Sign up for tax alert emails    GTNU homepage    Tax newsroom    Email document    Print document    Download document

November 4, 2019

US Tax Court holds no Section 6662 penalties after IRS abused discretion in canceling APAs

On 28 October 2019, the United States (US) Tax Court determined in Eaton Corp. & Subs v. Commissioner, 153 T.C. No. 6 (2019) (Eaton III), that a corporation is not liable for penalties under Internal Revenue Code Section 6662 for income tax adjustments made under court rules as part of a 2017 decision in which the Court held that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) abused its discretion in canceling two advance pricing agreements (APAs). In this latest decision, which supplements the 2017 decision, the Court concluded that the penalties do not apply because the adjustments in the earlier decision were not made under Section 482.


Taxpayer had two APAs addressing its transfer pricing methodologies, one for tax years 2001–2005 (APA I) and one for 2006–2010 (APA II). In 2011, the IRS determined that Taxpayer had not complied with the terms of the revenue procedures related to APAs, and canceled APA I and APA II, effective 1 January 2001, and 2006, respectively. After canceling the APAs, the IRS made Section 482 adjustments to Taxpayer’s income. Based on its determinations, the IRS issued notices of deficiency for approximately US$20 million and $55 million — and corresponding Section 6662(h) penalties of $14 million and $37 million — for tax years 2005 and 2006, respectively.

In an initial 2013 decision, Eaton Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. 410 (2013) (Eaton I), the Tax Court held that its deficiency jurisdiction extended to reviewing the cancellation of the APAs, because they are administrative determinations necessary to determine the merits of the deficiency determinations.

In a subsequent 2017 decision, Eaton Corp. & Subs. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2017-147 (Eaton II), the Tax Court held that it was an abuse of discretion for the IRS to cancel the APAs. In Eaton II, the Court stated that its decision would be entered under Tax Court Rule 155, which allows the parties to submit computations showing the correct amounts to be included in the decision in accordance with the court’s findings. The parties, however, were ultimately unable to agree on the computations. Specifically, one issue remained in dispute: the imposition of penalties under Section 6662(h).


The Court explained that the Rule 155 process is not intended to be a forum for raising new issues but rather a means for allowing for computations in accordance with the court’s findings. The Government contended that Section 6662(h) penalties were not a new issue, because the IRS had asserted the penalties in the notices of deficiency that it issued based on its Section 482 adjustments. In contrast, Taxpayer argued that the penalties were a new issue in the computations under Rule 155, which, Taxpayer contended, were not Section 482 adjustments.

The Court determined that it need not decide whether the imposition of Section 6662(h) penalties was a new issue for purposes of Rule 155; regardless of whether it is a new issue, there were no Section 482 adjustments to support the imposition of Section 6662(h) penalties. The Court explained that the IRS originally asserted the Section 6662(h) penalties based on its Section 482 adjustments, which the IRS calculated following its cancellation of the APAs. Because the Court held in Eaton II that the IRS abused its discretion by canceling the APAs, however, the APAs remain in effect for the years at issue. Accordingly, the Court concluded, there were no Section 482 adjustments, so Taxpayer is not liable for corresponding Section 6662(h) penalties.


This series of cases has limited applicability to other taxpayers. The IRS has rarely attempted to cancel an APA. Moreover, the facts in Eaton II are precise and particular to this taxpayer; taxpayers must be careful not to apply the conclusion in this case generically to any scenario in which an APA is cancelled.

It is unlikely that a taxpayer will find itself in a scenario similar to the petitioner in these cases. For the holding in Eaton III to apply, a court would first have to decide that, although adjustments were made under Rule 155, they were not Section 482 adjustments, so a Section 6662(h) penalty was inappropriate.


1. All “Section” references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

2. Currency references in this Alert are to US$.

For additional information with respect to this Alert, please contact the following:

Ernst & Young LLP, Transfer Pricing Services
Ernst & Young LLP, Tax Policy and Controversy



The information contained herein is general in nature and is not intended, and should not be construed, as legal, accounting or tax advice or opinion provided by Ernst & Young LLP to the reader. The reader also is cautioned that this material may not be applicable to, or suitable for, the reader's specific circumstances or needs, and may require consideration of non-tax and other tax factors if any action is to be contemplated. The reader should contact his or her Ernst & Young LLP or other tax professional prior to taking any action based upon this information. Ernst & Young LLP assumes no obligation to inform the reader of any changes in tax laws or other factors that could affect the information contained herein.


Copyright © 2024, Ernst & Young LLP.


All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, retransmitted or otherwise redistributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including by photocopying, facsimile transmission, recording, rekeying, or using any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from Ernst & Young LLP.


Any U.S. tax advice contained herein was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by the recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state or local tax law provisions.


"EY" refers to the global organisation, and may refer to one or more, of the member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients.


Privacy  |  Cookies  |  BCR  |  Legal  |  Global Code of Conduct Opt out of all email from EY Global Limited.


Cookie Settings

This site uses cookies to provide you with a personalized browsing experience and allows us to understand more about you. More information on the cookies we use can be found here. By clicking 'Yes, I accept' you agree and consent to our use of cookies. More information on what these cookies are and how we use them, including how you can manage them, is outlined in our Privacy Notice. Please note that your decision to decline the use of cookies is limited to this site only, and not in relation to other EY sites or Please refer to the privacy notice/policy on these sites for more information.

Yes, I accept         Find out more