C.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.