(a) Approval requirement—(1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, section 6751(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) generally bars the assessment of a penalty unless the initial determination of the assessment of the penalty is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making the initial determination or such higher level official as the Secretary of the Treasury or her delegate may designate. Paragraph (a)(2) of this section lists penalties not subject to section 6751(b)(1) and this paragraph (a)(1). Paragraph (a)(3) of this section provides definitions of terms used in section 6751(b) and this section. Paragraph (a)(4) of this section designates the higher level officials described in this paragraph (a)(1). Paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section apply section 6751(b)(1) and this paragraph (a)(1) to penalties not subject to pre-assessment review in the United States Tax Court (Tax Court), penalties that are subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court, and penalties raised in the Tax Court after a petition is filed, respectively. Paragraph (e) of this section provides examples illustrating the application of section 6751(b) and this section. Paragraph (f) of this section provides dates of applicability of this section.

(2) Exceptions. Under section 6751(b)(2), section 6751(b)(1) and this section do not apply to:

(i) Any penalty under section 6651, 6654, 6655, 6673, 6662(b)(9), or 6662(b)(10) of the Code; or

(ii) Any other penalty automatically calculated through electronic means.

(3) Definitions. For purposes of section 6751(b) and this section, the following definitions apply—

(i) Penalty. The term penalty means any penalty, addition to tax, or additional amount under the Code.

(ii) Individual who first proposed the penalty. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (a)(3)(ii), the individual who first proposed the penalty is the individual who section 6751(b)(1) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section reference as the individual making the initial determination of a penalty assessment. For purposes of this section, a proposal of a penalty can be made only to either a taxpayer (or the taxpayer's representative) or to the individual's supervisor or designated higher level official. A proposal of a penalty, as defined in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, to a taxpayer does not include mere requests for information relating to a possible penalty or inquiries of whether a taxpayer wants to participate in a general settlement initiative for which the taxpayer may be eligible, but does include offering the taxpayer an opportunity to agree to a particular penalty in a particular amount other than a penalty under a settlement initiative offered to a class of taxpayers. An individual who first proposed the penalty is not the individual whom section 6751(b)(1) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section reference as the individual making the initial determination of a penalty assessment if the assessment of the penalty is attributable to an independent proposal made by a different individual.

(iii) Immediate supervisor. The term immediate supervisor means any individual with responsibility to review another individual's proposal of penalties, as defined in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, without the proposal being subject to an intermediary's approval.

(iv) Higher level official. The term higher level official means any person designated under paragraph (a)(4) of this section as a higher level official authorized to approve a penalty for purposes of section 6751(b)(1).

(v) Personally approved (in writing). The term personally approved (in writing) means any writing, including in electronic form, made by the writer to signify the writer's assent. No signature or particular words are required so long as the circumstances of the writing reflect that it was intended as approval.

(vi) Automatically calculated through electronic means. A penalty, as defined in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, is automatically calculated through electronic means if an IRS computer program automatically generates a notice to the taxpayer that proposes the penalty. If a taxpayer responds in writing or otherwise to the automatically-generated notice and challenges the proposed penalty, or the amount of tax to which the proposed penalty is attributable, and an IRS employee considers the response prior to assessment (or the issuance of a notice of deficiency that includes the penalty), then the penalty is no longer considered “automatically calculated through electronic means.”

(4) Higher level official. Any person who has been directed by the Internal Revenue Manual or other assigned job duties to approve another individual's proposal of penalties before they are included in a pre-assessment notice prerequisite to Tax Court jurisdiction, an answer, amended answer, or amendment to the answer to a Tax Court petition, or are assessed without need for such inclusion, is designated as a higher level official authorized to approve the penalty for purposes of section 6751(b)(1).

(b) Penalties not subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court. The requirements of section 6751(b)(1) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section are satisfied for a penalty that is not subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court if the immediate supervisor of the individual who first proposed the penalty personally approves the penalty in writing before the penalty is assessed. Alternatively, a person designated as a higher level official as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section may provide the approval otherwise required by the immediate supervisor.

(c) Penalties subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court. The requirements of section 6751(b)(1) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section are satisfied for a penalty that is included in a pre-assessment notice that provides a basis for Tax Court jurisdiction upon timely petition if the immediate supervisor of the individual who first proposed the penalty personally approves the penalty in writing on or before the date the notice is mailed. Alternatively, a person designated as a higher level official as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section may provide the approval otherwise required by the immediate supervisor. Examples of a pre-assessment notice described in this paragraph (c) include a statutory notice of deficiency under section 6212 of the Code, a notice of final partnership administrative adjustment under former section 6223 of the Code, and a notice of final partnership adjustment under section 6231 of the Code.

(d) Penalties raised in the Tax Court after a petition. The requirements of section 6751(b)(1) and paragraph (a)(1) of this section are satisfied for a penalty that the Commissioner raises in the Tax Court after a petition (see section 6214(a) of the Code) if the immediate supervisor of the individual who first proposed the penalty personally approves the penalty in writing no later than the date on which the Commissioner requests that the court determine the penalty. Alternatively, a person designated as a higher level official as described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section may provide the approval otherwise required by the immediate supervisor.

(e) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules of this section.

(1) Example 1. In the course of an audit regarding a penalty not subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court, Revenue Agent A concludes that Taxpayer T should be subject to the penalty under section 6707A of the Code for failure to disclose a reportable transaction. Revenue Agent A sends T a letter giving T the option to agree to the penalty; submit additional information to A about why the penalty should not apply; or request within 30 days that the matter be sent to the Independent Office of Appeals (Appeals) for consideration. After T requests that Appeals consider the case, A prepares the file for transmission, and B (who is A's immediate supervisor, as defined in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section) signs a cover memorandum informing Appeals of the proposed penalty and asks Appeals to consider it. The Appeals Officer upholds the penalty, and it is assessed. The requirements of section 6751(b)(1) are satisfied because B's signature on the cover memorandum is B's personal written assent to the penalty proposed by A and was given before the penalty was assessed.

(2) Example 2. In the course of an audit, Revenue Agent A concludes that Taxpayer T should be subject to an accuracy-related penalty for substantial understatement of income tax under section 6662(b)(2). Revenue Agent A sends T a Letter 915, Examination Report Transmittal, along with an examination report that includes the penalty. The Letter 915 gives T the option to agree to the examination report; provide additional information to be considered; discuss the report with A or B (who is A's immediate supervisor, as defined in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section); or request a conference with an Appeals Officer. T agrees to assessment of the penalty and signs the examination report to consent to the immediate assessment and collection of the amounts shown on the report. B provides written supervisory approval of the penalty after T signs the examination report, but before the penalty is assessed. Paragraph (b) of this section applies because T's agreement to assessment of the penalty excepts it from pre-assessment review in the Tax Court. Because B provided written supervisory approval before assessment of the penalty, the requirements of section 6751(b)(1) are satisfied.

(3) Example 3. In the course of an audit of Taxpayer T by a team of revenue agents, Revenue Agent A concludes that T should be subject to an accuracy-related penalty for negligence under section 6662(b)(1) and (c). Supervisor B is the issue manager and is assigned the duty to review the Notice of Proposed Adjustment for any penalty A would propose. Revenue Agent A reports to B, but B is not responsible for the overall management of the audit of T. C is the case manager of the team auditing T and is responsible for the overall management of the audit of T. C may assign tasks to A and other team members, and has responsibility for approving any examination report presented to T.

(i) Alternative Outcome 1: Only B approves the penalty in writing before the mailing to T of a notice of deficiency that includes the penalty. Under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section, B qualifies as the immediate supervisor of A with respect to A's penalty proposal, and the requirements of section 6751(b)(1) are met.

(ii) Alternative Outcome 2: Only C approves the penalty in writing before the mailing to T of a notice of deficiency that includes the penalty. Because C has responsibility to approve A's proposal of the penalty as part of approving the examination report, C qualifies as a higher level official designated under paragraph (a)(4) of this section to approve the penalty proposed by A, and the requirements of section 6751(b)(1) are met.

(4) Example 4. In the course of an audit, Revenue Agent A concludes that Taxpayer T should be subject to a penalty for negligence under section 6662(c). Revenue Agent A recommends the penalty to her immediate supervisor B, who thinks more factual development is needed to support the penalty but must close the audit immediately due to the limitations period on assessment expiring soon. The IRS issues a statutory notice of deficiency without the penalty and T files a petition in the Tax Court. In reviewing the case file and conducting discovery, IRS Chief Counsel Attorney C concludes that the facts support imposing a negligence penalty under section 6662(c). Attorney C proposes to her immediate supervisor, D, that the penalty should apply and should be raised in an Answer pursuant to section 6214(a). D agrees and signs the Answer that includes the penalty before it is filed. The section 6662(c) penalty at issue is subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court and was raised in the Tax Court after a petition was filed under paragraph (d) of this section. Therefore, written supervisory approval under paragraph (d) of this section was required prior to filing the written pleading that includes the penalty. Attorney C is the individual who first proposed the penalty for purposes of section 6751(b)(1) and paragraphs (d) and (a)(3)(ii) of this section, and she secured timely written supervisory approval from D, the immediate supervisor, as defined in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section. As a result, the requirements of section 6751(b)(1) are met. Revenue Agent A did not make the initial determination of the penalty assessment because any assessment would not be attributable to A's proposal but would be based on the independent proposal of Attorney C raised pursuant to section 6214(a).

(5) Example 5. In the course of an audit, Revenue Agent A concludes that Taxpayer T should be subject to a penalty for negligence under section 6662(c). Revenue Agent A includes the penalty in a draft report that she sends for review to her immediate supervisor B. B reviews A's recommendation and notices that A did not consider whether a penalty for a substantial understatement of income tax under section 6662(d) should apply in the alternative. B sends an email to A telling her to “add a section 6662(d) penalty if the math checks out.” Revenue Agent A reviews the facts, determines that the imposition of the section 6662(d) penalty is warranted, and adds the penalty to a report she issues to the taxpayer. Revenue Agent A is the individual who first proposed both of the penalties for purposes of section 6751(b)(1) and paragraphs (d) and (a)(3)(ii) of this section because she is the individual who first proposed the penalty to the taxpayer. Supervisor B did not make the initial determination of the section 6662(d) penalty because, even though she first thought of and suggested it, she did not propose it to the taxpayer or her supervisor (or designated higher level official).

(6) Example 6. The IRS's Automated Underreporter (AUR) computer program detects a discrepancy between the information received from a third party and the information contained on Taxpayer T's return. AUR automatically generates a CP2000, Notice of Underreported Income, that includes an adjustment based on the unreported income and a proposed penalty under section 6662(d) that is mailed to T. The CP2000 gives T 30 days to respond to contest the proposed adjustments and the penalty. T submits a response to the CP2000, asking only for more time to respond. More time is granted but no further response is received from T, and a statutory notice of deficiency that includes the adjustments and the penalty is automatically generated and issued to T. The section 6662(d) penalty at issue is automatically calculated through electronic means under paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(3)(vi) of this section. The penalty was proposed by the AUR computer program, which generated a notice to T that proposed the penalty. Although T submitted a response to the CP2000, the response did not challenge the proposed penalty, or the amount of tax to which the proposed penalty is attributable. Therefore, the penalty was automatically calculated through electronic means and written supervisory approval was not required.

(f) Applicability date. The rules of this section apply to penalties assessed on or after December 23, 2024.

[T.D. 10017, 89 FR 104423, Dec. 23, 2024]