Ezel / IRS Rulings / 200908044

CCA 200908044: Valuation study counted as a valuation for misstatement penalty purposes

Number
200908044
Outcome
Advice
Document type
Chief Counsel Advice
IRS subject
Accuracy-related penalty
Topics
Procedure, penalties, and administration
Code sections
§ 6662
Ruling dated
January 22, 2009
Publicly released
February 20, 2009
Source
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page covers legal advice the IRS Office of Chief Counsel wrote for IRS staff, issued in 2009, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2009
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It is advice from the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to IRS personnel on the facts they presented, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel considered whether a valuation study was a valuation for the accuracy-related penalty rules. The email assumed that the valuation misstatement was large enough to be substantial or gross and exceeded the applicable minimum threshold. On those assumptions, the writer concluded that the study was a valuation for purposes of § 6662(e)(1)(A). The brief advice did not analyze whether the assumed penalty conditions were actually met.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: Did a valuation study count as a valuation under § 6662(e)(1)(A)?
  • Outcome: Advice given: yes, assuming all valuation-misstatement conditions were satisfied.
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6662(e)(1)(A).

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA_2009012215111807 Number: 200908044
Release Date: 2/20/2009
Office: -------------
UILC: 6662.00-00

From: ------------------
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:11:22 PM
To: -----------------------
Cc:
Subject: RE: 6662(e) penalty on valuation issue

------

Assuming all the conditions for the valuation misstatement are met (it is large enough to be either
substantial or gross and over the minimum threshold), I would say the valuation study is a valuation
for purposes of 6662(e)(1)(A). Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

What does the Code say today, for your facts?

This advice was written for IRS staff and cannot be cited. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance against your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace