Does the legislative history and intent combined with the Tax Court Judicial history, the internal revenue manual instructions, and the Supreme Courts application of the canons of construction for statute interpretation, require supervisory approval must be obtained before the first communication to the taxpayer that demonstrates that an initial determination has been made?

Question Presented for Review 26 U.S.C. § 6751 was added to the Code by section 3306 of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (1998 Act), Public Law 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, 744 (1998). The report of the United States Senate : Committee on Finance regarding the 1998 Act (1998 Senate Finance Committee Report) provides that Congress enacted section 6751(b)(1) because of its concern that, “[i]n some cases, penalties may be imposed without supervisory approval.” S. Rep. No. 105-174, at 65 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 537, 601. The report further states that “[t]he Committee believes that penalties should only be imposed where appropriate and not as a bargaining chip.” Id. The report provides that, to achieve this goal, section 6751(b)(1) “requires the specific approval of IRS management to assess all non-computer generated penalties unless excepted.” The Second Circuit concluded the intent of I.R.C. § 6751(b)(1)." “The statute was meant to prevent IRS agents from threatening unjustified penalties to encourage taxpayers to settle.” ("[T]he IRS will often say, if you don't settle, we are going to assert the penalties."). The Tax Court has held that supervisory approval must be obtained before the first communication to the taxpayer that demonstrates that an initial determination has been made. See, e.g., Beland v. Commissioner, 156 T.C. 80 (2021); Kroner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-73, rev'd 48 F. 4th 1272 (11th Cir. 2022); Carter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-21, rev'd 2022 WL 4232170 (11th Cir. Sept. 14, 2022). ii 26 U.S.C. § 6751 Question: Does the legislative history and intent combined with the Tax Court Judicial history, the internal revenue manual instructions, and the Supreme Courts application of the canons of construction for statute interpretation, require supervisory approval must be obtained before the first communication to the , taxpayer that demonstrates that an initial determination has been made? Plea Agreements and Rule 11 Almost 90 percent of all criminal cases are settled via plea agreements. This practice started to move into common use in the late 19* century but was considered inappropriate until the late 1960's. Yet, there are very few protections offered to criminal defendants. The strongest protection a defendant has should be contract law. While there is extensive wellestablished legal precedent to protect a defendant, ; the reality is that defendants, public defenders, prosecutors, and the courts are not well versed in contract law. This results in poorly written, misunderstood agreements that the courts "misinterpret. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure offers little to strengthen the defendants’ protections due to severe limitations in scope. Rule 11 is also widely misunderstood and seldom applied correctly by prosecutors or courts. When all of this is combined with overworked, ineffective counsel that just wants the case off their desk and the massive power of the United States. The defendant gets an agreement without negotiation that he does not understand. iii The consistent application and administration of contract law and the applicable legal statutes to plea agreements is of exceptional importance to protect the legal (due process) rights of defendants. Plea agreements need a mandated legal structure that is simple to understand that also includes: an explanation of each applicable statute, and full disclosure of all materially relevant information (.e collateral damages) as required by contract law. Plea Agreement Question: Does the Tenth Circuit’s opinion regarding the plea agreement violate Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the well-established legal precedents regarding contract law and so the plea agreement does make the District Court judgement include all taxes, penalties, and interest?