§6682 — False information with respect to withholding
12 cases·4 followed·8 cited—33% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §6682
In addition to any criminal penalty provided by law, if—
any individual makes a statement under section 3402 or section 3406 which results in a decrease in the amounts deducted and withheld under chapter 24, and
as of the time such statement was made, there was no reasonable basis for such statement,
such individual shall pay a penalty of $500 for such statement.
The Secretary may waive (in whole or in part) the penalty imposed under subsection (a) if the taxes imposed with respect to the individual under subtitle A for the taxable year are equal to or less than the sum of—
the credits against such taxes allowed by part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, and
the payments of estimated tax which are considered payments on account of such taxes.
Subchapter B of chapter 63 (relating to deficiency procedures for income, estate, gift, and certain excise taxes) shall not apply in respect to the assessment or collection of any penalty imposed by subsection (a).
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.6682-1 False information with respect to withholding allowances based on itemized deductions
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §31.6682-1 False information with respect to withholding
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §31.6682-1(a) Civil penalty.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §31.6682-1(b) Deficiency procedures not to apply.
12 Citing Cases
We hold he is subject to tax; (2) whether Karen Lizalek is taxable on half o f petitioner's income as community property .
The record reflects that the civil penalty notice is based on the assessment of a penalty against petitioner pursuant to section 6682.
determination to proceed with collection of penalties under section 6682 for 2002 and under section 6702 for 1.997-2001.
ity to the Appeals Office; therefore, the un- derlying excise tax liability cannot be raised in the hearing[.]"); Adams v. United States, 2002-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) para. 50,295 (D. Nev. 2002) (holding sim- ilarly in the case ofa civil penalty under sec. 6682). 5Because petitioner requested a CDP hearing nine months after the IRS Ap- peals Office completed its review ofhis protest and notified him ofits conclusion upholding the sec. 6707A penalties, he errs in relying on Perkins v. Commissioner,
ning Collection Action(s)under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice ofdetermination) upholding collection actions regardingthe following deficiencies and penalties for tax years 1998 and 2000-2008: SERVED JAN 1 3 2014 - 2 - [*2] Penalty Year Deficiency Sec. 6682 Sec. 6702 1998 $9,345 -- -- 2000 8,770 -- -- 2001 1,760 $500 $500 2002 31,296 --- -- 2003 9,272 -- -- 2004 74,235 -- -- 2005 6,829 --- -- 2006 11,172 --- -- 2007 6,745 -- -- 2008 5,714 -- --- Unless otherwise indicated, all section reference
ent are literal transcripts and computer generated transcripts (TAXMODA) of 2 On Sept. 6, 2002, we dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the portions of the petition that related to the sec. 6702 frivolous return penalties for 1996 through 1999 and the sec. 6682 false withholding information penalty for 2000. - 6 - petitioner’s accounts for 1996, 1997, and 1998. On November 8, 2002, the Court ordered petitioner to file a response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment on or before December 9,
After the petition was filed, respondent moved to dismiss the section 6682 penalty for lack of this Court’s jurisdiction.
1994-586 n.3 (section 6682 penalty); Hintz v.