26 U.S.C. § 6751

Procedural requirements

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

(a) Computation of penalty included in notice

The Secretary shall include with each notice of penalty under this title information with respect to the name of the penalty, the section of this title under which the penalty is imposed, and a computation of the penalty.

(b) Approval of assessment(1) In general

No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate.

(2) ExceptionsParagraph (1) shall not apply to—(A) any addition to tax under section 6651, 6654, 6655, or 6662 (but only with respect to an addition to tax by reason of paragraph (9) or (10) of subsection (b) thereof); or(B) any other penalty automatically calculated through electronic means.(c) Penalties

For purposes of this section, the term “penalty” includes any addition to tax or any additional amount.

(Added Pub. L. 105–206, title III, § 3306(a), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 744; amended Pub. L. 116–260, div. EE, title II, § 212(b)(3), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 3067; Pub. L. 117–328, div. T, title VI, § 605(a)(2)(D), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5395.)Editorial NotesCodification

Another section 212(b) of div. EE of Pub. L. 116–260 amended section 63 of this title.

Amendments

2022—Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 117–328 substituted “paragraph (9) or (10) of subsection (b)” for “subsection (b)(9)”.

2020—Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 116–260 substituted “6655, or 6662 (but only with respect to an addition to tax by reason of subsection (b)(9) thereof)” for “or 6655”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2022 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–328 applicable to contributions made after Dec. 29, 2022, see section 605(c)(1) of Pub. L. 117–328, set out as a note under section 170 of this title.

Effective Date of 2020 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 116–260 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2020, see section 212(d) of div. EE of Pub. L. 116–260, set out as a note under section 62 of this title.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 105–206, title III, § 3306(c), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 744, as amended by Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title III, § 302(b)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–632, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [enacting this subchapter] shall apply to notices issued, and penalties assessed, after June 30, 2001. In the case of any notice of penalty issued after June 30, 2001, and before July 1, 2003, the requirements of section 6751(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as met if such notice contains a telephone number at which the taxpayer can request a copy of the taxpayer’s assessment and payment history with respect to such penalty.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 59 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Burt Kroner v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 48 F.4th 1272 (11th Cir. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burt Kroner v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 48 F.4th 1272 (11th Cir. 2022). · cites it 6× “” 26 U.S.C. § 6751 (b). That statute tells us who must approve—the im- mediate supervisor—and how that approval must be made—in writing.”

Laidlaw's Harley Davidson Sale v. Cir, 29 F.4th 1066 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 3× “CIR SUMMARY * Tax The panel reversed a decision of the Tax Court granting summary judgment to a taxpayer, in a case involving when a supervisor must provide the written approval required by 26 U.S.C. § 6751 (b) before the Internal Revenue Service assesses certain penalties.”

PBBM-Rose Hill, Ltd. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 900 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “We next address the issues related to the valuation of the easement: (1) whether the tax court erred in valuing the conservation easement at $100,000; (2) whether the Commissioner complied with the managerial-approval requirement in 26 U.S.C. § 6751 (b) in assessing the penalty…”

Mellow Partners, A P'ship v. Cmsnr. IRS, 890 F.3d 1070 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “Mellow also asserts that the Tax Court erred in imposing penalties because IRS failed to obtain the requisite written approval for such penalties, as required by 26 U.S.C. § 6751 (b)(1) (2012). We affirm the Tax Court's holding that Mellow was subject to the TEFRA partnership…”

Kaufman v. Commisioner of Internal Revenu, 784 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “They also advance, for the first time, an argument that the Commissioner did not comply with the procedural requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6751 (b)(1) 1 in assessing those penalties.”

Smith v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 2× “26 U.S.C. § 6751 (a), by failing to include in a notice imposing the penalty (1) the name of the penalty; (2) the Code section authorizing the penalty; and (3) an actual computation of the penalty; 17.”

United States v. Rozbruch, 28 F. Supp. 3d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 2× “They argue, however, that the Government has failed to satisfy a statutory prerequisite, contained in 26 U.S.C. § 6751 (b)(1), for the assessment of the TFRP’s.”

Alan H. Ginsburg v. United States, 17 F.4th 78 (11th Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “” 26 U.S.C. § 6751 (b)(1). The question in this case is when must a partner in a limited liability company or a partnership raise the section 6751(b)(1) supervisory approval issue: Before or after he files his refund lawsuit? During the partnership-level proceedings or the…”

Morrow v. United States, 723 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2010). “§ 6321 , by asserting liens without first giving proper notice or making a demand to the plaintiff (Count 23); • 26 U.S.C. § 6751 , by failing to verify in writing that a supervisor had approved, in writing, any initial tax penalty determination (Count 24); • 26 U.”

Ramer v. United States, 620 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 6404 (g) (2006) (Count 16); (17) failed to include in each notice imposing a penalty the name of the penalty, the Code section authorizing its assessment, and an actual computation of the penalty amount as required by 26 U.S.C. § 6751 (a) (2006) (Count 17); (18) failed to…”

Nix v. United States, 339 F. Supp. 3d 580 (E.D. Tex. 2018). · cites it 5× “Additionally, the Taxpayers-for the first time in their initial disclosures-raised the issue of the government's compliance with 26 U.S.C. § 6751 . (Dkt. No. 32 at 3-4.) More specifically, the Taxpayers assert: Defendant has not established that prior to the initial…”

Curtis Inv. Co. v. Comm'r, 909 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “Challenge Under 26 U.S.C. § 6751 (b)(1) Finally, CIC challenges the IRS imposition of a penalty in this case by asserting that the IRS did not comply with 26 U.”

Show all 59 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.