Out of date IRM on irs.gov - feature or bug?

[Quixote]

The LostHeads are trying to understand why the 1/1/2006 revision of IRM 20.1.10.9 found on irs.gov is inconsistent with the procedures IRS is using to assess the $5000 frivolous submissions penalty.
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 0883#20883
Apparently not even the repeated references to a $500, not $5000, penalty have clued them in to the source of their problem. That raises the question: is the outdated revision of IRM §20.1.10.9 still on the web because IRS is slow to update the website, or is it there to keep the calendrically challenged busy?

[Famspear]

The LostHeads are trying to understand why the 1/1/2006 revision of IRM 20.1.10.9 found on irs.gov is inconsistent with the procedures IRS is using to assess the $5000 frivolous submissions penalty.
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 0883#20883
Apparently not even the repeated references to a $500, not $5000, penalty have clued them in to the source of their problem. That raises the question: is the outdated revision of IRM §20.1.10.9 still on the web because IRS is slow to update the website, or is it there to keep the calendrically challenged busy?

It has to be an evil government plot.

[ASITStands]

The LostHeads are trying to understand why the 1/1/2006 revision of IRM 20.1.10.9 found on irs.gov is inconsistent with the procedures IRS is using to assess the $5000 frivolous submissions penalty.
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 0883#20883
Apparently not even the repeated references to a $500, not $5000, penalty have clued them in to the source of their problem. That raises the question: is the outdated revision of IRM §20.1.10.9 still on the web because IRS is slow to update the website, or is it there to keep the calendrically challenged busy?

I'm not sure "who" writes the IRM. I believe it comes out of the Office of Chief Counsel.

However, I'd guess the reason this particular section has not been updated has to do with the fact no position in law has changed other than the amount of the "frivolous" penalty.

Is there in fact an updated version of IRM § 20.1.10.9? If not, there's no reason to update. When a reason exhibits itself (such as a change in a legal position), it will be updated.

Not sure if my words are making sense, but that's how I see it.

[Quixote]

However, I'd guess the reason this particular section has not been updated has to do with the fact no position in law has changed other than the amount of the "frivolous" penalty.

Not true. One big change is that a separate penalty is assessed against each filer on a joint frivolous submission. In addition, the old penalty applied only to returns. The new one applies to other specified frivolous submissions. For example, one of the LostHeads posted a copy of the letter he received from the settlement officer handling his CDP hearing warning him that a $5,000 penalty could be assessed if he did not withdraw, in writing, the frivolous portions of his CDP request.

[ASITStands]

However, I'd guess the reason this particular section has not been updated has to do with the fact no position in law has changed other than the amount of the "frivolous" penalty.

Not true. One big change is that a separate penalty is assessed against each filer on a joint frivolous submission. In addition, the old penalty applied only to returns. The new one applies to other specified frivolous submissions. For example, one of the LostHeads posted a copy of the letter he received from the settlement officer handling his CDP hearing warning him that a $5,000 penalty could be assessed if he did not withdraw, in writing, the frivolous portions of his CDP request.

Ok. You're right! IRM 20.1.10.9 is outdated. The text reads:

20.1.10.9 (01-01-2006)
IRC section 6702 Frivolous income tax return

• 1. IRC section 6702 provides for an immediate assessment of a $500 civil penalty against individuals who file frivolous income tax returns or frivolous amended income tax returns. The penalty is not based on tax liability. An underpayment of tax or understatement of liability is not essential for the penalty to be imposed in addition to any other penalty. The intent of the law is to stop the flow of returns, amended returns, and documents that purport to be returns, and contain altered line items, and/or claim clearly unallowable deductions or credits based on a frivolous position.
  2. The penalty can be asserted on a frivolous Form 1040, Form 1040X, Amended Return, Form 843, Claim, and others that:
  • A. Do not contain sufficient information to judge the correctness of the tax, or
    B. Contain information that on its face indicates the self-assessment is incorrect, and
    C. The conduct referred to in (a) or (b) is due to a position that is frivolous, or a desire to delay or impede the administration of the tax laws.
  3. Some of the schemes that may cause the assertion of the penalty are described in Notice 2005–30, 2005–14 Internal Revenue Bulletin 827 .
  4. The frivolous return penalty is not applied against partnerships, corporations or estates.
  5. Statute of Limitations. A frivolous return:
  • A. Does not constitute a valid return when the Service is unable to process the return, therefore, the IRC section 6702 penalty may be assessed at any time.
    B. Does constitute a valid return when the Service is able to process the return. Therefore, the IRC section 6702 penalty must be assessed within 3 years after the return was filed.

And, the copy I have by subscription service is even older.

The versions of 26 U.S.C. § 6702 found on the web had the same slowness in being updated.

I never knew whether it was the House Committee being slow in updating the code or the websites being slow to report the changes, but it caused some consternation at the time.

Tax Deniers were always questioning whether it had actually been changed, and until you showed them H.B 611, they were reluctant to accept it. Still not sure why it was slow.

Either they're overworked or understaffed. Or, maybe it's a conspiracy.

[Quixote]

And, the copy I have by subscription service is even older.

The versions of 26 U.S.C. § 6702 found on the web had the same slowness in being updated.

I never knew whether it was the House Committee being slow in updating the code or the websites being slow to report the changes, but it caused some consternation at the time.

Tax Deniers were always questioning whether it had actually been changed, and until you showed them H.B 611, they were reluctant to accept it. Still not sure why it was slow.

Either they're overworked or understaffed. Or, maybe it's a conspiracy.

That Cornell site has a disclaimer that says that they are always at least 6 months out of date. Not bad for an essentially free service. (I have donated to it from time to time, but that, unlike taxes, is voluntary.)

[ASITStands]

That Cornell site has a disclaimer that says that they are always at least 6 months out of date. Not bad for an essentially free service. (I have donated to it from time to time, but that, unlike taxes, is voluntary.)

Ok. However, it took longer than six months for the online code to change, and that includes GPOAccess.gov It seemed like it took forever for "someone" to update the statute.

I don't remember how long it was but we even discussed it on Quatloos at one point.