26 U.S.C. § 6673

Sanctions and costs awarded by courts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Tax court proceedings(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc.Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that—(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,(B) the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies,the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000.(2) Counsel’s liability for excessive costsWhenever it appears to the Tax Court that any attorney or other person admitted to practice before the Tax Court has multiplied the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously, the Tax Court may require—(A) that such attorney or other person pay personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct, or(B) if such attorney is appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that the United States pay such excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees in the same manner as such an award by a district court.(b) Proceedings in other courts(1) Claims under section 7433

Whenever it appears to the court that the taxpayer’s position in the proceedings before the court instituted or maintained by such taxpayer under section 7433 is frivolous or groundless, the court may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $10,000.

(2) Collection of sanctions and costs

In any civil proceeding before any court (other than the Tax Court) which is brought by or against the United States in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty under this title, any monetary sanctions, penalties, or costs awarded by the court to the United States may be assessed by the Secretary and, upon notice and demand, may be collected in the same manner as a tax.

(3) Sanctions and costs awarded by a court of appeals

In connection with any appeal from a proceeding in the Tax Court or a civil proceeding described in paragraph (2), an order of a United States Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court awarding monetary sanctions, penalties or court costs to the United States may be registered in a district court upon filing a certified copy of such order and shall be enforceable as other district court judgments. Any such sanctions, penalties, or costs may be assessed by the Secretary and, upon notice and demand, may be collected in the same manner as a tax.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 828; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 97–248, title II, § 292(b), (d)(2)(A), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 574; Pub. L. 99–514, title XV, § 1552(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2753; Pub. L. 100–647, title VI, § 6241(b), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3748; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7731(a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2400.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–239 substituted “Sanctions and costs awarded by courts” for “Damages assessable for instituting proceedings before the Court primarily for delay, etc.” in section catchline and amended text generally, making changes in substance and structure of subsecs. (a) and (b).

1988—Pub. L. 100–647 struck out “Tax” after “before the” in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), and added subsec. (b).

1986—Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “, that the taxpayer’s position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or that the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies” for “or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless”.

1982—Pub. L. 97–248, § 292(d)(2)(A), substituted “primarily for delay, etc.” for “merely for delay” after “Tax Court” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–248, § 292(b), substituted “or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in such proceedings is frivolous or groundless, damages in an amount not in excess of $5,000” for “by the taxpayer merely for delay, damages in an amount not in excess of $500” in first sentence.

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, § 7731(d), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2402, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section and section 7482 of this title] shall apply to positions taken after December 31, 1989, in proceedings which are pending on, or commenced after such date.”

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–647, title VI, § 6241(d), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3749, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting section 7433 of this title and amending this section] shall apply to actions by officers or employees of the Internal Revenue Service after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 10, 1988].”

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Pub. L. 99–514, title XV, § 1552(b), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2753, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply to proceedings commenced after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 22, 1986].”

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–248 applicable to any action or proceeding in the Tax Court commenced after Dec. 31, 1982, or pending in the Tax Court on the day 120 days after July 18, 1984, see section 292(e)(2) of Pub. L. 97–248, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 7430 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 214 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Daniel Taylor Jenkins v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv., 483 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Daniel Taylor Jenkins v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue Serv., 483 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 5× “The Tax Court also imposed a penalty of $5,000 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6673 (a)(1) based on its conclusion that petitioner’s arguments were frivolous within the meaning of the statute.”

Paul Sauers, Box 1573, Atl. City, Nj 08404 v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue. Appeal of Paul Sauers, 771 F.2d 64 (3rd Cir. 1985). · cites it 6× “This appeal from a decision and order of the Tax Court dismissing appellant Paul Sauers’s petition for review of a statutory notice of deficiency raises the question, inter alia, whether 26 U.S.C. § 6673 (1982), which gives the Tax Court discretion to award “damages” for…”

Norman D. Carter & Cecilia P. Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “It assessed a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673 , the amount of which is unclear.”

Thomas W. Roberts v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 329 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “The Tax Court imposed a penalty of $10,000 on Roberts pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6673 (a)(1) and found that he had maintained the action primarily for delay because he had raised identical arguments as a representative for taxpayers in two prior petitions.”

Norman E. Coleman v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Gary Holder v. Sec'y of the Treasury & United States of Am., 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “Because Coleman had filed tax returns for the years before 1979 &;nd demonstrated through the briefing an awareness of the legal obligation to file, the court imposed a penalty of $5,000 under 26 U.S.C. § 6673 , which authorizes the Tax Court to award damages when it concludes…”

Warner M. Larsen v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 765 F.2d 939 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “The Commissioner further sought damages of $5,000 pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6673 , asserting that taxpayer’s petition was frivolous and filed for the purpose of delay.”

Waltner v. Comm'r, 659 F. App'x 440 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Waltner appeals from the Tax Court’s order imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673 . We have jurisdiction under 26 U.”

Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 365 (2019). “§ 1401 (a) (allowing distribution of funds after payment of "attorney fees and litigation expenses"); 26 U.S.C. § 6673 (a)(2)(A) (authorizing recovery of "costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees" against an attorney who "unreasonably and vexatiously" multiplies proceedings); 31 U.”

John A. Grimes v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 806 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “Grimes contends that the Tax Court erred in imposing damages pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6673 . 2 The Tax Court’s award of damages is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

Charles Burke v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 929 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1991). · cites it 5× “(CCH) 1022 (1989) that affirmed a deficiency and additions to tax assessed by respondent-appellee Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the “Commissioner”) against Burke for the calendar year 1984, and also awarded $5,000 damages to the Commissioner against Burke pursuant to 26…”

Patricia Thomas v. Capital Sec. Servs., Inc., 836 F.2d 866 (5th Cir. 1988). “26 U.S.C. § 6673 . 4 . At least one group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, has undertaken a national project to gather information concerning implementation of Rule 11, thereby providing a vehicle for changes in the rule.”

Shirley L. Johnson v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 289 F.3d 452 (7th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “Izen appeals, arguing that section 6673(a)(2) is a denial of equal protection; that the Tax Court’s sanction was impermissible because really the court disciplined him not for discovery abuses as it said but for representing “disfavored” litigants who promote or utilize sham…”

Show all 214 citing cases →

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.