U.S. Code » Title 26 » Subtitle Subtitle F— Procedure and Administration › Chapter CHAPTER 68— ADDITIONS TO THE TAX, ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS, AND ASSESSABLE PENALTIES › Subchapter Subchapter A— Additions to the Tax and Additional Amounts › Part PART I— GENERAL PROVISIONS

26 U.S.C. § 6659

Improper claim for Trump account contribution pilot program credit

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In generalIn the case of any individual who makes an election under section 6434 with respect to an individual who is not an eligible child of the taxpayer—(1) if such election was made due to negligence or disregard of the rules or regulations, there shall be imposed a penalty of $500, or(2) if such election was made due to fraud, there shall be imposed a penalty of $1,000.(b) Definitions(1) Eligible child

The term “eligible child” has the meaning given such term under section 6434.

(2) Negligence; disregard

The terms “negligence” and “disregard” have the same meaning as when such terms are used in section 6662.

(Added Pub. L. 119–21, title VII, § 70204(d)(2), July 4, 2025, 139 Stat. 188.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 6659, added Pub. L. 97–34, title VII, § 722(a)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 341; amended Pub. L. 97–448, title I, § 107(a)(1), (2), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2391; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, § 155(c)(1), title VII, § 721(x)(4), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 693, 971, related to additions to tax in case of valuation overstatements for purposes of the income tax, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7721(c)(2), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2399.

Another prior section 6659 was renumbered section 6662 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025, see section 70204(e) of Pub. L. 119–21, set out as a note under section 128 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases, 1957–2016 · leading case: Bemont Investments, L.L.C. Ex Rel. Tax Matters Partner v. United States, 679 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bemont Investments, L.L.C. Ex Rel. Tax Matters Partner v. United States, 679 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “1988), this court construed 26 U.S.C. § 6659 (a), which calls for an addition to the tax if the taxpayer had an underpayment of income tax "which is attributable to a valuation overstatement.”
Gerald Leuhsler, Beverly Leuhsler v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 963 F.2d 907 (6th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “§ 6653 , and valuation overstatement, 26 U.S.C. § 6659 (a). 2 Leuhsler appealed to the Tax Court.”
John B. Gainer v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 893 F.2d 225 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “26 U.S.C. § 6659 (a). 1 We affirm. BACKGROUND The facts are not in dispute.”
Frank W. Smith Janice M. Smith v. United States, 328 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “The Smiths point to the specific language on the form, which states that the form only waives the right to contest the assessment in Tax Court, and to the instructions, which state that the taxpayer may later file a refund suit.”
Seymour Sacks Star Sacks v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv., Michael R. Geyser Joyce Geyser v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv., 69 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “It necessarily follows from our findings and conclusion that the Tax Court erred m imposing an overvaluation penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6659 . 1 Likewise, the negligence penalty imposed pursuant to 26 U.”
Hyman S. Zfass v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 118 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “In addition, it claimed Zfass’s underpayment of tax was due to a value overstatement and penalized him under 26 U.S.C. § 6659 . The IRS further charged Zfass an increased rate of interest because his underpayment was due to a tax motivated transaction.”
Nicholas v. United States, 384 U.S. 678 (1966). · cites it 2× “See also § 6659 (a) (1) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 6659 (a) (1) (1964 ed.), which provides that penalties on taxes "shall be assessed, collected, and paid in the same manner as taxes.”
Frank C. Pasternak Judith Pasternak (92-1681/1682) Anthony J. Cutaia Diane Cutaia David G. Koehlinger (92-1681) v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 990 F.2d 893 (6th Cir. 1993). “26 U.S.C. § 6659 (c). See Leuhsler, 963 F.”
Thompson v. United States, 223 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 6653 (a) due to their alleged negligent violation of IRS rules and regulations, a $23,100 penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6659 4 because the underpayment was attributable to a valuation overstatement, and increased interest at the rate of 120% of the applicable rate under 26 U.”
Clark v. United States, 68 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (N.D. Ga. 1999). · cites it 2× “Finally, Plaintiffs contend that the assessment for valuation overstatement under 26 U.S.C. § 6659 should not have been assessed because there was a reasonable basis for the valuation claimed on their return and the valuation was made in good faith.”
Klein v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 2d 690 (E.D. Mich. 1999). · cites it 2× “12 26 U.S.C. § 6659 13 authorized the IRS to impose an addition to tax when an indi *699 vidual underpaid his or her taxes by more than $1000 as a result of a valuation overstatement.”
Joseph M. Irom v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 866 F.2d 545 (2d Cir. 1989). “1988), which dealt with the applicability of additional interest under a different section of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 6659 (1982). In Todd , the Tax Court had found that a deficiency was not “attributable to” the taxpayer’s overvaluation of his investment in refrigerated food…”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— 26 U.S.C. § 6659(a)(1) — 1 case
Evans v. United States (In Re Evans), 173 B.R. 725 (D. Colo. 1994).
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.