Tax Court - Cannot avoid 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty by conceding on grounds other than valuation, basis 

March 14: The U.S. Tax Court, in a “reviewed opinion,” today held that a taxpayer cannot avoid the 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty by conceding the final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) on grounds other than valuation or basis. AHG Investments, LLC v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. No. 7 (March 14, 2013)

Read the opinion: AHG Investments LLC [PDF 39 KB]

Summary

The IRS issued an FPAA notice determining adjustments to income on multiple grounds. The FPAA also included a 40% accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for portions of the underpayments of tax resulting from adjustments of partnership items attributable to gross valuation misstatements.


The petitioning partner, in his Tax Court petition, conceded the FPAA adjustments on grounds that he was not at risk under section 465, and thus was not entitled to deduct certain losses. Later, in an amended petition, the petitioner further conceded that the FPAA adjustments were correct on the grounds that the transaction at issue did not have economic substance.


The petitioner then filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding the 40% penalty, asserting that the penalty did not apply as a matter of law because he had conceded the correctness of the proposed adjustments on grounds unrelated to the valuation or basis.


The Tax Court today denied the motion for summary judgment and, in this reviewed opinion, agreed with the IRS that a taxpayer may not avoid application of the gross valuation misstatement penalty merely by conceding on grounds unrelated to valuation or basis.


There were no separate dissenting or concurring opinions.

KPMG observation

There is a split in federal circuit appeals courts on the valuation misstatement penalty issue. Both the government in Woods v. United States (Fifth Circuit) and the taxpayer in Alpha I, L.P. v. United States (Federal Circuit) have filed for a writ of certiorari requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court resolve the issue.




©2013 KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership and the U.S. member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International"), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.


The KPMG logo and name are trademarks of KPMG International.


KPMG International is a Swiss cooperative that serves as a coordinating entity for a network of independent member firms. KPMG International provides no audit or other client services. Such services are provided solely by member firms in their respective geographic areas. KPMG International and its member firms are legally distinct and separate entities. They are not and nothing contained herein shall be construed to place these entities in the relationship of parents, subsidiaries, agents, partners, or joint venturers. No member firm has any authority (actual, apparent, implied or otherwise) to obligate or bind KPMG International or any member firm in any manner whatsoever.


The information contained in herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.


Direct comments, including requests for subscriptions, to us-kpmgwnt@kpmg.com.
For more information, contact KPMG's Federal Tax Legislative and Regulatory Services Group at:

+ 1 202 533 4366

1801 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006.

Subscribe

Current and future KPMG clients may subscribe to TaxNewsFlash email alerts.


Email your contact information.

Other TaxNewsFlash publications

TaxNewsFlash-United States by year