Reportable Transactions Penalties Under Section 6707A, 52231-52236 [2015-21259]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules
3. Nease, R., S. Miller, and S. G. Frazee,
‘‘2010 Specialty Drug Trend Report.’’
Express Scripts Specialty Benefit
Services (June 2011).
4. Vora, J. B., ‘‘Evaluation of Medical
Specialty Medications: Utilization and
Management Opportunities,’’
Commissioned by CVS Caremark (April
8, 2014), available at https://
info.cvscaremark.com/insights2014/
Singh06-Medical-Specialty-Utilizationand-Management-Opportunities.pdf.
5. Dal Pan, G. J., M. Lindquist, and K.
Gelperin, ‘‘Postmarketing Spontaneous
Pharmacovigilance Reporting Systems,’’
Chapter 10, in Pharmacoepidemiology,
5th ed., edited by B. L. Strom and S.
Hennessy. Etobicoke (Canada): John
Wiley & Sons; 2012.
6. Getz, K. A., S. Stergiopoulos, and K. I.
Kaitin, ‘‘Evaluating the Completeness
and Accuracy of MedWatch Data,’’
American Journal of Therapeutics,
21(6):442–446, 2014.
7. American Society of Health-System
Pharmacists (ASHP), ‘‘ASHP Guidelines
on Preventing Medication Errors With
Chemotherapy and Biotherapy,’’ 2014,
available at https://www.ashp.org/
DocLibrary/BestPractices/
MedMisGdlAntineo.aspx.
8. Institute for Safe Medication Practices
(ISMP), ‘‘ISMP’s Guidelines for Standard
Order Sets,’’ available at https://ismp.org/
tools/guidelines/StandardOrderSets.asp.
9. See, e.g., Comments from AARP to Docket
Nos. FDA–2011–D–0605, FDA–2011–D–
0602, and FDA–2011–D–0611 on ‘‘Draft
Guidance Documents on Biosimilar
Product Development,’’ available at
https://www.regulations.gov.
10. ‘‘Apotex Announces FDA Has Accepted
for Filing Its Biosimilar Application for
Pegfilgrastim’’ (December 17, 2014),
available at https://www.apotex.com/
global/about/press/20141217.asp;
‘‘Hospira Submits New Biologics License
Application to U.S. FDA for Proposed
Epoetin Alfa Biosimilar,’’ PR Newswire
(January 12, 2015), available at https://
www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/
hospira-submits-new-biologics-licenseapplication-to-us-fda-for-proposedepoetin-alfa-biosimilar-300018991.html;
‘‘Celltrion Files for US FDA Approval of
Remsima®,’’ (August 11, 2014), available
at https://www.celltrion.com/en/
COMPANY/notice_
view.asp?idx=456&code=ennews
&intNowPage=1&menu_num=&align_
year=all.
11. ‘‘Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis,
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Analysis for Designation of Official
Names and Proper Names for Certain
Biological Products; Proposed Rule,’’
available at https://www.fda.gov/About
FDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/
EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 299
Drugs.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public
Health Service Act, and under authority
delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, FDA proposes to amend 21
CFR part 299 as follows:
PART 299—DRUGS; OFFICIAL NAMES
AND ESTABLISHED NAMES
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR
part 299 is revised to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 331, 351, 352, 355,
358, 360b, 371; 42 U.S.C. 262.
2. Add subpart B to Part 299 to read
as follows:
■
Subpart B—Designated Names
§ 299.20 Official names and proper names
of certain biological products.
(a) The Food and Drug Administration
has designated official names under
section 508 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act for the biological
products licensed under section 351 of
the Public Health Service Act in the
biologics license applications provided
in the following list. The official name
shall be the proper name designated in
the license for use upon each package of
the product.
Biologics license application (BLA) number
BLA
BLA
BLA
BLA
BLA
BLA
103234
103353
125553
125294
103772
125031
(b) [Reserved]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 301
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[REG–103033–11]
RIN 1545–BK62
Reportable Transactions Penalties
Under Section 6707A
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
12:57 Aug 27, 2015
This document contains
proposed regulations that provide
guidance regarding the amount of the
penalty under section 6707A of the
Internal Revenue Code (Code) for failure
to include on any return or statement
any information required to be disclosed
under section 6011 with respect to a
reportable transaction. The proposed
regulations are necessary to clarify the
amount of the penalty under section
6707A, as amended by the Small
Business Jobs Act of 2010. The proposed
regulations would affect any taxpayer
who fails to properly disclose
participation in a reportable transaction.
DATES: Written or electronic comments
and requests for a public hearing must
be received by November 27, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to:
CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–103033–11), Room
5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O.
Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions
may be hand delivered Monday through
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2015–21382 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Official name and proper name
....................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................
Dated: August 25, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
52231
Sfmt 4702
epoetin alfa-cgkn.
filgrastim-jcwp.
filgrastim-bflm.
filgrastim-vkzt.
infliximab-hjmt.
pegfilgrastim-ljfd.
Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and
4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG–103033–
11), Courier’s Desk, Internal Revenue
Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC, or sent electronically
via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov (indicate
IRS and REG–103033–11).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Concerning the proposed regulations,
Melissa Henkel, (202) 317–6844;
concerning submissions of comments or
requests for a public hearing,
Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, (202)
317–6901 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document contains proposed
amendments to 26 CFR part 301 under
section 6707A of the Internal Revenue
Code. Section 6707A was added to the
Code by section 811(a) of the American
Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
357, 118 Stat. 1418) and was amended
E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM
28AUP1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
52232
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules
by section 11(a)(41) of the Tax
Technical Corrections Act of 2007 (Pub.
L. 110–172, 121 Stat. 2473). Section
6707A imposes a penalty on a taxpayer
who has a duty to disclose a reportable
transaction and fails to do so. It also
imposes a requirement that certain
taxpayers must disclose in filings with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) any requirement to
pay a penalty under (1) section 6707A
with respect to a listed transaction, (2)
section 6662A with respect to an
undisclosed reportable transaction, or
(3) section 6662(h) with respect to an
undisclosed reportable transaction.
Failure to make that required disclosure
to the SEC subjects a taxpayer to another
penalty under section 6707A. On
September 11, 2008, temporary
regulations (TD 9425) relating to the
penalty under section 6707A were
published in the Federal Register (73
FR 52784). A notice of proposed
rulemaking (REG–160868–04) crossreferencing the temporary regulations
was published in the Federal Register
on the same day (73 FR 52805). Section
6707A was amended again in 2010 by
section 2041(a) of the Small Business
Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–240, 124
Stat. 2504) (the Jobs Act), which
changed the amount of the penalty from
a stated dollar amount to a percentage
(with maximum and minimum dollar
amounts). Before the Jobs Act was
enacted, the penalty was $10,000 in the
case of a natural person ($50,000 in any
other case) and, in the case of a listed
transaction, $100,000 in the case of a
natural person ($200,000 in any other
case). In some cases, this structure
resulted in penalties that were
potentially disproportionate to the tax
benefit derived from the transaction. See
‘‘Legislative Recommendations with
Legislative Action: Modify Internal
Revenue Code Section 6707A to
Ameliorate Unconscionable Impact,’’
National Taxpayer Advocate 2008
Annual Report to Congress vol. 1, at
419. In response, Congress amended
section 6707A(b) through the Jobs Act.
See Joint Committee on Taxation,
General Explanation of Tax Legislation
Enacted in the 111th Congress (JCS–2–
11), March 2011 (explaining the reasons
for the change to section 6707A). The
Jobs Act amended section 6707A(b) to
make the penalty 75 percent of the
decrease in tax shown on the return as
a result of a reportable transaction, with
a minimum penalty amount of $10,000
($5,000 in the case of a natural person).
The maximum penalty amount is
$200,000 ($100,000 in the case of a
natural person) for failure to disclose a
listed transaction, or $50,000 ($10,000
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:57 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
in the case of a natural person) for
failure to disclose any other reportable
transaction. The 2010 amendment
specifying the amount of the penalty
applies to penalties assessed after
December 31, 2006. See Jobs Act
§ 2041(b), 124 Stat. at 2560. On
September 7, 2011, final regulations (TD
9550) were published in the Federal
Register (76 FR 55256). The final
regulations in TD 9550 did not provide
guidance on the amount of the penalty
as amended by the Jobs Act beyond
reciting the language of section 6707A
because the notice of proposed
rulemaking on which those final
regulations were based predated the
Jobs Act. The proposed regulations in
this document provide guidance on the
amount of the penalty under section
6707A, as amended by the Jobs Act.
Explanation of Provisions
The following is a summary of the
proposed changes to the existing
regulations relating to the penalties
under section 6707A.
1. Definition of Return
Treas. Reg. § 1.6011–4 establishes that
a taxpayer whose amended return or
application for tentative refund reflects
participation in a reportable transaction
has the same disclosure obligation as a
taxpayer whose original return reflects
participation in a reportable transaction.
Treas. Reg. § 301.6707A–1, published on
September 11, 2011, clarifies that a
taxpayer’s failure to disclose
participation in a reportable transaction
will trigger a penalty under section
6707A regardless of whether the
participation is reflected on an original
return, an amended return, or an
application for tentative refund. In its
current state, the regulation generally
refers to original returns, amended
returns, and applications for tentative
refund in every case where all three
terms are relevant. The proposed
regulations streamline these references
by defining the term ‘‘return’’ to include
all three. This change simplifies
sentences throughout the regulation
without changing their meaning.
2. Amount of the Penalty
A. Decrease in Tax
Subject to certain minimum and
maximum amounts, ‘‘the amount of the
penalty under subsection (a) with
respect to any reportable transaction
shall be 75 percent of the decrease in tax
shown on the return as a result of such
transaction (or which would have
resulted from such transaction if such
transaction were respected for Federal
tax purposes).’’ Section 6707A(b)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The proposed regulations define this
decrease in tax generally as the
difference between the amount of tax
reported on the return as filed and the
amount of tax that would be reported on
a hypothetical return where the
taxpayer did not participate in the
reportable transaction. The amount of
tax shown on the hypothetical return
will reflect adjustments that result
mechanically from backing out the
reportable transaction, such as tax items
affected by an increase in adjusted gross
income resulting from non-participation
in the reportable transaction.
In some situations, a taxpayer’s
participation in a listed transaction
creates a liability for a tax that would
not exist absent participation in the
transaction. For example, a taxpayer
engaging in a listed abusive Roth IRA
transaction may be subject to an excise
tax on excess IRA contributions. If the
taxpayer fails to report the excise tax on
his excess IRA contributions, this
amount of tax would not appear on the
return filed by the taxpayer that
reflected his participation in the
reportable transaction. The excise tax
would also not appear on a return filed
by the taxpayer if he had not engaged in
the transaction, because there would be
no excess contribution on which excise
tax would be imposed. Therefore, the
difference between these two returns
would result in no decrease in tax
attributable to the unreported tax. To
capture this tax, the proposed
regulations include in the definition of
the decrease in tax ‘‘any other tax that
results from participation in the
reportable transaction but was not
reported on the taxpayer’s return.’’
Example 1 in § 301.6707A–1(d)(2)
illustrates this rule.
B. Subsequently Identified Transactions
Listed transactions and transactions of
interest are identified in published
guidance. See § 1.6011–4(b)(2), (6). Once
a listed transaction or a transaction of
interest is identified by published
guidance, a taxpayer has a reporting
obligation if the taxpayer participated in
the transaction prior to the issuance of
the guidance and the statute of
limitations for the year of the taxpayer’s
participation remains open. See
§ 1.6011–4(e)(2). Under § 1.6011–4, the
taxpayer may use a single disclosure
statement to disclose multiple years of
participation in a reportable transaction.
Because the taxpayer in these cases is
permitted to disclose multiple years of
participation on a single statement, the
taxpayer’s failure to complete and
submit the disclosure statement
properly will result in no more than one
penalty under section 6707A. The
E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM
28AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
proposed regulations provide, however,
that the amount of that penalty will be
determined by taking into account the
aggregate decrease in tax shown on all
of the returns for which disclosure was
not provided. Accordingly, under the
proposed regulations, the decrease in
tax will be determined separately for
each year of participation for which
only a single disclosure statement was
required and the amount of the penalty
will be 75 percent of the aggregate
decrease in tax in all years for which
disclosure was required, subject to the
minimum and maximum penalty
amount limitations.
C. Penalty Under Section 6707A(e) for
Failure To Report to the Securities and
Exchange Commission
Section 6707A(e) generally requires
certain taxpayers who must pay
penalties under sections 6707A, 6662A
(accuracy-related penalty on
understatements with respect to
reportable transactions), or 6662(h)
(accuracy-related penalty on
underpayments attributable to gross
valuation misstatements) to disclose
their liability for these penalties in
filings with the SEC. The flush language
of section 6707A(e) provides that
‘‘[f]ailure to make a disclosure in
accordance with the preceding sentence
shall be treated as a failure to which the
penalty under subsection (b)(2)
applies.’’ However, as discussed in the
Background section of this preamble,
subsection (b)(2) was amended in 2010.
Prior to enactment of the Jobs Act,
section 6707A(b)(2) provided that the
amount of the penalty for failure to
disclose participation in a listed
transaction was $100,000 for natural
persons and $200,000 in any other case.
After the 2010 amendments, section
6707A(b)(2) now provides that ‘‘[t]he
amount of the penalty under subsection
(a) with respect to any reportable
transaction shall not exceed— (A) in the
case of a listed transaction, $200,000
($100,000 in the case of a natural
person), or (B) in the case of any other
reportable transaction, $50,000 ($10,000
in the case of a natural person).’’
Treasury and the Service do not
believe that Congress intended its
reference to subsection (b)(2) to impose
the maximum penalty on violations of
section 6707A(e). This would be
contrary to the purpose of the 2010
amendments to section 6707A, which
sought to make the penalty
proportionate to the tax benefit derived
by the transaction. A reference solely to
subsection (b)(2) does not make sense in
terms of describing the amount of the
penalty, as subsection (b)(2) merely caps
the amount of the penalty that can be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:57 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
imposed on a failure to disclose and
does not provide a particular amount for
the penalty. It seems likely that the
intent was to reference the amount of
the penalty generally under subsection
(b). The proposed regulations clarify
this point.
In each case giving rise to an
obligation to disclose liability in filings
with the SEC, there must be a reportable
transaction for the relevant penalty to
arise. The amount of the penalty for a
violation of section 6707A(e), therefore,
will be 75 percent of the decrease in tax,
as provided in section 6707A(b). In
addition to being consistent with the
language of section 6707A(e), the
proposed regulations are also consistent
with the Congressional intent of the
2010 amendments to section 6707A to
render proportionality between the
amount of the penalty and the tax
benefit derived from the reportable
transaction. See JCS–2–11.
D. Minimum and Maximum Amount of
the Penalty
Pursuant to section 6707A(b)(2),
‘‘[t]he amount of the penalty under
subsection (a) with respect to any
reportable transaction shall not exceed’’
certain specified dollar values.
Likewise, under section 6707A(b)(3),
‘‘[t]he amount of the penalty under
subsection (a) with respect to any
transaction shall not be less than’’
certain specified dollar values. Under
the proposed regulations, these
minimum and maximum limits on the
amount of the penalty would be applied
separately to each individual penalty
under section 6707A(a). The limitations
in sections 6707A(b)(2) and (3) apply
expressly to ‘‘[t]he amount of the
penalty under subsection (a).’’ Because,
as provided in § 301.6707A–1(c), each
separate failure to disclose a reportable
transaction gives rise to a new penalty
under section 6707A(a), the minimum
and maximum limits on the amount of
the penalty apply separately to each
failure to disclose.
Special Analyses
Certain IRS regulations, including this
one, are exempt from the requirements
of Executive Order 12866 of, as
supplemented and reaffirmed by
Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a
regulatory impact assessment is not
required. It also has been determined
that section 553(b) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does
not apply to the proposed regulations.
Because the proposed regulations would
not impose a collection of information
on small entities, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does
not apply.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52233
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code, this notice of
proposed rulemaking has been
submitted to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for comment on its
impact on small businesses.
Comments and Requests for Public
Hearing
Before these proposed regulations are
adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any
written or electronic comments that are
submitted timely to the IRS. The
Treasury Department and the IRS
request comments on all aspects of the
proposed regulations. All comments
will be available for public inspection
and copying at www.regulations.gov or
upon request. A public hearing will be
scheduled if requested in writing by any
person that timely submits written
comments. If a public hearing is
scheduled, notice of the date, time, and
place for the public hearing will be
published in the Federal Register.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of the proposed
regulations are Melissa Henkel of the
Office of the Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration) and
Spence Hanemann, formerly of the
Office of the Associate Chief Counsel
(Procedure and Administration).
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301
Employment taxes, Estate taxes,
Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the
Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 301—PROCEDURE AND
ADMINISTRATION
Paragraph 1. The authority citation
for part 301 continues to read in part as
follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 2. Section 301.6707A–1 is
amended by:
■ 1. Adding paragraph (b)(3).
■ 2. In paragraph (c)(1), removing the
language ‘‘(including an amended return
or application for tentative refund)’’ in
the fifth sentence.
■ 3. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e)
and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g).
■ 4. Adding new paragraph (d).
■ 5. In newly designated paragraph (e),
removing the language ‘‘(d)’’ wherever it
appears and adding ‘‘(e)’’ in its place.
■ 6. In newly designated paragraph
(e)(3)(i), removing the language
■
E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM
28AUP1
52234
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules
‘‘(including an amended return or
application for tentative refund)’’
wherever it appears.
■ 7. In newly designated paragraph (f),
removing the language ‘‘(e)’’ wherever it
appears and adding ‘‘(f)’’ in its place.
■ 8. Revising newly designated
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 301.6707A–1. Failure to include on any
return or statement any information
required to be disclosed under section 6011
with respect to a reportable transaction.—
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Return. For purposes of this
section, the term ‘‘return’’ means an
original return, amended return, or
application for tentative refund, except
where otherwise indicated. As used in
examples, the term ‘‘return’’ means an
original return, except where otherwise
indicated.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Calculation of the penalty. (1)
Decrease in tax—(i) In general. As used
in this section, the phrase ‘‘decrease in
tax shown on the return as a result of
the transaction or the decrease that
would have resulted from the
transaction if it were respected for
Federal tax purposes’’ means the sum of
(A) the excess of the amount of the tax
that would be shown on the return if the
return did not reflect the taxpayer’s
participation in the reportable
transaction over the tax actually
reported on the return reflecting
participation in the reportable
transaction and (B) any other tax that
results from participation in the
reportable transaction but was not
reported on the taxpayer’s return. The
amount of tax that would be shown on
the return if it did not reflect the
taxpayer’s participation in the
reportable transaction includes
adjustments that result mechanically
from backing out the reportable
transaction, such as tax items affected
by an increase in adjusted gross income
resulting from not participating in the
transaction. Under this rule, it makes no
difference whether a taxpayer’s tax
liability is ultimately settled with the
IRS for a different amount or whether
the taxpayer subsequently reports a
different amount of tax on an amended
return, because these amounts do not
enter into the calculation of the decrease
in tax shown on the return (or returns)
to which the penalty relates.
(ii) Subsequently identified
transactions. If the taxpayer fails to file
a complete and proper disclosure
statement required by § 1.6011–4(e)(2)(i)
disclosing participation in a listed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:57 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
transaction or transaction of interest
with respect to more than one return,
the amount of the penalty will be
computed by aggregating the decrease in
tax shown on each return for which the
required disclosure was not provided.
(iii) Penalty for failure to report to the
SEC. In the case of a penalty imposed
under section 6707A(e) for failure to
disclose liability for certain penalties in
reports to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the amount of the penalty
will be determined under section
6707A(b) and this paragraph (d),
regardless of whether the penalty that
the taxpayer failed to disclose is
imposed under section 6707A, 6662A,
or 6662(h).
(iv) Minimum and maximum amount
of the penalty. The limitations on the
minimum and maximum penalty
amounts described in paragraph (a) of
this section apply separately to each
failure to disclose that is subject to a
penalty.
(2) No tax required to be shown on
return. For returns with respect to
which disclosure is required but on
which no tax is required to be shown
(for example, returns of passthrough
entities), the minimum penalty amount
will be imposed for failures to disclose.
(3) Examples. The rules in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section are
illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. Taxpayer X, a natural person,
filed a return reflecting participation in an
abusive Roth IRA transaction listed in Notice
2004–8, 2004–1 I.R.B. 333 (Jan. 26, 2004). As
described in the notice, X’s Roth IRA
acquired shares of a wholly owned
corporation and then X sold assets to the
corporation at less than fair market value,
effectively transferring value to the
corporation comparable to a contribution to
the Roth IRA. X failed to disclose his
participation in the listed transaction as
required by the regulations under section
6011. As a result of the transaction, X was
liable under section 4973 for a $10,000 excise
tax for excess contributions to his Roth IRA.
On his return, X correctly reported $25,000
of income tax, none of which was attributable
to the listed transaction, but failed to report
the excise tax. If X had not participated in
the listed transaction, the excise tax under
section 4973 would not have applied and his
income tax would have remained $25,000.
There would, therefore, be no difference
between the tax on his return as filed and the
tax on his return if it did not reflect
participation in the transaction. The excise
tax, however, is another tax that resulted
from participation in the transaction but was
not reported on X’s return, as described in
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) of this section.
Therefore, the decrease in tax resulting from
the listed transaction is $10,000, which
amount is the sum of zero (the excess of the
amount of tax that would be shown on X’s
return if the return did not reflect X’s
participation in the transaction over the tax
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
X actually reported on the return reflecting
X’s participation in the transaction) and
$10,000 (the amount of excise tax that
resulted from participation in the transaction
but was not reported on the return). The
amount of the penalty will be $7,500, which
amount is 75 percent of the $10,000 decrease
in tax.
Example 2. Taxpayer X participated in a
listed transaction that resulted in a $40,000
decrease in the tax shown on its return. X
failed to disclose its participation and is,
therefore, subject to a penalty under section
6707A. After weighing litigating hazards and
other costs of litigation, the IRS Office of
Appeals agreed to settle X’s deficiency for
$20,000. For purposes of calculating the
amount of the penalty, the settlement does
not affect the decrease in tax shown on X’s
return as a result of the listed transaction,
which remains $40,000. The amount of X’s
penalty will be $30,000, which amount is 75
percent of the $40,000 decrease in tax.
Example 3. Taxpayer X, a natural person,
participated in a nonlisted reportable
transaction and, because he failed to disclose
his participation, is subject to a penalty
under section 6707A. After offsetting gross
income with the losses generated in the
reportable transaction, X’s return reported
adjusted gross income of $100,000. The
return also reported $12,000 of medical
expenses, $2,000 of which were deductible
after applying the 10 percent floor in section
213(a). If X’s return had not reflected
participation in the reportable transaction,
his adjusted gross income would have been
$140,000. The decrease in tax shown on X’s
return as a result of the transaction would
take into account both the tax on the $40,000
difference in adjusted gross income and the
tax on the $2,000 adjustment to X’s
deductible medical expenses under section
213(a) caused by the increase in adjusted
gross income.
Example 4. Taxpayer X, a natural person,
timely filed his 2014 return and reported
income tax of $40,000. X did not participate
in a reportable transaction in 2014. X
participated in a listed transaction in 2015,
but failed to file a complete and proper
disclosure statement with his 2015 return as
required by the regulations under section
6011. As filed, the 2015 return reports that
X owes no tax and has a loss of $10,000. If
the tax consequences of the listed transaction
were not reflected on the 2015 return, the
return would show income tax of $15,000
and no loss. X files an amended return for
his 2014 tax year on which its only
amendment is to carry back the $10,000 loss
reported on its 2015 tax return to the 2014
tax year, which decreases X’s tax liability for
2014 by $3,000. X fails to file a complete and
proper disclosure statement with the 2014
amended return as required by the
regulations under section 6011. X will be
assessed two penalties under section 6707A:
one for his failure to disclose participation in
a listed transaction reflected on his 2015 tax
return and another for his failure to disclose
participation in the same listed transaction
reflected on his 2014 amended return. The
decrease in tax on the 2015 tax return
resulting from the listed transaction is
$15,000, which amount is the excess of the
E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM
28AUP1
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules
amount of tax that would be shown on X’s
return if the return did not reflect X’s
participation in the transaction over the tax
X actually reported on the return reflecting
X’s participation in the transaction. The
amount of the penalty with respect to the
2015 tax return is $11,250, which amount is
75 percent of the decrease in tax. The
decrease in tax on the 2014 amended return
that results from the listed transaction is
$3,000, which is the excess of the amount of
tax that would be shown on X’s return if the
return did not reflect X’s participation in the
transaction over the tax X actually reported
on the return reflecting X’s participation in
the transaction. See § 301.6707A–1(c).
Because X is a natural person, the amount of
the penalty with respect to the 2014 amended
return is $5,000, which is the minimum
penalty under § 301.6707A–1(a) and section
6707A(b)(3).
Example 5. Taxpayer X, a corporation,
timely files its 2012 and 2013 tax returns,
each of which reflects participation in the
same transaction. In 2015, the transaction
becomes a listed transaction and X fails to
file a complete and proper disclosure
statement as required by the regulations
under section 6011. X was required to file a
single disclosure statement reflecting its
participation in the listed transaction for all
years which had open periods of limitation
on assessment at the time the transaction
became listed. When the transaction at issue
became listed, the periods of assessment on
X’s 2012 and 2013 tax years were open.
Pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this
section, the amount of the penalty for X’s
single failure to disclose its participation in
the transaction in 2012 and 2013 is computed
by aggregating the decrease in tax shown on
the 2012 return and the decrease in tax
shown on the 2013 return. The decreases in
tax shown on the returns as a result of X’s
participation in the transaction are $265,000
in tax year 2012 and $7,000 in tax year 2013.
The total decrease in tax shown on both
returns is $272,000, and 75 percent of that
amount is $204,000. Because X is a
corporation, the amount of the penalty will
be limited to the maximum amount of
$200,000 under § 301.6707A–1(a) and section
6707A(b)(2)(A).
Example 6. The 2014 return of Taxpayer
X, a natural person, reflects participation in
a nonlisted reportable transaction, but X fails
to file a complete and proper disclosure
statement as required by the regulations
under section 6011. The decrease in tax
shown on X’s 2014 return as a result of
participation in the reportable transaction is
$20,000. X subsequently files an amended
2014 return to include a net operating loss
carried forward from a prior year, which X
inadvertently failed to include when he filed
his original return. The amended return
reflects participation in the same reportable
transaction, but X again fails to file a
complete and proper disclosure statement.
The decrease in tax shown on the amended
2014 return as a result of participation in the
transaction is also $20,000. X is subject to
two separate penalties: one for each failure to
disclose. Seventy-five percent of the $20,000
decrease in tax shown on each of the original
2014 return and the amended 2014 return is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:57 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
$15,000 for each return. Because X is a
natural person, the amount of the penalty for
failure to disclose with respect to the original
return will be limited to the maximum
amount of $10,000 under § 301.6707A–1(a)
and section 6707A(b)(2)(B). The amount of
the penalty for failure to disclose with
respect to the amended return will also be
limited to the maximum amount of $10,000.
Example 7. Partnership M is required to
attach Form 8886, Reportable Transaction
Disclosure Statement, to its Form 1065, U.S.
Return of Partnership Income, for the 2014
taxable year. It fails to do so and is, therefore,
subject to a penalty under section 6707A.
The amount of the penalty will be the
minimum penalty of $10,000 under
§ 301.6707A–1(a) and section 6707A(b)(3)
because Form 1065 is a return that does not
show an amount of tax that would be
decreased as a result of participation in the
reportable transaction. The partners of
Partnership M may have separate disclosure
obligations as required by the regulations
under section 6011 and would be subject to
separate section 6707A penalties if they fail
to comply with the disclosure requirements.
Example 8. In tax year 2014, Taxpayer X
participated in a listed transaction that
resulted in a $150,000 deduction. X’s gross
income for 2014 before the listed transaction
deduction is $100,000. X uses $100,000 of
the deduction to offset $100,000 of gross
income and reports tax of zero for 2014. X
also has a $50,000 net operating loss for
2014. X timely elects to waive the carryback
period and carry over the 2014 net operating
loss to tax year 2015. X’s gross income for tax
year 2015 is $200,000 but as a result of the
$50,000 net operating loss carryover, X
reports $150,000 adjusted gross income.
Pursuant to § 1.6011–4, X is required to
disclose participation in the listed
transaction for both 2014 and 2015, but X
fails to make the required disclosures and is
therefore subject to the section 6707A
penalty for each failure. The decrease in tax
on the 2014 return is the amount of tax on
$100,000 because that is the difference
between the amount of tax that would have
been shown on the return if it did not reflect
participation in the reportable transaction
and the tax actually reported. No other tax
resulted from X’s participation in the listed
transaction. The amount of the penalty with
respect to X’s failure to disclose with respect
to 2014 will be 75 percent of the decrease in
tax. The decrease in tax on the 2015 return
is the difference between the tax shown on
the return as filed and the tax that would be
shown if the $50,000 net operating loss was
not used, including any changes to the
amount of tax that are only indirectly
connected with the listed transaction. The
amount of the penalty with respect to X’s
failure to disclose with respect to 2015 will
be 75 percent of the decrease in tax.
Example 9. In tax year 2014, Taxpayer X,
a natural person, participated in a listed
transaction that resulted in a $50,000
deduction. X’s gross income for 2014 before
the listed transaction deduction is $100,000.
X also has a net operating loss carryover of
$150,000 from 2013. X uses the deduction of
$50,000 and a portion of the net operating
loss carryover to offset $100,000 of gross
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52235
income and reports adjusted gross income of
zero for 2014. X carries over the remaining
net operating loss to tax year 2015. X’s gross
income for 2015 is $250,000, but as a result
of the net operating loss carryover, X reports
reduced adjusted gross income of $150,000.
Pursuant to § 1.6011–4, X is required to
disclose participation in the listed
transaction for both 2014 and 2015, but X
fails to make the required disclosures and is
subject to the section 6707A penalty for each
failure. The decrease in tax on the 2014
return that results from the reportable
transaction is zero. Because X has $150,000
of a net operating loss carryover not
attributable to the reportable transaction, X’s
tax without the benefits of the reportable
transaction is the same as the tax shown on
the 2014 return as filed. Because X is a
natural person, the minimum penalty of
$5,000 under § 301.6707A–1(a) and section
6707A(b)(3) will apply for the failure to
disclose the listed transaction with the 2014
return. The decrease in tax on the 2015
return is the difference between the tax
shown on the return as filed and the tax that
would be shown if X had only $50,000 of net
operating loss to carry over to 2015 (i.e., if
X had not offset $50,000 of its 2014 gross
income with the deduction resulting from the
reportable transaction and thus had used
$100,000 of its net operating loss carryover
in 2014), including any changes to the
amount of tax that are only indirectly
connected with the listed transaction. The
amount of the penalty with respect to the
disclosure relating to 2015 will be 75 percent
of this decrease in tax.
Example 10. In tax year 2014, Taxpayer X,
a corporation, engaged in a nonlisted
reportable transaction and is subject to a
penalty under section 6662A because its
2014 return resulted in a reportable
transaction understatement. As a result of X’s
involvement in the transaction, it reported
tax of $10,000 for 2014; if X had not engaged
in the transaction, it would have reported tax
of $200,000. X disclosed its involvement in
the transaction as required by the regulations
under section 6011, and thus was not subject
to a penalty under section 6707A(a). As a
person who is required to file periodic
reports under section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, however, X
was also required, pursuant to section
6707A(e), to disclose the penalty imposed
under section 6662A to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, which X failed to do.
X’s failure to disclose the section 6662A
penalty is treated as a failure to disclose to
which section 6707A(b) applies. Thus, X will
be subject to a penalty under section
6707A(e), which will equal 75 percent of the
decrease in tax resulting from the transaction.
The decrease in tax resulting from the
nonlisted reportable transaction was
$190,000, 75 percent of which is $142,500.
Because X is a corporation, the amount of the
penalty will be limited to $50,000 under
§ 301.6707A–1(a) and section 6707A(b)(2)(B).
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(1) This section applies to penalties
assessed after the date that these
regulations are published as final
regulations in the Federal Register.
E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM
28AUP1
52236
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 167 / Friday, August 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(2) For penalties assessed before the
date that these regulations are published
as final regulations in the Federal
Register, § 301.6707A–1 (as contained
in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2013)
shall apply.
John M. Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015–21259 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
30 CFR Parts 700, 701, 773, 774, 777,
779, 780, 783, 784, 785, 800, 816, 817,
824, and 827
[Docket ID: OSM–2010–0018; OSM–2010–
0021; OSM–2015–0002 S1D1
SS08011000SX064A000156S180110;
S2D2SS08011000SX064A00015X501520]
RIN 1029–AC63
Stream Protection Rule
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public hearings.
AGENCY:
We, the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSMRE), are announcing the schedule
for public hearings on the proposed
Stream Protection Rule and the
accompanying Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS).
DATES: We will be holding public
hearings on the proposed rule and DEIS
on September 1, 3, 10, 15, and 17, 2015
at the locations listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this notice.
ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this notice for
the addresses at which we will hold the
public hearings on the proposed rule
and DEIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jessica Villanueva, 1999 Broadway,
Suite 3320, Denver, Colorado 80201,
Phone: (303) 293–5057
Robert Evans, 2675 Regency Road,
Lexington, Kentucky 40503, Phone:
(859) 260–3902
Len Meier, 501 Belle Street, Room 216,
Alton, Illinois 62002, Phone: (618)
463–6463 x 5109
Ben Owens, 3 Parkway Center,
Pittsburgh, PA 152220, Phone: (412)
937–2827
Ian Dye, Jr., 1947 Neeley Road,
Compartment 116, Suite 220, Big
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12:57 Aug 27, 2015
Jkt 235001
Stone Gap, VA 24219, Phone: (276)
523–0022 x 16
Roger Calhoun, 1027 Virginia Street
East, Charleston, West Virginia 25301,
Phone: (304) 347–7158
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed rule, announced on July 16,
2015 and published on July 27, 2015 (80
FR 44436–44698), would modernize
rules that are 32 years old in order to
better protect people, water quality, and
the environment from the adverse
effects of coal mining. We will hold
public hearings on the proposed Stream
Protection Rule and the accompanying
DEIS at the following locations on the
listed dates:
Tuesday, September 1, 2015: Jefferson
County Fairgrounds Event Center, 15200
W. 6th Ave., Golden, CO 80401.
Thursday, September 3, 2015:
Lexington Convention Center, 430 W.
Vine St., Lexington, KY 40507.
Thursday, September 10, 2015: St.
Charles Convention Center, 1
Convention Center Plaza, St. Charles,
MO 63303.
Thursday, September 10, 2015:
DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Pittsburgh,
500 Mansfield Ave., Pittsburgh, PA
15205.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015:
Mountain Empire Community College,
3441 Mt. Empire Rd., Big Stone Gap, VA
24219.
Thursday, September 17, 2015:
Charleston Civic Center, 200 Civic
Center Dr., Charleston, WV 25301
All hearings are scheduled to begin at
5 p.m. and end at 9 p.m. We will
provide opportunities for interested
parties to deliver or write comments
onsite at each public hearing. We will
also provide an opportunity for
participants to speak with a court
reporter who will transcribe their verbal
comments for the written record.
Additionally, the public will be able to
speak in a public hearing format. Those
speaking in the public hearing format
must register to do so at the hearing, and
will be called on a first-come, firstserved basis as time allows. Verbal
comments will be limited to two
minutes in order to allow as many
people to speak as possible. People are
encouraged to provide their complete
detailed comments in writing.
The primary purpose of the hearings
is to obtain input on the proposed rule
and DEIS. Therefore, we encourage you
to limit your testimony to the merits of
the provisions of the proposed rule and
DEIS.
At the hearing, a court reporter will
record and prepare a verbatim
transcription of all comments presented.
This written record will be made part of
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the docket for the DEIS and/or proposed
rule. If you have a written copy of your
comments, we encourage you to provide
a copy to the moderator to assist the
court reporter in preparing the written
record.
If you are a disabled individual who
needs reasonable accommodations to
attend a public hearing, please contact
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Dated: August 24, 2015.
Harry J. Payne,
Acting Assistant Director, Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2015–21412 Filed 8–27–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–05–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0280; FRL–9933–20–
Region 9]
Revisions to California State
Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air
Quality Management District;
Stationary Sources Permits
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of
Regulation 2, Rules 1 and 2 for the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD or District) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted on April 22, 2013.
These revisions consist of significant
updates to rules governing the issuance
of permits for stationary sources,
including review and permitting of
major sources and major modifications
under parts C and D of title I of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). The intended
effect of this proposed limited approval
and limited disapproval action is to
update the applicable SIP with current
BAAQMD permitting rules and to set
the stage for remedying certain
deficiencies in these rules. If finalized
as proposed, this limited disapproval
action would trigger an obligation for
EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan unless California
submits and we approve SIP revisions
that correct the deficiencies within two
years of the final action, and for certain
deficiencies the limited disapproval
would also trigger sanctions under
section 179 of the CAA unless California
submits and we approve SIP revisions
that correct the deficiencies within 18
months of final action.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28AUP1.SGM
28AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52231-52236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21259]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 301
[REG-103033-11]
RIN 1545-BK62
Reportable Transactions Penalties Under Section 6707A
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains proposed regulations that provide
guidance regarding the amount of the penalty under section 6707A of the
Internal Revenue Code (Code) for failure to include on any return or
statement any information required to be disclosed under section 6011
with respect to a reportable transaction. The proposed regulations are
necessary to clarify the amount of the penalty under section 6707A, as
amended by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. The proposed
regulations would affect any taxpayer who fails to properly disclose
participation in a reportable transaction.
DATES: Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing
must be received by November 27, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-103033-11), Room
5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered Monday through
Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-
103033-11), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-
103033-11).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning the proposed regulations,
Melissa Henkel, (202) 317-6844; concerning submissions of comments or
requests for a public hearing, Oluwafunmilayo (Funmi) Taylor, (202)
317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This document contains proposed amendments to 26 CFR part 301 under
section 6707A of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 6707A was added to
the Code by section 811(a) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
(Pub. L. 108-357, 118 Stat. 1418) and was amended
[[Page 52232]]
by section 11(a)(41) of the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007 (Pub.
L. 110-172, 121 Stat. 2473). Section 6707A imposes a penalty on a
taxpayer who has a duty to disclose a reportable transaction and fails
to do so. It also imposes a requirement that certain taxpayers must
disclose in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
any requirement to pay a penalty under (1) section 6707A with respect
to a listed transaction, (2) section 6662A with respect to an
undisclosed reportable transaction, or (3) section 6662(h) with respect
to an undisclosed reportable transaction. Failure to make that required
disclosure to the SEC subjects a taxpayer to another penalty under
section 6707A. On September 11, 2008, temporary regulations (TD 9425)
relating to the penalty under section 6707A were published in the
Federal Register (73 FR 52784). A notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-
160868-04) cross-referencing the temporary regulations was published in
the Federal Register on the same day (73 FR 52805). Section 6707A was
amended again in 2010 by section 2041(a) of the Small Business Jobs Act
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-240, 124 Stat. 2504) (the Jobs Act), which changed
the amount of the penalty from a stated dollar amount to a percentage
(with maximum and minimum dollar amounts). Before the Jobs Act was
enacted, the penalty was $10,000 in the case of a natural person
($50,000 in any other case) and, in the case of a listed transaction,
$100,000 in the case of a natural person ($200,000 in any other case).
In some cases, this structure resulted in penalties that were
potentially disproportionate to the tax benefit derived from the
transaction. See ``Legislative Recommendations with Legislative Action:
Modify Internal Revenue Code Section 6707A to Ameliorate Unconscionable
Impact,'' National Taxpayer Advocate 2008 Annual Report to Congress
vol. 1, at 419. In response, Congress amended section 6707A(b) through
the Jobs Act. See Joint Committee on Taxation, General Explanation of
Tax Legislation Enacted in the 111th Congress (JCS-2-11), March 2011
(explaining the reasons for the change to section 6707A). The Jobs Act
amended section 6707A(b) to make the penalty 75 percent of the decrease
in tax shown on the return as a result of a reportable transaction,
with a minimum penalty amount of $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a
natural person). The maximum penalty amount is $200,000 ($100,000 in
the case of a natural person) for failure to disclose a listed
transaction, or $50,000 ($10,000 in the case of a natural person) for
failure to disclose any other reportable transaction. The 2010
amendment specifying the amount of the penalty applies to penalties
assessed after December 31, 2006. See Jobs Act Sec. 2041(b), 124 Stat.
at 2560. On September 7, 2011, final regulations (TD 9550) were
published in the Federal Register (76 FR 55256). The final regulations
in TD 9550 did not provide guidance on the amount of the penalty as
amended by the Jobs Act beyond reciting the language of section 6707A
because the notice of proposed rulemaking on which those final
regulations were based predated the Jobs Act. The proposed regulations
in this document provide guidance on the amount of the penalty under
section 6707A, as amended by the Jobs Act.
Explanation of Provisions
The following is a summary of the proposed changes to the existing
regulations relating to the penalties under section 6707A.
1. Definition of Return
Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.6011-4 establishes that a taxpayer whose
amended return or application for tentative refund reflects
participation in a reportable transaction has the same disclosure
obligation as a taxpayer whose original return reflects participation
in a reportable transaction. Treas. Reg. Sec. 301.6707A-1, published
on September 11, 2011, clarifies that a taxpayer's failure to disclose
participation in a reportable transaction will trigger a penalty under
section 6707A regardless of whether the participation is reflected on
an original return, an amended return, or an application for tentative
refund. In its current state, the regulation generally refers to
original returns, amended returns, and applications for tentative
refund in every case where all three terms are relevant. The proposed
regulations streamline these references by defining the term ``return''
to include all three. This change simplifies sentences throughout the
regulation without changing their meaning.
2. Amount of the Penalty
A. Decrease in Tax
Subject to certain minimum and maximum amounts, ``the amount of the
penalty under subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction
shall be 75 percent of the decrease in tax shown on the return as a
result of such transaction (or which would have resulted from such
transaction if such transaction were respected for Federal tax
purposes).'' Section 6707A(b)(1). The proposed regulations define this
decrease in tax generally as the difference between the amount of tax
reported on the return as filed and the amount of tax that would be
reported on a hypothetical return where the taxpayer did not
participate in the reportable transaction. The amount of tax shown on
the hypothetical return will reflect adjustments that result
mechanically from backing out the reportable transaction, such as tax
items affected by an increase in adjusted gross income resulting from
non-participation in the reportable transaction.
In some situations, a taxpayer's participation in a listed
transaction creates a liability for a tax that would not exist absent
participation in the transaction. For example, a taxpayer engaging in a
listed abusive Roth IRA transaction may be subject to an excise tax on
excess IRA contributions. If the taxpayer fails to report the excise
tax on his excess IRA contributions, this amount of tax would not
appear on the return filed by the taxpayer that reflected his
participation in the reportable transaction. The excise tax would also
not appear on a return filed by the taxpayer if he had not engaged in
the transaction, because there would be no excess contribution on which
excise tax would be imposed. Therefore, the difference between these
two returns would result in no decrease in tax attributable to the
unreported tax. To capture this tax, the proposed regulations include
in the definition of the decrease in tax ``any other tax that results
from participation in the reportable transaction but was not reported
on the taxpayer's return.'' Example 1 in Sec. 301.6707A-1(d)(2)
illustrates this rule.
B. Subsequently Identified Transactions
Listed transactions and transactions of interest are identified in
published guidance. See Sec. 1.6011-4(b)(2), (6). Once a listed
transaction or a transaction of interest is identified by published
guidance, a taxpayer has a reporting obligation if the taxpayer
participated in the transaction prior to the issuance of the guidance
and the statute of limitations for the year of the taxpayer's
participation remains open. See Sec. 1.6011-4(e)(2). Under Sec.
1.6011-4, the taxpayer may use a single disclosure statement to
disclose multiple years of participation in a reportable transaction.
Because the taxpayer in these cases is permitted to disclose multiple
years of participation on a single statement, the taxpayer's failure to
complete and submit the disclosure statement properly will result in no
more than one penalty under section 6707A. The
[[Page 52233]]
proposed regulations provide, however, that the amount of that penalty
will be determined by taking into account the aggregate decrease in tax
shown on all of the returns for which disclosure was not provided.
Accordingly, under the proposed regulations, the decrease in tax will
be determined separately for each year of participation for which only
a single disclosure statement was required and the amount of the
penalty will be 75 percent of the aggregate decrease in tax in all
years for which disclosure was required, subject to the minimum and
maximum penalty amount limitations.
C. Penalty Under Section 6707A(e) for Failure To Report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission
Section 6707A(e) generally requires certain taxpayers who must pay
penalties under sections 6707A, 6662A (accuracy-related penalty on
understatements with respect to reportable transactions), or 6662(h)
(accuracy-related penalty on underpayments attributable to gross
valuation misstatements) to disclose their liability for these
penalties in filings with the SEC. The flush language of section
6707A(e) provides that ``[f]ailure to make a disclosure in accordance
with the preceding sentence shall be treated as a failure to which the
penalty under subsection (b)(2) applies.'' However, as discussed in the
Background section of this preamble, subsection (b)(2) was amended in
2010. Prior to enactment of the Jobs Act, section 6707A(b)(2) provided
that the amount of the penalty for failure to disclose participation in
a listed transaction was $100,000 for natural persons and $200,000 in
any other case. After the 2010 amendments, section 6707A(b)(2) now
provides that ``[t]he amount of the penalty under subsection (a) with
respect to any reportable transaction shall not exceed-- (A) in the
case of a listed transaction, $200,000 ($100,000 in the case of a
natural person), or (B) in the case of any other reportable
transaction, $50,000 ($10,000 in the case of a natural person).''
Treasury and the Service do not believe that Congress intended its
reference to subsection (b)(2) to impose the maximum penalty on
violations of section 6707A(e). This would be contrary to the purpose
of the 2010 amendments to section 6707A, which sought to make the
penalty proportionate to the tax benefit derived by the transaction. A
reference solely to subsection (b)(2) does not make sense in terms of
describing the amount of the penalty, as subsection (b)(2) merely caps
the amount of the penalty that can be imposed on a failure to disclose
and does not provide a particular amount for the penalty. It seems
likely that the intent was to reference the amount of the penalty
generally under subsection (b). The proposed regulations clarify this
point.
In each case giving rise to an obligation to disclose liability in
filings with the SEC, there must be a reportable transaction for the
relevant penalty to arise. The amount of the penalty for a violation of
section 6707A(e), therefore, will be 75 percent of the decrease in tax,
as provided in section 6707A(b). In addition to being consistent with
the language of section 6707A(e), the proposed regulations are also
consistent with the Congressional intent of the 2010 amendments to
section 6707A to render proportionality between the amount of the
penalty and the tax benefit derived from the reportable transaction.
See JCS-2-11.
D. Minimum and Maximum Amount of the Penalty
Pursuant to section 6707A(b)(2), ``[t]he amount of the penalty
under subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction shall
not exceed'' certain specified dollar values. Likewise, under section
6707A(b)(3), ``[t]he amount of the penalty under subsection (a) with
respect to any transaction shall not be less than'' certain specified
dollar values. Under the proposed regulations, these minimum and
maximum limits on the amount of the penalty would be applied separately
to each individual penalty under section 6707A(a). The limitations in
sections 6707A(b)(2) and (3) apply expressly to ``[t]he amount of the
penalty under subsection (a).'' Because, as provided in Sec.
301.6707A-1(c), each separate failure to disclose a reportable
transaction gives rise to a new penalty under section 6707A(a), the
minimum and maximum limits on the amount of the penalty apply
separately to each failure to disclose.
Special Analyses
Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the
requirements of Executive Order 12866 of, as supplemented and
reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact
assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section
553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does
not apply to the proposed regulations. Because the proposed regulations
would not impose a collection of information on small entities, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply.
Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, this
notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its
impact on small businesses.
Comments and Requests for Public Hearing
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations,
consideration will be given to any written or electronic comments that
are submitted timely to the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS
request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. All
comments will be available for public inspection and copying at
www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled
if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written
comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time,
and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal
Register.
Drafting Information
The principal authors of the proposed regulations are Melissa
Henkel of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and
Administration) and Spence Hanemann, formerly of the Office of the
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income
taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Proposed Amendments to the Regulations
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 301--PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in
part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
0
Par. 2. Section 301.6707A-1 is amended by:
0
1. Adding paragraph (b)(3).
0
2. In paragraph (c)(1), removing the language ``(including an amended
return or application for tentative refund)'' in the fifth sentence.
0
3. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f),
and (g).
0
4. Adding new paragraph (d).
0
5. In newly designated paragraph (e), removing the language ``(d)''
wherever it appears and adding ``(e)'' in its place.
0
6. In newly designated paragraph (e)(3)(i), removing the language
[[Page 52234]]
``(including an amended return or application for tentative refund)''
wherever it appears.
0
7. In newly designated paragraph (f), removing the language ``(e)''
wherever it appears and adding ``(f)'' in its place.
0
8. Revising newly designated paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 301.6707A-1. Failure to include on any return or statement any
information required to be disclosed under section 6011 with respect to
a reportable transaction.--
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Return. For purposes of this section, the term ``return'' means
an original return, amended return, or application for tentative
refund, except where otherwise indicated. As used in examples, the term
``return'' means an original return, except where otherwise indicated.
* * * * *
(d) Calculation of the penalty. (1) Decrease in tax--(i) In
general. As used in this section, the phrase ``decrease in tax shown on
the return as a result of the transaction or the decrease that would
have resulted from the transaction if it were respected for Federal tax
purposes'' means the sum of (A) the excess of the amount of the tax
that would be shown on the return if the return did not reflect the
taxpayer's participation in the reportable transaction over the tax
actually reported on the return reflecting participation in the
reportable transaction and (B) any other tax that results from
participation in the reportable transaction but was not reported on the
taxpayer's return. The amount of tax that would be shown on the return
if it did not reflect the taxpayer's participation in the reportable
transaction includes adjustments that result mechanically from backing
out the reportable transaction, such as tax items affected by an
increase in adjusted gross income resulting from not participating in
the transaction. Under this rule, it makes no difference whether a
taxpayer's tax liability is ultimately settled with the IRS for a
different amount or whether the taxpayer subsequently reports a
different amount of tax on an amended return, because these amounts do
not enter into the calculation of the decrease in tax shown on the
return (or returns) to which the penalty relates.
(ii) Subsequently identified transactions. If the taxpayer fails to
file a complete and proper disclosure statement required by Sec.
1.6011-4(e)(2)(i) disclosing participation in a listed transaction or
transaction of interest with respect to more than one return, the
amount of the penalty will be computed by aggregating the decrease in
tax shown on each return for which the required disclosure was not
provided.
(iii) Penalty for failure to report to the SEC. In the case of a
penalty imposed under section 6707A(e) for failure to disclose
liability for certain penalties in reports to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the amount of the penalty will be determined under
section 6707A(b) and this paragraph (d), regardless of whether the
penalty that the taxpayer failed to disclose is imposed under section
6707A, 6662A, or 6662(h).
(iv) Minimum and maximum amount of the penalty. The limitations on
the minimum and maximum penalty amounts described in paragraph (a) of
this section apply separately to each failure to disclose that is
subject to a penalty.
(2) No tax required to be shown on return. For returns with respect
to which disclosure is required but on which no tax is required to be
shown (for example, returns of passthrough entities), the minimum
penalty amount will be imposed for failures to disclose.
(3) Examples. The rules in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this
section are illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. Taxpayer X, a natural person, filed a return
reflecting participation in an abusive Roth IRA transaction listed
in Notice 2004-8, 2004-1 I.R.B. 333 (Jan. 26, 2004). As described in
the notice, X's Roth IRA acquired shares of a wholly owned
corporation and then X sold assets to the corporation at less than
fair market value, effectively transferring value to the corporation
comparable to a contribution to the Roth IRA. X failed to disclose
his participation in the listed transaction as required by the
regulations under section 6011. As a result of the transaction, X
was liable under section 4973 for a $10,000 excise tax for excess
contributions to his Roth IRA. On his return, X correctly reported
$25,000 of income tax, none of which was attributable to the listed
transaction, but failed to report the excise tax. If X had not
participated in the listed transaction, the excise tax under section
4973 would not have applied and his income tax would have remained
$25,000. There would, therefore, be no difference between the tax on
his return as filed and the tax on his return if it did not reflect
participation in the transaction. The excise tax, however, is
another tax that resulted from participation in the transaction but
was not reported on X's return, as described in paragraph
(d)(1)(i)(B) of this section. Therefore, the decrease in tax
resulting from the listed transaction is $10,000, which amount is
the sum of zero (the excess of the amount of tax that would be shown
on X's return if the return did not reflect X's participation in the
transaction over the tax X actually reported on the return
reflecting X's participation in the transaction) and $10,000 (the
amount of excise tax that resulted from participation in the
transaction but was not reported on the return). The amount of the
penalty will be $7,500, which amount is 75 percent of the $10,000
decrease in tax.
Example 2. Taxpayer X participated in a listed transaction that
resulted in a $40,000 decrease in the tax shown on its return. X
failed to disclose its participation and is, therefore, subject to a
penalty under section 6707A. After weighing litigating hazards and
other costs of litigation, the IRS Office of Appeals agreed to
settle X's deficiency for $20,000. For purposes of calculating the
amount of the penalty, the settlement does not affect the decrease
in tax shown on X's return as a result of the listed transaction,
which remains $40,000. The amount of X's penalty will be $30,000,
which amount is 75 percent of the $40,000 decrease in tax.
Example 3. Taxpayer X, a natural person, participated in a
nonlisted reportable transaction and, because he failed to disclose
his participation, is subject to a penalty under section 6707A.
After offsetting gross income with the losses generated in the
reportable transaction, X's return reported adjusted gross income of
$100,000. The return also reported $12,000 of medical expenses,
$2,000 of which were deductible after applying the 10 percent floor
in section 213(a). If X's return had not reflected participation in
the reportable transaction, his adjusted gross income would have
been $140,000. The decrease in tax shown on X's return as a result
of the transaction would take into account both the tax on the
$40,000 difference in adjusted gross income and the tax on the
$2,000 adjustment to X's deductible medical expenses under section
213(a) caused by the increase in adjusted gross income.
Example 4. Taxpayer X, a natural person, timely filed his 2014
return and reported income tax of $40,000. X did not participate in
a reportable transaction in 2014. X participated in a listed
transaction in 2015, but failed to file a complete and proper
disclosure statement with his 2015 return as required by the
regulations under section 6011. As filed, the 2015 return reports
that X owes no tax and has a loss of $10,000. If the tax
consequences of the listed transaction were not reflected on the
2015 return, the return would show income tax of $15,000 and no
loss. X files an amended return for his 2014 tax year on which its
only amendment is to carry back the $10,000 loss reported on its
2015 tax return to the 2014 tax year, which decreases X's tax
liability for 2014 by $3,000. X fails to file a complete and proper
disclosure statement with the 2014 amended return as required by the
regulations under section 6011. X will be assessed two penalties
under section 6707A: one for his failure to disclose participation
in a listed transaction reflected on his 2015 tax return and another
for his failure to disclose participation in the same listed
transaction reflected on his 2014 amended return. The decrease in
tax on the 2015 tax return resulting from the listed transaction is
$15,000, which amount is the excess of the
[[Page 52235]]
amount of tax that would be shown on X's return if the return did
not reflect X's participation in the transaction over the tax X
actually reported on the return reflecting X's participation in the
transaction. The amount of the penalty with respect to the 2015 tax
return is $11,250, which amount is 75 percent of the decrease in
tax. The decrease in tax on the 2014 amended return that results
from the listed transaction is $3,000, which is the excess of the
amount of tax that would be shown on X's return if the return did
not reflect X's participation in the transaction over the tax X
actually reported on the return reflecting X's participation in the
transaction. See Sec. 301.6707A-1(c). Because X is a natural
person, the amount of the penalty with respect to the 2014 amended
return is $5,000, which is the minimum penalty under Sec.
301.6707A-1(a) and section 6707A(b)(3).
Example 5. Taxpayer X, a corporation, timely files its 2012 and
2013 tax returns, each of which reflects participation in the same
transaction. In 2015, the transaction becomes a listed transaction
and X fails to file a complete and proper disclosure statement as
required by the regulations under section 6011. X was required to
file a single disclosure statement reflecting its participation in
the listed transaction for all years which had open periods of
limitation on assessment at the time the transaction became listed.
When the transaction at issue became listed, the periods of
assessment on X's 2012 and 2013 tax years were open. Pursuant to
paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, the amount of the penalty for
X's single failure to disclose its participation in the transaction
in 2012 and 2013 is computed by aggregating the decrease in tax
shown on the 2012 return and the decrease in tax shown on the 2013
return. The decreases in tax shown on the returns as a result of X's
participation in the transaction are $265,000 in tax year 2012 and
$7,000 in tax year 2013. The total decrease in tax shown on both
returns is $272,000, and 75 percent of that amount is $204,000.
Because X is a corporation, the amount of the penalty will be
limited to the maximum amount of $200,000 under Sec. 301.6707A-1(a)
and section 6707A(b)(2)(A).
Example 6. The 2014 return of Taxpayer X, a natural person,
reflects participation in a nonlisted reportable transaction, but X
fails to file a complete and proper disclosure statement as required
by the regulations under section 6011. The decrease in tax shown on
X's 2014 return as a result of participation in the reportable
transaction is $20,000. X subsequently files an amended 2014 return
to include a net operating loss carried forward from a prior year,
which X inadvertently failed to include when he filed his original
return. The amended return reflects participation in the same
reportable transaction, but X again fails to file a complete and
proper disclosure statement. The decrease in tax shown on the
amended 2014 return as a result of participation in the transaction
is also $20,000. X is subject to two separate penalties: one for
each failure to disclose. Seventy-five percent of the $20,000
decrease in tax shown on each of the original 2014 return and the
amended 2014 return is $15,000 for each return. Because X is a
natural person, the amount of the penalty for failure to disclose
with respect to the original return will be limited to the maximum
amount of $10,000 under Sec. 301.6707A-1(a) and section
6707A(b)(2)(B). The amount of the penalty for failure to disclose
with respect to the amended return will also be limited to the
maximum amount of $10,000.
Example 7. Partnership M is required to attach Form 8886,
Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement, to its Form 1065, U.S.
Return of Partnership Income, for the 2014 taxable year. It fails to
do so and is, therefore, subject to a penalty under section 6707A.
The amount of the penalty will be the minimum penalty of $10,000
under Sec. 301.6707A-1(a) and section 6707A(b)(3) because Form 1065
is a return that does not show an amount of tax that would be
decreased as a result of participation in the reportable
transaction. The partners of Partnership M may have separate
disclosure obligations as required by the regulations under section
6011 and would be subject to separate section 6707A penalties if
they fail to comply with the disclosure requirements.
Example 8. In tax year 2014, Taxpayer X participated in a
listed transaction that resulted in a $150,000 deduction. X's gross
income for 2014 before the listed transaction deduction is $100,000.
X uses $100,000 of the deduction to offset $100,000 of gross income
and reports tax of zero for 2014. X also has a $50,000 net operating
loss for 2014. X timely elects to waive the carryback period and
carry over the 2014 net operating loss to tax year 2015. X's gross
income for tax year 2015 is $200,000 but as a result of the $50,000
net operating loss carryover, X reports $150,000 adjusted gross
income. Pursuant to Sec. 1.6011-4, X is required to disclose
participation in the listed transaction for both 2014 and 2015, but
X fails to make the required disclosures and is therefore subject to
the section 6707A penalty for each failure. The decrease in tax on
the 2014 return is the amount of tax on $100,000 because that is the
difference between the amount of tax that would have been shown on
the return if it did not reflect participation in the reportable
transaction and the tax actually reported. No other tax resulted
from X's participation in the listed transaction. The amount of the
penalty with respect to X's failure to disclose with respect to 2014
will be 75 percent of the decrease in tax. The decrease in tax on
the 2015 return is the difference between the tax shown on the
return as filed and the tax that would be shown if the $50,000 net
operating loss was not used, including any changes to the amount of
tax that are only indirectly connected with the listed transaction.
The amount of the penalty with respect to X's failure to disclose
with respect to 2015 will be 75 percent of the decrease in tax.
Example 9. In tax year 2014, Taxpayer X, a natural person,
participated in a listed transaction that resulted in a $50,000
deduction. X's gross income for 2014 before the listed transaction
deduction is $100,000. X also has a net operating loss carryover of
$150,000 from 2013. X uses the deduction of $50,000 and a portion of
the net operating loss carryover to offset $100,000 of gross income
and reports adjusted gross income of zero for 2014. X carries over
the remaining net operating loss to tax year 2015. X's gross income
for 2015 is $250,000, but as a result of the net operating loss
carryover, X reports reduced adjusted gross income of $150,000.
Pursuant to Sec. 1.6011-4, X is required to disclose participation
in the listed transaction for both 2014 and 2015, but X fails to
make the required disclosures and is subject to the section 6707A
penalty for each failure. The decrease in tax on the 2014 return
that results from the reportable transaction is zero. Because X has
$150,000 of a net operating loss carryover not attributable to the
reportable transaction, X's tax without the benefits of the
reportable transaction is the same as the tax shown on the 2014
return as filed. Because X is a natural person, the minimum penalty
of $5,000 under Sec. 301.6707A-1(a) and section 6707A(b)(3) will
apply for the failure to disclose the listed transaction with the
2014 return. The decrease in tax on the 2015 return is the
difference between the tax shown on the return as filed and the tax
that would be shown if X had only $50,000 of net operating loss to
carry over to 2015 (i.e., if X had not offset $50,000 of its 2014
gross income with the deduction resulting from the reportable
transaction and thus had used $100,000 of its net operating loss
carryover in 2014), including any changes to the amount of tax that
are only indirectly connected with the listed transaction. The
amount of the penalty with respect to the disclosure relating to
2015 will be 75 percent of this decrease in tax.
Example 10. In tax year 2014, Taxpayer X, a corporation,
engaged in a nonlisted reportable transaction and is subject to a
penalty under section 6662A because its 2014 return resulted in a
reportable transaction understatement. As a result of X's
involvement in the transaction, it reported tax of $10,000 for 2014;
if X had not engaged in the transaction, it would have reported tax
of $200,000. X disclosed its involvement in the transaction as
required by the regulations under section 6011, and thus was not
subject to a penalty under section 6707A(a). As a person who is
required to file periodic reports under section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, however, X was also required,
pursuant to section 6707A(e), to disclose the penalty imposed under
section 6662A to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which X
failed to do. X's failure to disclose the section 6662A penalty is
treated as a failure to disclose to which section 6707A(b) applies.
Thus, X will be subject to a penalty under section 6707A(e), which
will equal 75 percent of the decrease in tax resulting from the
transaction. The decrease in tax resulting from the nonlisted
reportable transaction was $190,000, 75 percent of which is
$142,500. Because X is a corporation, the amount of the penalty will
be limited to $50,000 under Sec. 301.6707A-1(a) and section
6707A(b)(2)(B).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) This section applies to penalties assessed after the date that
these regulations are published as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
[[Page 52236]]
(2) For penalties assessed before the date that these regulations
are published as final regulations in the Federal Register, Sec.
301.6707A-1 (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2013) shall
apply.
John M. Dalrymple,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015-21259 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P