Identify Taxpayer And Practitioner Penalties - CPA Reg

SECTION 1

Historical Context & Motivation

The federal income tax system in the United States is grounded in a regime of voluntary compliance, meaning taxpayers are responsible for self-assessing their tax liability, filing accurate returns, and remitting payments by statutory deadlines. Congress has long recognized that voluntary compliance cannot sustain itself without an enforcement backstop, and so the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) contains an elaborate penalty structure designed to encourage honest reporting and punish noncompliance. Over the past century, the scope and severity of these penalties have expanded significantly in response to perceived abuses, evolving tax shelters, and the professionalization of the tax-preparation industry.

Equally important is the recognition that tax practitioners — CPAs, enrolled agents, and attorneys — serve as gatekeepers of the system. When a practitioner signs a return, the government relies on that professional's diligence. Practitioner penalties under IRC §6694 and Circular 230 create economic incentives for preparers to maintain high standards, because a practitioner who takes aggressive or frivolous positions faces personal financial exposure that is separate from any liability borne by the client.

1954 • IRC of 1954 Codified

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 established the modern penalty framework, including failure-to-file and failure-to-pay provisions under §§6651–6662, creating a systematic structure for enforcing taxpayer compliance.

1976 • Tax Reform Act

Congress introduced IRC §6694, the first significant statutory penalty targeting tax return preparers for understatements of liability, signaling that practitioners were now personally accountable for the positions they endorsed.

1989 • Accuracy-Related Penalty Consolidation

The Improved Penalty Administration and Compliance Tax Act (IMPACT) consolidated several overlapping accuracy-related penalties into a unified 20% penalty under IRC §6662, greatly simplifying enforcement while broadening the penalty's applicability to negligence, substantial understatement, and valuation misstatements.

2007 • Small Business and Work Opportunity Tax Act

The preparer penalty standards under §6694 were significantly tightened: the threshold for undisclosed positions shifted from 'realistic possibility' to 'substantial authority,' and the penalty for willful or reckless conduct was increased to the greater of $5,000 or 75% of the preparer's fee.

2010–Present • Modern Enforcement Era

FATCA (2010), increased fraud prosecution, and enhanced IRS data analytics have intensified penalty enforcement. The IRS now cross-references information returns and uses artificial intelligence to detect anomalies, making both taxpayer and practitioner penalties an ever-more-relevant component of tax practice.

The central question this lesson addresses is straightforward yet critical for any aspiring CPA: What specific penalties does the IRC impose on taxpayers and practitioners, how are those penalties computed, and what defenses are available? Mastering this framework is essential not only for the REG section of the CPA Examination, but for everyday practice in a field where a single misstep can generate personal liability for both the client and the professional.

SECTION 2

Core Principles & Definitions

Before examining specific penalty provisions, it is essential to understand the conceptual pillars that support the penalty regime. Penalties in the IRC serve three primary functions: they deter noncompliance by attaching economic consequences, they compensate the government for the time value of money lost due to late payments or underpayments, and they preserve public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the self-assessment system. These objectives apply symmetrically to both taxpayer penalties and practitioner penalties, though the standards of conduct and the magnitude of the penalties differ markedly between the two groups.

Civil vs. Criminal Penalties

Civil penalties are monetary assessments imposed administratively by the IRS — they require no court conviction. Criminal penalties involve prosecution through the Department of Justice and can result in fines, imprisonment, or both. The burden of proof is 'preponderance of the evidence' for civil penalties and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal cases.

Delinquency Penalties

Delinquency penalties address the failure to file (IRC §6651(a)(1)) and failure to pay (IRC §6651(a)(2)). These time-based penalties accrue monthly and represent the most commonly assessed penalties in the system.

Accuracy-Related Penalties

IRC §6662 imposes a flat 20% penalty on the portion of an underpayment attributable to negligence, disregard of rules, substantial understatement of income tax, or substantial or gross valuation misstatements. These penalties target the quality of the return rather than its timeliness.

Fraud Penalty

IRC §6663 escalates the penalty to 75% of the underpayment when any portion is attributable to fraud. The IRS bears the initial burden of proof to establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence for at least one year, after which the burden may shift to the taxpayer for additional years.

Preparer Penalties (§6694)

Tax return preparers face a two-tier penalty: the §6694(a) penalty for unreasonable positions (the greater of $1,000 or 50% of the fee), and the §6694(b) penalty for willful, reckless, or intentional disregard of rules (the greater of $5,000 or 75% of the fee).

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of the penalty system like a speed enforcement program on a highway. Minor infractions — such as filing a day late — are analogous to an automated speed camera that generates a small, proportional fine. Gross negligence or fraud is akin to reckless driving that triggers a criminal arrest and potential jail time. And a tax practitioner who signs off on aggressive positions is like a driving instructor who encourages a student to run red lights — the instructor faces independent penalties even though the student was behind the wheel. The system assigns escalating consequences based on the degree of culpability and the magnitude of the understatement.

SECTION 3

Visual Map of Taxpayer & Practitioner Penalties

The following diagram presents a hierarchical overview of the major penalty categories under the IRC, distinguishing between penalties assessed against taxpayers and those assessed against practitioners. Arrows flow from the broad classification at the top through specific IRC sections and their associated rates or dollar amounts. This visual serves as a reference framework for the detailed discussions that follow.

This hierarchy flows from the broad penalty system at the top, branching into taxpayer penalties (delinquency, accuracy-related, fraud) on the left and practitioner penalties (§6694 and §6695) on the right. Criminal penalties at the bottom apply to both groups.

As the diagram illustrates, the penalty architecture operates on a spectrum of severity. On the taxpayer side, delinquency penalties are time-based and relatively modest, accuracy-related penalties apply a flat 20% rate, and the fraud penalty escalates to 75%. On the practitioner side, the two-tier §6694 structure differentiates between unreasonable positions and willful or reckless conduct. Criminal sanctions sit at the base of the framework and apply to the most egregious violations by either party. Understanding where a particular violation falls on this continuum is critical to advising clients and managing professional risk.

SECTION 4

Penalty Computations & Key Formulas

Taxpayer Delinquency Penalties

FAILURE TO FILE (FTF) — §6651(a)(1)

FTF Penalty = 5% × Unpaid Tax × Number of Months Late (max 25%)

The penalty accrues at 5% per month (or fraction thereof) of the net tax due, capped at 25%. A minimum penalty of the lesser of $510 (2024 amount, indexed for inflation) or 100% of the tax due applies if the return is filed more than 60 days late.

FAILURE TO PAY (FTP) — §6651(a)(2)

FTP Penalty = 0.5% × Unpaid Tax × Number of Months Late (max 25%)

The penalty accrues at 0.5% per month of the unpaid balance, capped at 25%. When both FTF and FTP run concurrently, the FTF rate is reduced by the FTP rate to 4.5% per month, so the combined maximum for the first five months remains 25% (not 27.5%).

Accuracy-Related & Fraud Penalties

ACCURACY-RELATED PENALTY — §6662

Penalty = 20% × Underpayment Attributable to Penalized Conduct

Penalized conduct includes: (1) negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, (2) any substantial understatement of income tax (exceeds the greater of 10% of correct tax or $5,000 for individuals), (3) substantial valuation misstatement (value or basis is ≥ 150% or ≤ 50% of correct amount), or (4) any listed or reportable transaction understatement. The rate doubles to 40% for gross valuation misstatements (≥ 200% or ≤ 25%).

CIVIL FRAUD PENALTY — §6663

Penalty = 75% × Portion of Underpayment Due to Fraud

The fraud penalty replaces (does not stack with) the §6662 accuracy-related penalty on the same underpayment. The IRS must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. No statute of limitations applies to fraudulent returns.

Practitioner Penalty Computations

PREPARER PENALTY FOR UNREASONABLE POSITIONS — §6694(a)

Penalty = Greater of \$1,000 or 50% × Preparer's Fee

Applies when a preparer takes a position that does not meet the substantial authority standard (or the reasonable basis standard if adequately disclosed), and the position results in an understatement. The preparer must have known or reasonably should have known of the position.

PREPARER PENALTY FOR WILLFUL/RECKLESS CONDUCT — §6694(b)

Penalty = Greater of \$5,000 or 75% × Preparer's Fee

Applies when the understatement is due to the preparer's willful attempt to understate liability or reckless or intentional disregard of rules or regulations. The §6694(b) penalty is reduced by any §6694(a) penalty already assessed on the same return.

SECTION 5

Defenses, Standards, and Detailed Classification

Penalties are not automatic; the Code provides several defenses and safe harbors that taxpayers and practitioners may invoke. For taxpayers, the reasonable cause and good faith defense under IRC §6664(c) can eliminate accuracy-related penalties entirely. For practitioners, adequate disclosure of a position, reliance on competent advice, or establishing that the position met the required threshold standard can serve as a shield. The following table and diagram detail the applicable standards and defenses for each major penalty.

The spectrum bar at the top ranks position standards from weakest (not frivolous) to strongest (more likely than not). Below, the left box shows taxpayer defenses and the right box shows preparer defenses. Additional §6695 administrative penalties are listed at the bottom.

Penalty	Standard to Avoid	Available Defense	Key Nuance
§6662 Negligence	Reasonable basis (with disclosure) or Substantial authority (without)	Reasonable cause & good faith (§6664(c))	Negligence includes failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply; disregard includes careless, reckless, or intentional behavior
§6662 Substantial Understatement	Substantial authority for undisclosed items; Reasonable basis + adequate disclosure for disclosed items	Reasonable cause & good faith; also reduce understatement by adequately disclosed items with reasonable basis	Individual threshold: greater of 10% of correct tax or $5,000. Corporate threshold: greater of 10% or $10 million
§6663 Fraud	N/A — no standard will excuse fraud	Disprove fraud (taxpayer bears burden for non-initial years)	No statute of limitations; IRS must establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence for at least one year
§6694(a) Unreasonable Position	Substantial authority (undisclosed) or Reasonable basis (disclosed)	Reasonable cause & good faith of preparer	Penalty is the greater of $1,000 or 50% of the fee earned
§6694(b) Willful/Reckless	N/A — willful conduct cannot be cured by any standard	None (no reasonable cause defense available)	Penalty is the greater of $5,000 or 75% of the fee earned; reduced by any §6694(a) penalty on the same return

Penalties, Required Standards, and Defenses

SECTION 6

Worked Example — Computing Taxpayer & Practitioner Penalties

Consider the following fact pattern. Alex, an individual taxpayer, files his federal income tax return four months late (without an extension) and still owes $20,000 in unpaid tax at the original due date. The IRS subsequently determines that Alex's return contained a substantial understatement of $40,000 due to a position that lacked substantial authority and was not disclosed. Alex's tax preparer, Jordan (a CPA), charged a fee of $3,000 for preparing the return, and the IRS asserts that Jordan knew the position lacked substantial authority. Jordan's conduct is not characterized as willful. We will compute the penalties for both Alex and Jordan.

Penalty Computation for Alex (Taxpayer) and Jordan (Preparer)

1
Step 1 — Compute Failure-to-File Penalty

Alex filed four months late with $20,000 unpaid. The FTF penalty under §6651(a)(1) is 5% per month of the unpaid tax, but it is reduced by the concurrent FTP rate, so the effective FTF rate is 4.5% per month for the first five months. Calculation: 4.5% × $20,000 × 4 months = $3,600.

FTF Penalty = $3,600
2
Step 2 — Compute Failure-to-Pay Penalty

The FTP penalty under §6651(a)(2) is 0.5% per month of the unpaid tax. Since Alex was four months late in paying: 0.5% × $20,000 × 4 months = $400.

FTP Penalty = $400
3
Step 3 — Combined Delinquency Penalties

Total delinquency penalties are $3,600 + $400 = $4,000. Expressed as a percentage: $4,000 ÷ $20,000 = 20% of unpaid tax for four months. Note the combined rate of 5% per month (4.5% FTF + 0.5% FTP), which is the standard concurrent rate.

Total Delinquency Penalties = $4,000
4
Step 4 — Compute Accuracy-Related Penalty on Underpayment

The IRS determined a $40,000 underpayment attributable to a substantial understatement of income tax (the understatement exceeds the greater of $5,000 or 10% of the correct tax). The §6662 penalty is 20% × $40,000 = $8,000. There is no reasonable cause defense because Alex did not disclose the position and lacked substantial authority.

§6662 Accuracy-Related Penalty = $8,000
5
Step 5 — Compute Preparer Penalty for Jordan (§6694(a))

Jordan knew the position lacked substantial authority and did not disclose it. This triggers the §6694(a) penalty, which is the greater of $1,000 or 50% × $3,000 (the fee earned). 50% × $3,000 = $1,500. Since $1,500 > $1,000, the penalty is $1,500. Because Jordan's conduct was not willful, §6694(b) does not apply.

Jordan's §6694(a) Penalty = $1,500
6
Step 6 — Summarize All Penalties

Alex (taxpayer) owes: $3,600 (FTF) + $400 (FTP) + $8,000 (§6662) = $12,000 in penalties, in addition to the $40,000 underpayment plus interest. Jordan (preparer) personally owes $1,500 under §6694(a). If Jordan had acted willfully, the penalty would have been the greater of $5,000 or 75% × $3,000 = $5,000 under §6694(b), reduced by the $1,500 already assessed under §6694(a), for a net §6694(b) penalty of $3,500.

Alex Total Penalties = $12,000 | Jordan Penalty = $1,500

SECTION 7

Comparing Civil & Criminal Penalties

A frequent source of confusion on the CPA exam is distinguishing between civil and criminal penalties. While both serve deterrence objectives, they differ fundamentally in their burden of proof, potential consequences, and procedural mechanisms. The table below highlights the most critical distinctions, followed by a key takeaway that contextualizes these differences within broader tax practice.

Dimension	Civil Penalties	Criminal Penalties
Burden of Proof	Preponderance of the evidence (IRS); clear and convincing for fraud penalty	Beyond a reasonable doubt (DOJ)
Consequences	Monetary penalties only (% of underpayment or flat dollar amounts)	Fines up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment up to 5 years (tax evasion)
Who Initiates	IRS assesses administratively; taxpayer may appeal	IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) refers to DOJ Tax Division for prosecution
Statute of Limitations	Generally 3 years (6 years for 25%+ omissions; unlimited for fraud or unfiled returns)	Generally 6 years from commission of the offense (§6531)
Applicable to Practitioners?	Yes — §6694, §6695 penalties assessed against preparers personally	Yes — §7206 (fraud and false statements) applies to preparers who aid in fraud
Can Both Apply?	Civil fraud and accuracy penalties do not stack on the same underpayment	Criminal conviction does not preclude civil penalty assessment on the same conduct

Civil vs. Criminal Penalty Comparison

✦

KEY TAKEAWAY

Think of civil and criminal penalties as two independent enforcement lanes on the same highway. A taxpayer who commits fraud may be assessed a 75% civil fraud penalty by the IRS and simultaneously prosecuted for tax evasion under §7201 by the Department of Justice. A criminal acquittal (which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt) does not prevent the IRS from winning the civil fraud penalty (which requires only clear and convincing evidence). Similarly, a practitioner can face §6694 civil penalties, Circular 230 disciplinary proceedings, and criminal prosecution under §7206 for the same set of facts. These are parallel, non-exclusive enforcement mechanisms.

SECTION 8

Connection to Advanced Tax Practice & Circular 230

The statutory penalty framework discussed in previous sections intersects with a broader regulatory ecosystem governed by Circular 230 (31 CFR Part 10), the Treasury Department's regulations governing practice before the IRS. While IRC penalties impose monetary consequences, Circular 230 can result in censure, suspension, or permanent disbarment from practice before the IRS. Understanding the interplay between these two regimes is essential for advanced tax practice and for CPA exam success.

Feature	IRC Penalty Provisions (§§6694–6695)	Circular 230 Disciplinary Provisions
Authority	Statutory (Internal Revenue Code)	Regulatory (Treasury Department)
Consequences	Monetary penalties assessed against the preparer	Censure, suspension, disbarment, or monetary penalty up to 100% of gross income derived from the conduct
Scope of Covered Persons	Any 'tax return preparer' as defined in §7701(a)(36)	Attorneys, CPAs, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, and other authorized practitioners
Due Diligence Standard	Substantial authority / reasonable basis for return positions	§10.22 requires due diligence in preparing all matters; §10.34 sets position standards aligned with IRC
Written Tax Advice	Not specifically addressed	§10.37 requires competent analysis based on reasonable assumptions; prohibits reliance on unreasonable assumptions
Can Both Apply Simultaneously?	Yes — a preparer can be assessed IRC penalties and face Circular 230 disciplinary proceedings for the same conduct	Yes — Circular 230 proceedings are independent of IRC penalty assessments

IRC Penalties vs. Circular 230 Discipline

Looking forward, the penalty landscape continues to evolve. The IRS has signaled increasing use of data analytics to identify noncompliance patterns, and congressional proposals have periodically called for higher penalty amounts and lower thresholds for imposition. Practitioners should also be aware that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) due diligence penalty under §6695(g) imposes a $560 per-failure penalty (2024) on preparers who fail to comply with EITC, Child Tax Credit, American Opportunity Credit, or Head of Household filing status due diligence requirements. This penalty applies per return, making high-volume preparers particularly exposed. As the tax system grows more complex and enforcement resources expand, the ability to identify and manage penalty exposure — for both the client and the professional — will remain a cornerstone competency for any CPA.

SECTION 9

Practice Problems

Question 1: CONCEPTUAL

Explain the difference between the §6662 accuracy-related penalty and the §6663 civil fraud penalty. Why does the IRC prohibit stacking these two penalties on the same portion of an underpayment, and how does the burden of proof differ between them?

Show answer

The §6662 accuracy-related penalty imposes a 20% penalty on underpayments attributable to negligence, substantial understatement, or valuation misstatements. The §6663 civil fraud penalty imposes a 75% penalty on the portion of the underpayment attributable to fraud. They cannot stack on the same underpayment because the fraud penalty is designed to be the exclusive and more severe remedy when fraud is established — allowing both would result in a 95% combined penalty, which Congress viewed as duplicative. The burden of proof also differs significantly: for the §6662 penalty, the IRS generally bears the burden of production (showing the penalty applies) by a preponderance of the evidence, while for §6663, the IRS must establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence for at least one taxable year. Once fraud is established for one year, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to prove that the underpayment in other years was not due to fraud.

Question 2: BASIC CALCULATION

Maria files her individual income tax return three months late without an extension. She owes $10,000 in unpaid tax at the original due date. Compute the total failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties, assuming the penalties run concurrently for the three-month period.

Show answer

When both penalties run concurrently, the FTF rate is reduced from 5% to 4.5% per month (by the 0.5% FTP rate). The FTF penalty is 4.5% × $10,000 × 3 months = $1,350. The FTP penalty is 0.5% × $10,000 × 3 months = $150. The total combined delinquency penalty is $1,350 + $150 = $1,500. This equates to 15% of the unpaid tax balance (5% combined rate × 3 months), consistent with the concurrent penalty rule that keeps the combined rate at 5% per month.

Question 3: INTERMEDIATE

A CPA prepares a tax return and takes an undisclosed position that lacks substantial authority but has a reasonable basis. The position generates an underpayment of $25,000. The CPA's fee for the return was $4,000. Determine: (a) whether the §6694(a) penalty applies, and (b) the amount of the penalty if applicable.

Show answer

Under §6694(a), a preparer faces a penalty if the return position results in an understatement and does not meet the required standard. For an undisclosed position, the required standard is substantial authority. Here, the position lacks substantial authority, so the standard is not met. Even though the position has a reasonable basis, that standard only avoids the penalty when the position is adequately disclosed on Form 8275 or 8275-R. Because the position was not disclosed, the §6694(a) penalty applies. The penalty is the greater of $1,000 or 50% × $4,000 = $2,000. Since $2,000 > $1,000, the §6694(a) penalty is $2,000. The CPA could avoid this penalty only by establishing the reasonable cause and good faith defense, by disclosing the position (which would lower the threshold to reasonable basis, which was met), or by showing the position actually had substantial authority.

Question 4: APPLIED

GlobalTech Inc. (a C corporation) reports taxable income of $800,000 on its return. Upon audit, the IRS determines the correct taxable income is $1,200,000, creating a $400,000 understatement. The correct tax liability (at a flat 21% rate) is $252,000, and GlobalTech originally reported $168,000. Determine whether a substantial understatement exists and compute the §6662 penalty, if applicable. Assume no disclosure was made and no reasonable cause defense applies.

Show answer

First, compute the understatement of income tax. The correct tax is 21% × $1,200,000 = $252,000. The reported tax is 21% × $800,000 = $168,000. The understatement is $252,000 − $168,000 = $84,000. For a corporation, a substantial understatement exists if the understatement exceeds the greater of (a) 10% of the correct tax or (b) $10,000,000. Here, 10% × $252,000 = $25,200. Since $84,000 exceeds $25,200 (and is far below $10 million, but the threshold is the greater of the two, so $10 million is the relevant threshold for large corporations — however, $84,000 is less than $10 million). Under the standard corporate threshold, the understatement must exceed the greater of 10% of correct tax ($25,200) or $10,000,000. Since $84,000 < $10,000,000, there is no substantial understatement under the standard corporate rule. However, the negligence component of §6662 may still apply if the understatement was due to negligence or disregard of rules. If the IRS establishes negligence, the §6662 penalty would be 20% × $84,000 = $16,800. This problem illustrates why the corporate $10 million threshold makes the substantial understatement penalty difficult to assert against smaller corporations, and why the IRS often relies on the negligence prong instead.

Question 5: CRITICAL THINKING

A tax practitioner prepares 500 individual returns per year. For 200 of these returns, she claims the Earned Income Tax Credit for her clients. Due to a flawed intake process, 15 of those EITC returns fail to satisfy the §6695(g) due diligence requirements. She also prepares one return where she willfully disregards the rules, generating a $50,000 underpayment; her fee for that return was $8,000. Analyze the total penalty exposure this practitioner faces under §§6694 and 6695, and discuss how Circular 230 might independently discipline her. What systemic changes would you recommend she implement?

Show answer

The practitioner's penalty exposure breaks down as follows. Under §6695(g), the EITC due diligence penalty is $560 per failure (2024 amount) for each return where requirements were not met: 15 × $560 = $8,400. Under §6694(b), the willful disregard penalty for the one return is the greater of $5,000 or 75% × $8,000 = $6,000. Since $6,000 > $5,000, the §6694(b) penalty is $6,000. Total IRC penalty exposure is $8,400 + $6,000 = $14,400. Independently, Circular 230 §10.22 requires due diligence in all matters, and §10.34 prohibits willful or reckless positions. The practitioner could face a Circular 230 proceeding resulting in censure, suspension, or disbarment from practice before the IRS, plus a monetary sanction up to the gross income derived from the offending conduct. These Circular 230 sanctions are cumulative with the IRC penalties. Recommended systemic changes include: (1) implementing a standardized EITC due diligence checklist integrated into the firm's software workflow, (2) establishing a mandatory second-reviewer protocol for all returns claiming refundable credits, (3) creating internal quality-control sampling (reviewing a random percentage of completed returns before filing), and (4) documenting all return positions in a permanent file to support the reasonable cause and good faith defense. These measures address the root cause — a flawed intake process — and create a defensible record should penalties be proposed in the future.

SUMMARY

Lesson Summary

Summary

The IRC's penalty framework enforces voluntary compliance through a graduated system of consequences. Delinquency penalties under §6651 address late filing (5% per month, max 25%) and late payment (0.5% per month, max 25%), with both rates running concurrently at a combined 5% per month. Accuracy-related penalties under §6662 impose a 20% penalty on underpayments attributable to negligence, substantial understatement (exceeding the greater of 10% of correct tax or $5,000 for individuals), or valuation misstatements, with a 40% rate for gross valuation misstatements. The civil fraud penalty under §6663 reaches 75% of the fraudulent underpayment, requires clear and convincing evidence, and carries no statute of limitations.

Practitioner penalties operate on a parallel track. The §6694(a) penalty for unreasonable positions (greater of $1,000 or 50% of the fee) requires the return position to meet substantial authority if undisclosed or reasonable basis if disclosed. The §6694(b) penalty for willful or reckless conduct escalates to the greater of $5,000 or 75% of the fee. Additional administrative penalties under §6695 address failures to sign returns, furnish copies, or meet EITC due diligence requirements. Circular 230 provides an independent regulatory layer, authorizing censure, suspension, or disbarment for practitioners who violate due diligence or position-standard rules. Both taxpayers and practitioners can invoke the reasonable cause and good faith defense for most civil penalties, though no defense exists for fraud or willful preparer misconduct. Criminal penalties under §§7201–7207 can result in fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment up to five years, applying to both taxpayers and practitioners for the most egregious violations.