The Tax Times: The 11th Circuit’s Opinion in Battat v. Comm'r Offers Important Lessons For Tax Practitioners Facing IRS Penalties.

The Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in Battat v. Commissioner offers important lessons for tax practitioners facing IRS penalties and constitutional challenges to the Tax Court structure. This case stands at the intersection of two hotly litigated issues: supervisory approval of penalties under IRC § 6751(b), and the ongoing attack on the constitutionality of Tax Court judges’ job protections.

Background

Stanley and Zmira Battat petitioned the Tax Court to contest a determination that they owed approximately $2 million in back taxes and penalties for tax year 2008. The IRS had assessed over $1.7 million in unpaid taxes, $82,000 in late-filing penalties, and more than $344,000 in accuracy-related penalties.

The Battats challenged both the process and the authority under which these penalties were imposed. They argued that the IRS examiner’s supervisor had not approved the initial penalty determination in accordance with IRC § 6751(b), and pressed a constitutional claim that the statutory protections against at-will removal for Tax Court judges violate the separation of powers.

Supervisory Approval of Penalties: The § 6751(b) Dispute

A central issue was whether the IRS satisfied the requirement that a supervisor approve the “initial determination” of penalty assessment. The examiner’s supervisor did not sign the first formal letter issued to the Battats. However, before issuing the notice of deficiency, a different IRS manager signed both a civil penalty approval form and a related letter.

The Tax Court initially sided with the taxpayers, finding that § 6751(b) required the supervisor’s signature on the original penalty communication. But, the Eleventh Circuit relied on its earlier opinion in Kroner and concluded that the statute only requires written supervisory approval any time before the penalty is assessed, not specifically before the first notice is sent to the taxpayer. Since the IRS obtained that approval before assessment, the court affirmed the penalty.

Constitutional Challenge to Tax Court Judges' Protections

The Battats also launched a broad attack on the constitutionality of Tax Court judges’ removal protections, arguing these violate the President’s Article II executive authority and separation of powers principles. Here, too, they met a dead end. The Eleventh Circuit declined to upend longstanding precedent, holding that the statutory protections are constitutional and the Battats had not demonstrated any harm arising from the judge protections in their case.

Practical Implications

Battat reinforces the Eleventh Circuit’s taxpayer-adverse approach on two key fronts:

· Supervisory approval of IRS penalties is valid so long as it occurs before assessment, even if not in the initial penalty determination letter.

· Attacks on Tax Court judicial independence under separation of powers and Article II face a formidable barrier in current Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Tax professionals should take note that the procedural timing of managerial signatures is not enough to invalidate IRS penalties—substantive compliance before assessment remains the rule. Likewise, constitutional challenges to the Tax Court judiciary are unlikely to succeed without a different approach or new precedent.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?