Can Disclosure Neutralize Civil Fraud? Enforcements Explored

When the US Tax Court declined to impose a civil fraud penalty in North Donald LA Property, LLC v. Commissioner, it did more than resolve a dispute over a syndicated conservation easement. Its decision revealed the Court’s determination of where the boundaries lay concerning when a tax return can be deemed fraudulent for civil purposes.

Setting aside the line of syndicated conservation easement fraud cases, most prior decisions have generally adhered to the distinctions outlined by the Court in North Donald. This case, however, stands out as a clear and recent example of how fraud-related principles are applied, offering valuable guidance for tax litigators in both government and private practice. It also raises important tax policy questions about what should properly constitute civil fraud under 26 U.S.C. §6663.

This article focuses on North Donald, but the Tax Court has declined to impose a civil fraud penalty in other cases too. See, e.g., Buckelew Farm LLC v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2024-52 (“We find that respondent has failed to prove the applicability of the §6663 civil fraud penalty.”); see Mill Road 36 Henry LLC v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2023-129 (“Important to our determination that the fraud penalty is not applicable is Mill Road 36’s express disclosure on its tax return of the principal facts about the easement contribution.”).

For years, syndicated conservation easement transactions have occupied a singular place in federal tax enforcement. The Internal Revenue Service labeled them abusive. The bipartisan US Senate Finance Committee condemned them as retail tax shelters designed to manufacture deductions untethered from economic reality. And the US Department of Justice Tax Division prosecuted their architects as criminals, securing multi-decade prison sentences against Jack Fisher and James Sinnott in United States v. Fisher, et al., and securing guilty pleas and prison sentences against 10 additional defendants involved in the scheme.

Against that backdrop, the Tax Court’s decision to decline to sustain a civil fraud penalty—despite a claimed $115 million deduction reduced to a fraction of that amount—is instructive. The court found that because the taxpayers made full and complete disclosures of the easement-related deduction, its valuation details, and additional facts on the face of their tax returns, the government could not carry its burden to prove civil fraud under §6663 by clear and convincing evidence. The degree to which disclosure can neutralize deceit and that even extreme (or in the language of the Court, “ludicrous”) valuations is a concept worth exploring in the context of civil fraud under §6663 and even potential criminal tax cases.

Fraud in the Internal Revenue Code has always turned on intent—a voluntary, knowing violation of a legal duty, as articulated in Cheek v. United States and prior decisions.Civil fraud under §6663 demands clear and convincing evidence of that intent. Criminal tax evasion under §7201 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While the burdens differ, the core concept of what fraud is, however, does not; both regimes exist to distinguish honest mistake or negligent or reckless conduct from outright deliberate deception.

North Donald and the concept of “disclosure as a neutralizer” force a deeper question: Can return disclosures always mitigate against a finding of underlying transactional fraudulent intent, even in cases of the most theatrical misconduct?

Sound tax administration and fundamental fairness compel clear rules about what constitutes compliance and non-compliance in the tax world, particularly where the financial consequences of a 75% fraud penalty or prosecution and incarceration are at stake. Thus, the opinion in North Donald presents a good opportunity to explore the concepts of civil and criminal fraud and consider the degree to which return disclosures can impact relevant findings.

Statutory Framework of Fraud

The Internal Revenue Code defines criminal tax evasion and fraud with particular statutory elements. Under 26 U.S.C. §7201, for example, it is a felony to willfully attempt to evade or defeat the assessment or payment of tax, or to willfully file false returns with intent to evade tax.

The following elements are crucial:

• Willfulness—a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).
• Intent to evade is central: error, negligence, or aggressive but honest interpretation of law is not enough.
• The act must be done willfully and intentionally—not just incorrectly or negligently.

In civil tax proceedings—such as in the US Tax Court—the standard for imposing a fraud penalty under §6663 and related provisions also generally requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence; that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain. This is a greater burden of proof than preponderance of the evidence but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. So, as applied to fraud, the government must have strong evidence to show that the taxpayer intended to deceive, mislead, or manipulate.

Because of those standards, most practitioners recognize that there is a legal distinction between:

Civil fraud findings—taxation and penalties because of intentional misconduct in filing returns or claiming deductions. Criminal tax evasion convictions—prosecuted by DOJ under §7201 and related provisions and requires proof of willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt.

So in theory, it is possible for a civil court (like the Tax Court) to find that even if a taxpayer’s conduct seems wrong, there’s insufficient proof of the specific intent to evade required for fraud in either civil or criminal law.

Civil v. Criminal Enforcement

Civil Fraud: A Discussion of North Donald. The North Donald case centered on an extreme overvaluation of a conservation easement deduction. The taxpayer claimed a charitable deduction of about $115 million based on an appraisal that assumed the property’s highest and best use was a commercial clay mining operation—despite the land being agricultural and recently purchased for under $10 million. The Tax Court rejected this theory entirely, finding the appraisal unreliable and giving it no weight. Instead, the court relied heavily on the recent arm’s-length purchase price and comparable sales, concluding that the easement’s true value was only about $175,824. Because the claimed value exceeded the correct value by far more than 200%, the court held this constituted a “gross valuation misstatement” subject to the 40% penalty under §6662(h).

Although the IRS asserted civil fraud, the court emphasized that fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and typically relies on “badges of fraud” such as concealment, misleading conduct, or intent to evade tax. In North Donald, there were suspicious facts—such as an appraisal built on questionable assumptions and promotional elements of the transaction—but the court found a critical countervailing factor: full disclosure. The partnership explicitly reported both its low basis (about $804,000) and its enormous claimed value on Forms 8283 and 8886, effectively flagging the transaction for scrutiny. There was also no finding that the taxpayers knew that the valuation was false. The court reasoned that such transparency undermines an inference of concealment or intent to mislead, noting that a return that essentially says “please audit me” makes proving fraudulent intent much more difficult.

The Tax Court ultimately rejected the IRS’s §6663 civil fraud penalty, holding that the government failed to meet its burden of proving fraudulent intent. However, this was far from a taxpayer victory: the court sustained the 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty due to the “outrageous” overstatement of value, and it also upheld a 20% negligence penalty on other disallowed deductions. In effect, the case illustrates a sharp distinction between aggressive (even wildly unreasonable) valuation positions and actual civil fraud—confirming that while massive overvaluation can trigger strict liability penalties, it does not automatically establish fraud absent clear evidence of intent to deceive.

Criminal Fraud: A Discussion of the Fisher Case. The Fisher case was a highly publicized prosecution of syndicated conservation easement tax shelters, in which prosecutors exposed a massive, decade-long scheme involving fabricated charitable contribution tax deductions, and back-dated documents tied to inflated appraisals of property valuations.

In Department of Justice actions—notably the sentencing of promoters such as Jack Fisher, a certified public accountant and James Sinnott, an attorney—the Department of Justice secured criminal convictions on charges including conspiracy to defraud the US, aiding and assisting in filing false tax returns, and wire fraud arising from an abusive tax shelter scheme.

The evidence presented in that criminal trial was striking:The promoters marketed and sold abusive tax shelters promising charitable deductions in an amount that was 4.5 times the amount the taxpayer clients paid to buy the deductions. Appraisals of the underlying property were inflated—sometimes dramatically—to justify deductions Congress never intended, but the case was about more than just a massive overvaluation. Documents, including subscription agreements, payment documents, engagement letters and other records were backdated to be presented to the IRS to legitimize the transactions and make returns appear valid and timely. Investors purchased shares in these partnerships seeking to claim false deductions, and the IRS lost hundreds of millions of dollars. Because of these indisputably fraudulent mechanisms, defendants Fisher and Sinnott were convicted by a jury and received enormous criminal sanctions, including multi-decade sentences—25 years and 23 years in prison—and ordered to pay nearly a half a billion in restitution.

In practical terms, those criminals and their co-defendants were held to account for intentional, systematic deception that directly subverted tax law. They used fiction as fiscal strategy and were punished severely for it.

Distinctions in Return Disclosure

One important analytical point arises from the fact that in North Donald, the Court explicitly found that the taxpayers did not use a valuation for the easement donation that they knew to be false. Had the Court found otherwise, it would seem clear that a fraud penalty under §6663 would have applied. Instead, the Court found that the valuation was, in its language, “ludicrous,” but that because the taxpayers did not willfully submit a false valuation and because the transaction had been fully disclosed on the face of the return, the fraud penalty did not apply.

The court’s emphasis on disclosure (e.g., Forms 8283 and 8886) suggests that civil fraud, in the Tax Court’s view, is less about intentional misrepresentation and more about stealth. The opinion raises the question whether disclosure can always (or without being hyperbolic), almost always buffer against a finding of fraud no matter how fantastical the underlying transaction—so long as the IRS is “invited” to audit. Put another way, if the Tax Court had the Fisher facts in front of it, would a disclosure on the return that easement-related documents had been backdated led the Court to a similar conclusion, i.e., not imposing the §6663 penalty? This seems far-fetched, but the notion that disclosure immunizes intent risks collapsing fraud into a kind of procedural hide-and-seek: if the lie is bold enough and visible enough, does it cease to be fraud?

A second explanation is institutional caution. Valuation has been traditionally thought of as a matter of opinion, not fact. The Tax Court has long been uneasy about converting valuation disputes into fraud cases, even where the valuations are grotesquely inflated. Judges routinely describe valuation as “inherently imprecise,” a framing that provides doctrinal cover to avoid intent findings. See, e.g., Champions Retreat Golf Founders, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2022-106 (acknowledging the court has “characterized the valuation task as ‘inherently imprecise’”); see Butler v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 1985-613 (“We must point out at the outset that valuation issues are normally far better suited to settlement than to disposition by the Court, as any valuation is ‘inherently imprecise and capable of resolution only by a Solomon-like pronouncement.’” (citation omitted)). And, as a practical matter, valuation issues do not ordinarily drive criminal tax convictions on their own, particularly in the absence of additional evidence of the requisite criminal intent.

But one could view that North Donald stretches that caution to its breaking point. A claimed $115 million deduction reduced to approximately $175,000 is not a simple difference of opinion; it is a deep chasm, as the claimed amount is 657.142857 times the amount than what the North Donald court allowed. Treating such an outcome as merely an “overvaluation” rather than evidence of knowing falsity suggests an implicit judicial policy: Valuation fraud is almost impossible to prove as fraud, no matter how extreme the facts.

That policy choice may reflect fear of over deterrence or sympathy for unsophisticated taxpayers. But this would be a good time to cite a bipartisan report from the US Senate Finance Committee, which undertook a formal investigation into syndicated conservation easement transactions beginning in March 2019, concluding in August 2020 with a report that characterized these deals as “nothing more than retail tax shelters” designed to let wealthy taxpayers “game the tax code and deprive the Federal Government of billions of dollars in revenue.” The Committee found that syndicated easement transactions involve promoters selling interests in land with artificially inflated appraisals to generate outsized charitable deductions, often yielding tax benefits far in excess of taxpayers’ actual economic investment. The Committee found that these are engineered transactions, marketed by professionals, designed around prepackaged tax outcomes based on ridiculous valuation theory. One can fairly ask where the “intent” line is drawn under such circumstances.

The Implications

The government—including tax policy officials—would likely argue that North Donald’s fraud carve out for disclosed positions ignores the egregiously inflated syndicated easements in the context of inherently abusive tax shelters, precisely the sort that the Senate Finance Committee says require robust corrective measures, including both enforcement and statutory reform. The Tax Court’s refusal to sustain a civil fraud penalty for a deduction that was inflated by many orders of magnitude effectively signals that even clearly abusive transactions can escape the severe characterizations the Senate identified as central to the problem. By treating an exceptionally exaggerated valuation as a mere dispute over appraisals rather than evidence of intentional misrepresentation, North Donald undermines the Committee’s conclusion that these transactions are fraudulent in substance and not just in form, weakening the deterrence framework Congress said was necessary to protect federal revenue and the integrity of the conservation easement benefit.

A defense-oriented response would frame the issue differently. Congressional criticism of syndicated conservation easements—including the findings of the US Senate Finance Committee—does not amend §6663 or lessen the government’s burden to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence. A transaction may be disallowed, overvalued, or even characterized as abusive without necessarily being fraudulent. Civil fraud turns on individualized proof of intent—a voluntary, knowing violation of a legal duty, as articulated in Cheek—not on the magnitude of a valuation discrepancy alone. From that perspective, disclosure on Forms 8283 and 8886 is not immunity, but it is relevant evidence bearing on state of mind. There are large numbers of cases that have so found, and from a policy perspective, the last thing the IRS, the courts, or Congress should do is disincentivize return disclosures.

Nor are criminal prosecutions of promoters, such as Fisher, necessarily comparable; those cases typically involve coordinated misrepresentations, fabricated documents, and proof of conspiracy beyond disputed appraisal methodology. The Internal Revenue Code establishes graduated penalties for negligence, gross valuation misstatements, and fraud, reflecting Congress’s decision that not every abusive transaction is fraudulent. On that view, the Tax Court’s refusal to impose the civil fraud penalty in North Donald does not frustrate legislative intent but instead underscores that fraud must be proven, not presumed, even in cases involving extreme outcomes.

The concept that return-based disclosures can mitigate against civil fraud, however longstanding, raises important questions in the context of a 650x valuation case. Should the tax system divide “fraud” and “non-fraud” based more on what is disclosed on a tax return, or more on the underlying conduct at issue? Clearly, a promoter engaging in an intentional violation of a known legal duty, including coordination, concealment, and marketing deception, risks prison. That much is obvious. But when applying the 75% fraud penalty, should courts excuse taxpayers who may not have been so egregious in their transactional conduct, but whose valuations are laughable, avoid serious financial penalties because they have disclosed just enough of their paperwork?

The US tax system has long grappled with generations of tax shelter promotions that elevate form over substance with clever but meaningless structures or valuations that appear to conform to the literal language of the Internal Revenue Code but lack any substance or reality. Even though “sunshine is a disinfectant,” policy makers may wish to ask whether disclosure of such conduct on a return, standing alone, should suffice to allow taxpayers to escape civil fraud penalties. Otherwise, aggressive tax planners can simply price in a lower risk of the 75% sanction by “showing their work,” as a math teacher would say, in a current environment where the audit lottery is very much in favor of the taxpayer.

For now, the Tax Court’s approach in North Donald raises questions about how those enforcement signals operate in practice. At its core, tax fraud turns on willfulness and intent. The law distinguishes between mistake, negligence, aggressive interpretation, and intentional deception because the consequences attached to each category differ substantially. That line-drawing exercise is inherently difficult, particularly in complex transactions where valuation, reliance on professional advice, and structured planning intersect.

From the government’s perspective, a narrower application of civil fraud may risk under-deterring conduct that appears designed to generate unwarranted tax benefits. If courts require exceptionally direct or explicit proof of subjective intent but tolerate egregious conduct so long as disclosed, the practical reach of §6663 could be limited to a relatively small set of cases, potentially shifting greater weight onto other penalty provisions to achieve deterrence.

From the defense perspective, crediting return disclosure is not a weakness but a safeguard, one embodied in numerous provisions of the Code and in other guidance. Civil fraud carries severe financial consequences, extends limitations periods, and can have collateral reputational effects. Requiring clear and convincing proof of intentional wrongdoing protects taxpayers from having aggressive or ultimately unsuccessful positions recast as fraudulent based solely on outcome or hindsight. The fact that a taxpayer makes a full and complete disclosure – including the filing of forms designed to mitigate against the audit lottery—should operate as a strong signal of their intent that though they might be aggressive, but they are not deceptive.

Takeaways

The law must continue to distinguish between honest error and intentional evasion. That line is essential. But drawing it requires discipline on both sides. Fraud cannot be presumed from a bad or even laughable outcome. Nor can it be rendered unreachable by standards so exacting that intent becomes nearly impossible to prove.

What North Donald ultimately underscores is the need for clarity. Clear standards, clear evidentiary markers of intent, and clear explanations when courts draw hard lines, including when return-based disclosures can mitigate against a finding of fraud, and when they may not. For policy makers, the case may well suggest an opportunity to consider (or reconsider), particularly in the “tax shelter” space, the balance between encouraging tax return disclosure and whether such disclosure, in the presence of egregious (if non-criminal) facts, should be enough to neutralize the imposition of a penalty under §6663.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Carolyn Schenck, former IRS Counsel and now Member at Caplin & Drysdale. Damon Rowe, former IRS Director of Office of Fraud Enforcement, and now partner at Meadows, Collier, Reed, Cousins, Crouch & Ungerman, L.L.P.

Interested in writing? Review our author guidelines, and submit pitches to Insights@bloombergindustry.com.