DocketNumber: Nos. 7140-06, 7222-06
Citation Numbers: 2008 T.C. Memo. 233, 96 T.C.M. 245, 2008 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 231
Judges: \"Gerber, Joel\"
Filed Date: 10/21/2008
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GERBER,
Respondent disagrees, *232 contending that he is in compliance with the PRA and that the additions to tax and interest may be assessed. Respondent also contends that this Court is without jurisdiction to consider whether respondent may assess interest, 1 irrespective of whether there was compliance with the PRA.
Congress enacted the PRA to limit, as much as practical, Federal agencies' information requests that burden the public. See
To the extent pertinent to these cases, the PRA was enacted with the express purposes of: (1) Minimizing the paperwork burden; (2) ensuring public benefit from information collected, maintained, used, shared and disseminated by or for the Federal Government; (3) coordinating and making uniform Federal information resources management policies and practices and (4) improving the responsibility and accountability of the OMB*233 and all other Federal agencies to Congress and to the public for implementing the information collection review process, information resources management, and related policies and guidelines. See
In order to accomplish those goals, Congress provided detailed requirements for governmental organizations to follow. Petitioners contend that respondent failed to comply with the PRA in two ways.
First, petitioners argue that the PRA control number on the Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, was not valid. The "public protection" provision of (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with collection of information that is subject to this subchapter [ (1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter [ (2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such *234 person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number. (b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
Each Form 1040 contains a control number, and the accompanying instructions inform taxpayers that they are not required to respond to the collection of information unless the form displays a valid control number. Petitioners contend that respondent's Form 1040 for the years in question did not contain a valid control number. Petitioners acknowledge that the Form 1040 does contain a control number (OMB No. 1545-0074), but they argue that the control number expires at the end of the taxable year displayed on the form.
Petitioners' reasoning is somewhat convoluted in that they argue, for example, that the Form 1040 has a control number for 1999, but that the control number expires on December 31, 1999, before the form is used in 2000 (typically on or before April 15, 2000) to report income for 1999. Under petitioners' interpretation, respondent would face the conundrum of never being *235 able to have a valid control number, because the form must be prepared, printed, and distributed prior to filing time, which begins January 1st each year. Accordingly, we find petitioners' initial argument to be sophistry and without merit. The Forms 1040 contain a control number that has been provided and displayed in accord with the PRA.
In a recent opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided that the Form 1040 is an information collection request and that it displays a valid control number, even though it is the same number each year, because the agency periodically updates the control number requirements.
In further support of their argument, petitioners reference
To the extent pertinent to this case, (c) With respect to the collection of information and the control of paperwork, each agency shall -- (1) establish a process within the office headed by the Chief Information Officer designated under subsection (a), that is sufficiently independent of program responsibility to evaluate fairly whether proposed collections of information should be approved under this subchapter [ * * * * (B) ensure that each information collection -- (i) is inventoried, displays a control number and, if appropriate, an expiration date; (ii) indicates the collection is in accordance with the clearance requirements of (iii) informs the person receiving the collection of information of -- (I) the reasons the information is being collected; (II) the way such information is to be used; (III) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the burden of the *237 collection; (IV) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory; and (V) the fact that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number; * * *
Petitioners contend that respondent failed to include the "3507 statement", which makes respondent's control number invalid and/or precludes respondent from assessing any penalty in accord with
Failure to make the "3507 statement" is not one of the things that would prohibit *238 assessment of a penalty under
Petitioners also referenced other requirements of
Petitioners contend that a substantial body of case law supports their position that respondent may not assess the additions to tax and interest, but none of the cases advanced, either directly or by analogy, supports their position. First, they point out that several Federal courts have held that the Form 1040 is subject to the PRA. There is no doubt Form 1040 is subject to the PRA, and, indeed, respondent has obtained a control number and provided required information in the instructions for the form.
Petitioners then discuss, without reaching any conclusion, that various Courts of Appeals have differing views about whether the requirement to file a return is statutory, regulatory, or some combination thereof. 2*240 That distinction takes on some importance because the collection of information by a government agency pursuant to statute is not subject to the requirements of the PRA. It is only the collection pursuant to the agency's regulations that is subject to the PRA.
In a 1993 opinion, this Court held against taxpayers with substantially similar circumstances to petitioners here, using the following rationale: In general, the PRA requires Federal agencies requesting information from the public to obtain approval from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all "information collection requests" and that an OMB control number be displayed on the information request. A number of courts have addressed petitioner's argument and have held that the PRA does not apply to either Federal income tax regulations or to the instructions accompanying Federal tax forms because such documents are not information collection requests; rather, they are designed to help taxpayers complete tax forms and more easily comply with information collection requests. See [
There is no need to further analyze the many nuances expressed in the numerous cases on this topic. Suffice it to note that none of them support petitioners' view that the control number expires and/or that failure to comply with a requirement of
Petitioners' final argument focuses upon
The context of these cases is one where the parties agree on the facts and have submitted the cases fully stipulated solely to decide the legal *244 controversy over whether the PRA applies to prohibit respondent from assessing the additions to tax and/or interest. Under such circumstances, the burden of proof is of little or no consequence, because we decide, based on agreed facts, a legal question. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to address petitioners' contentions with respect to
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Because we decide that there are no prohibitions on respondent, it is unnecessary to decide whether we have jurisdiction over the assessment of interest, as contended by respondent.↩
2. Petitioners spend a good deal of their brief arguing why they disagree with the Court statements made by a different Judge of this Court in an earlier hearing in their case. Because that Judge did not issue an opinion, we feel no compulsion to address petitioners' arguments in this opinion. The presentation of this case under
3. Because we have decided that respondent is not prohibited from making an assessment in these cases, there is no need to consider whether
Lewis v. Commissioner , 523 F.3d 1272 ( 2008 )
United States v. Donald W. Dawes and Phyllis C. Dawes , 951 F.2d 1189 ( 1991 )
United States v. Erwin R. Wunder , 919 F.2d 34 ( 1990 )
United States v. Ted A. Neff , 954 F.2d 698 ( 1992 )
Robert A. Salberg v. United States , 969 F.2d 379 ( 1992 )
United States v. William P. Holden, Jr. , 963 F.2d 1114 ( 1992 )
United States v. Robert W. Hicks , 947 F.2d 1356 ( 1991 )
Dole v. United Steelworkers , 110 S. Ct. 929 ( 1990 )