31 C.F.R. § 10.60

Institution of proceeding

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

(a) Whenever it is determined that a practitioner (or employer, firm or other entity, if applicable) violated any provision of the laws governing practice before the Internal Revenue Service or the regulations in this part, the practitioner may be reprimanded or, in accordance with § 10.62, subject to a proceeding for sanctions described in § 10.50.

(b) Whenever a penalty has been assessed against an appraiser under the Internal Revenue Code and an appropriate officer or employee in an office established to enforce this part determines that the appraiser acted willfully, recklessly, or through gross incompetence with respect to the proscribed conduct, the appraiser may be reprimanded or, in accordance with § 10.62, subject to a proceeding for disqualification. A proceeding for disqualification of an appraiser is instituted by the filing of a complaint, the contents of which are more fully described in § 10.62.

(c) Except as provided in § 10.82, a proceeding will not be instituted under this section unless the proposed respondent previously has been advised in writing of the law, facts and conduct warranting such action and has been accorded an opportunity to dispute facts, assert additional facts, and make arguments (including an explanation or description of mitigating circumstances).

(d) Effective/applicability date. This section is applicable beginning August 2, 2011.

[T.D. 9011, 67 FR 48765, July 26, 2002, as amended by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, 54551, Sept. 26, 2007; T.D. 9527, 76 FR 32309, June 3, 2011; 76 FR 49650, Aug. 11, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2023 · leading case: John Bowman, Jr. v. Kimberly Iddon, 848 F.3d 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

John Bowman, Jr. v. Kimberly Iddon, 848 F.3d 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “As Defendants point out, Circular 230’s disciplinary process includes, “among other procedures, the institution of proceedings ( 31 C.F.R. § 10.60 ), service of the complaint (§ 10.”

Bradley Waterman v. IRS, 61 F.4th 152 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “that constitute the basis for the proceeding,” 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.60 (c), 10.62(a), but it could have lawfully denied him access to documents covered by the deliberative process privilege, 31 C.”

Joseph Banister v. United States Dept. Of the Treasury, 499 F. App'x 668 (9th Cir. 2012). “91 , only Subparts D and E, respectively covering 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.60 through 10.82 and 31 C.”

John Zhong v. United States, 710 F. App'x 763 (9th Cir. 2018). “at 1198-99, 1200 (holding that there is no subject matter jurisdiction under the APA in the absence of “final agency action” and explaining when an agency action is “final”); see also 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.60 , 10.82(g); Navajo Nation v.”

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.