Have a Tax Question? Ask a Tax Expert
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 68 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 6703 :
"(b) Deficiency procedures not to apply
Subchapter B of chapter 63 (relating to deficiency procedures) shall not apply with respect to the assessment or collection of the penalties provided by sections 6700, 6701, and 6702. "
So, Congress wrote the law so that, unlike the collection of income tax, the penalties under sections 6700,6701 and 6702 do not require the same deficiency procedures.
The courts have upheld the ability of Congress to "enact legislation authorizing the Executive Branch to assess and collect taxes without prior administrative or judicial review so long as an adequate opportunity is afforded for a later judicial determination of liability."
See Kahn v. United States, 753 F.2d 1208, 1217-22 (3rd Cir.1985).
"Of course the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner but the concept is flexible, calling for procedural protection as dictated by the particular circumstance. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). In the tax context, the constitutionality of a scheme providing for only post-assessment judicial review is well-settled. Congress has long been empowered to enact legislation authorizing the Executive Branch to assess and collect taxes without prior administrative or judicial review so long as an adequate opportunity is afforded for a later judicial determination of liability. See, e.g., Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 746-47, 94 S.Ct. 2038, 2050-51, 40 L.Ed.2d 496 (1974); Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 611, 94 S.Ct. 1895, 1902, 40 L.Ed.2d 406 (1974); Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 259-260, 55 S.Ct. 695, 699-700, 79 L.Ed. 1421 (1935); Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595, 51 S.Ct. 608, 611, 75 L.Ed. 1289 (1931). And, in considering prior due process objections to tax collection, the Supreme Court has shown special deference to the manner in which the IRS has collected the revenues of the government. "
See also Sisemore v. United States of America and Internal Revenue Service 797 F.2d 268
"The Courts have uniformly rejected plaintiffs' arguments attacking the constitutionality of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6702 and its requirement to pay the penalty-assessment without prior notice before judicial review becomes available. Hudson v. United States, 766 F.2d 1288, 1291-92 (9th Cir.1985); Jolly v. United States, 764 F.2d 642, 644-47 (9th Cir.1985); Wardell v. United States, 757 F.2d 203, 205 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Anderson v. United States, 754 F.2d 1270, 1272 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam); Kahn v. United States, 753 F.2d 1208, 1217-22 (3rd Cir.1985)."
It is possible to have a penalty and there to be zero income tax assessed on the taxpayer. The procedures required to assess and collect the penalty are different, according to law, than what is required to collect taxes.
§ 6321. Lien for taxes :
"If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person. "
Please note that section 6321 refers to "assessable penalty" in order for the lien to arise by statute.
I hope this helps you to understand that Congress has written the law so that a penalty under section 6702 is not required to follow the deficiency procedures in Subchapter B of chapter 63 and that the lien arises by law on any assessable penalty under section 6321.