Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Seattle University Law Review

Journal

1989

Internal Revenue Code

Articles 1 - 1 of 1

Full-Text Articles in Law

Howard V. United States: Who Should Be Responsible For The 100 Percent Penalty?, James E. Hungerford May 1989

Howard V. United States: Who Should Be Responsible For The 100 Percent Penalty?, James E. Hungerford

Seattle University Law Review

The 100 percent penalty provision of I.R.C. section 6672 imposes a penalty that can far exceed the maximum criminal penalties for fraud or tax evasion. For this reason, the Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) should only assess the 100 percent penalty against persons who are clearly liable for the penalty. As Justice Rehnquist said in his dissent in United States v. Sotelo, the 100 percent penalty provision imposes a potentially crushing liability on corporate officials-a liability that is nondischargeable (in bankruptcy) in its entirety and virtually in perpetuity. This Note will discuss section 6672, including its purpose, history, and specific …