Newsletters
The IRS has released the 2026 inflation-adjusted amounts for health savings accounts under Code Sec. 223. For calendar year 2026, the annual limitation on deductions under Code Sec. 223(b)(2) for a...
The IRS has marked National Small Business Week by reminding taxpayers and businesses to remain alert to scams that continue long after the April 15 tax deadline. Through its annual Dirty Dozen li...
The IRS has announced the applicable percentage under Code Sec. 613A to be used in determining percentage depletion for marginal properties for the 2025 calendar year. Code Sec. 613A(c)(6)(C) defi...
The IRS acknowledged the 50th anniversary of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which has helped lift millions of working families out of poverty since its inception. Signed into law by President ...
The IRS has released the applicable terminal charge and the Standard Industry Fare Level (SIFL) mileage rate for determining the value of noncommercial flights on employer-provided aircraft in effect ...
The IRS is encouraging individuals to review their tax withholding now to avoid unexpected bills or large refunds when filing their 2025 returns next year. Because income tax operates on a pay-as-you-...
The IRS has reminded individual taxpayers that they do not need to wait until April 15 to file their 2024 tax returns. Those who owe but cannot pay in full should still file by the deadline to avoid t...
The District of Columbia Mayor has presented an economic growth agenda for 2026 that proposes:no sales tax increase in FY26;reducing the Universal Paid Leave tax from 0.75% to 0.72%; andcreate a sales...
Applicable to tax years after 2024, Maryland personal income tax is abated for those who die while serving as members of the uniformed services (formerly, members of the armed forces). In addition, pe...
The Virginia Department of Taxation properly denied the claim by the taxpayer’s estate for an income tax overpayment credit because the taxpayer’s return was filed beyond the refund period allowed...
The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) was enacted January 1, 2021, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, representing the most significant reformation of the Bank Secrecy Act and related anti–money laundering rules since the U.S. Patriot Act. The CTA is intended to address and guard against money laundering, terrorism financing, and other forms of illegal financing by mandating certain entities (primarily small and medium size businesses) to report “beneficial owner” information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).
The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) was enacted January 1, 2021, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, representing the most significant reformation of the Bank Secrecy Act and related anti–money laundering rules since the U.S. Patriot Act. The CTA is intended to address and guard against money laundering, terrorism financing, and other forms of illegal financing by mandating certain entities (primarily small and medium size businesses) to report “beneficial owner” information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). The CTA authorizes FinCEN, a bureau of the U.S. Treasury Department, to collect, protect, and disclose this information to authorized governmental authorities and to financial institutions in certain circumstances. Our firm is sending you this communication to provide you with some general information regarding the new reporting rules, as well as initial steps you should take to address the implications of the CTA to your organization. We strongly encourage you to reach out as soon as possible to legal counsel with expertise in this area to assist your organization with the steps you need to take to ensure compliance with the CTA, if applicable. What entities are subject to the new CTA reporting requirements?Entities required to comply with the CTA (“Reporting Companies”) include corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), and other types of companies that are created by a filing with a Secretary of State (“SOS”) or equivalent official. The CTA also applies to non-U.S. companies that register to do business in the U.S. through a filing with an SOS or equivalent official. Since the definition of a domestic entity under the CTA is extremely broad, additional entity types could be subject to CTA reporting requirements based on individual state law formation practices. There are a number of exceptions to who is required to file under the CTA. Many of the exceptions are entities already regulated by federal or state governments, and as such already disclose their beneficial ownership information to governmental authorities. Another notable exception is for “large operating companies” defined as companies that meet all the following requirements: · Employ at least 20 full-time employees in the U.S. · Gross revenue (or sales) over $5 million on the prior year’s tax return · An operating presence at a physical office in the U.S. Who is considered a “beneficial owner” of a Reporting Company?A beneficial owner is any individual who, directly or indirectly, exercises “substantial control” or owns or controls at least 25% of the company’s ownership interests. An individual exercises “substantial control” if the individual (i) serves as a senior officer of the company; (ii) has authority over the appointment or removal of any senior officer or a majority of the board; or (iii) directs, determines, or has substantial influence over important decisions made by the Reporting Company. Thus, senior officers and other individuals with control over the company are beneficial owners under the CTA, even if they have no equity interest in the company. In addition, individuals may exercise control directly or indirectly, through board representation, ownership, rights associated with financing arrangements, or control over intermediary entities that separately or collectively exercise substantial control. CTA regulations provide a much more expansive definition of “substantial control” than in the traditional tax sense, so many companies may need to seek legal guidance to ultimately determine who are deemed beneficial owners within their organization. Phase-in of reporting requirementsAs currently promulgated, the CTA’s reporting requirements will be phased-in in two stages: · All new Reporting Companies — those formed (or, in the case of non-U.S. companies, registered) on or after January 1, 2024 — must report required information within 901 days after their formation or registration. · All existing Reporting Companies — those formed or registered before January 1, 2024 — must report required information no later than January 1, 2025. How to prepare for the CTAWith the CTA introducing a new and expansive reporting regime, now is the time to assess the new rules’ implications on your organization. Some questions and comments for your company to consider now, although not meant to be all-inclusive, include: · Is your company subject to the CTA, or do you qualify for any of the exemptions? · If your company is not exempt, how should you calculate percentages of “ownership interests” to determine whether any owners meet the 25%-ownership threshold? In many companies with simple capital structures, the answer will be obvious. It may be much less obvious, however, for companies with complicated capital structures (given the expansive definition of “ownership interest”), or companies in which some ownership interests are held indirectly — for example, through upper-tier investment entities, holding companies, or trusts. · How do you assess and determine each person who exercises “substantial control” over the company? There may well be multiple people who qualify, given the expansiveness (and vagueness) of the “substantial control” definition. 1 FinCEN issued a final rule on November 29, 2023, extending the deadline for companies created or registered in 2024 to file initial beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports to 90 calendar days after their formation or registration (was originally 30 days). · What new processes and procedures should the company put in place to monitor future changes in its beneficial owners and reportable changes on existing beneficial owners that will require timely updated reports to FinCEN? Note that the types of information that must be provided to FinCEN (and kept current) for these beneficial owners include the owner’s legal name, residential address, date of birth, and unique identifier number from a non-expired passport, driver’s license, or state identification card (including an image of the unique-identifier documentation). A word of caution, this is going to be a trap for Reporting Companies, as you will need to rely on beneficial owners to timely update you on reportable changes to their information (e.g., ownership changes, moves, marriages, divorces, etc.). As a result, a company’s operative documents may need to be revised to include provisions related to the CTA such as representations, covenants, indemnifications, and consent clauses. For example, the operating agreement may require: · A representation by each shareholder, member or partner, as applicable, that it will be in compliance with or exempt from the CTA; · A covenant by each shareholder, member or partner, as applicable, requiring continued compliance with and disclosure under the CTA or to provide evidence of exemption from its requirements; · An indemnification by each shareholder, member or partner, as applicable, to the company and its other shareholders, members or partners, as applicable, for its failure to comply with the CTA or for providing false information; and · A consent by each disclosing party for the company to disclose identifying information to FinCEN, to the extent required by law. Take immediate action now!As the CTA is not a part of the tax code, the assessment and application of many of the requirements set forth in the regulations, including but not limited to the determination of beneficial ownership interest, may necessitate the need for legal guidance and direction. As such, since we are not attorneys, our firm is not able to provide you with any legal determination whether an exemption applies to the nature of your entity or whether legal relationships constitute beneficial ownership. Since the filing of the Beneficial Ownership Report is a legal matter, we will not provide services in the area. We strongly encourage you to reach out as soon as possible to legal counsel with expertise in this area to assist your organization with the steps you need to take to ensure compliance with the CTA, if applicable.
Note that penalties for willfully violating the CTA’s reporting requirements include (1) civil penalties of up to $5912 per day that a violation is not remedied, (2) a criminal fine of up to $10,000, and/or (3) imprisonment of up to two years.
2 The penalties for BOI reporting violations have been inflation adjusted and are increased to $591 a day from $500, effective January 25, 2024.
For additional information regarding the beneficial ownership reporting requirements under the CTA, refer to FinCEN’s Frequently Asked Questions document at https://www.fincen.gov/boi-faqs.
Sincerely, Bishop, Farmer & Co., LLP |
The Internal Revenue Service is looking toward automated solutions to cover the recent workforce reductions implemented by the Trump Administration, Department of the Treasury Secretary Bessent told a House Appropriations subcommittee.
The Internal Revenue Service is looking toward automated solutions to cover the recent workforce reductions implemented by the Trump Administration, Department of the Treasury Secretary Bessent told a House Appropriations subcommittee.
During a May 6, 2025, oversight hearing of the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, Bessent framed the current employment level at the IRS as “bloated” and is using the workforce reduction as a means to partially justify the smaller budget the agency is looking for.
“We are just taking the IRS back to where it was before the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] bill substantially bloated the personnel and the infrastructure,” he testified before the committee, adding that “a large number of employees” took the option for early retirement.
When pressed about how this could impact revenue collection activities, Bessent noted that the agency will be looking to use AI to help automate the process and maintain collection activities.
“I believe, through smarter IT, through this AI boom, that we can use that to enhance collections,” he said. “And I would expect that collections would continue to be very robust as they were this year.”
He also suggested that those hired from the supplemental funding from the IRA to enhance enforcement has not been effective as he pushed for more reliance on AI and other information technology resources.
There “is nothing that shows historically that by bringing in unseasoned collections agents … results in more collections or high-end collections,” Bessent said. “It would be like sending in a junior high school student to try to a college-level class.”
Another area he highlighted where automation will cover workforce reductions is in the processing of paper returns and other correspondence.
“Last year, the IRS spent approximately $450 million on paper processing, with nearly 6,500 full-time staff dedicated to the task,” he said. “Through policy changes and automation, Treasury aims to reduce this expense to under $20 million by the end of President Trump’s second term.”
Bessent’s testimony before the committee comes in the wake of a May 2, 2025, report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that highlighted an 11-percent reduction in the IRS workforce as of February 2025. Of those who were separated from federal employment, 31 percent of revenue agents were separated, while 5 percent of information technology management are no longer with the agency.
When questioned about what the IRS will do to ensure an equitable distribution of enforcement action, Bessent stated that the agency is “reviewing the process of who is audited at the IRS. There’s a great deal of politicization of that, so we are trying to stop that, and we are also going to look at distribution of who is audited and why they are audited.”
Bessent also reiterated during the hearing his support of making the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent.
By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor
A taxpayer's passport may be denied or revoked for seriously deliquent tax debt only if the taxpayer's tax liability is legally enforceable. In a decision of first impression, the Tax Court held that its scope of review of the existence of seriously delinquent tax debt is de novo and the court may hear new evidence at trial in addition to the evidence in the IRS's administrative record.
A taxpayer's passport may be denied or revoked for seriously deliquent tax debt only if the taxpayer's tax liability is legally enforceable. In a decision of first impression, the Tax Court held that its scope of review of the existence of seriously delinquent tax debt is de novo and the court may hear new evidence at trial in addition to the evidence in the IRS's administrative record.
The IRS certified the taxpayer's tax liabilities as "seriously delinquent" in 2022. For a tax liability to be considered seriously delinquent, it must be legally enforceable under Code Sec. 7345(b).
The taxpayer's tax liabilities related to tax years 2005 through 2008 and were assessed between 2007 and 2010. The standard collection period for tax liabilities is ten years after assessment, meaning that the taxpayer's liabilities were uncollectible before 2022, unless an exception to the statute of limitations applied. The IRS asserted that the taxpayer's tax liabilities were reduced to judgment in a district court case in 2014, extending the collections period for 20 years from the date of the district court default judgment. The taxpayer maintained that he was never served in the district court case and the judgment in that suit was void.
The Tax Court held that its review of the IRS's certification of the taxpayer's tax debt is de novo, allowing for new evidence beyond the administrative record. A genuine issue of material fact existed whether the taxpayer was served in the district court suit. If not, his tax debts were not legally enforceable as of the 2022 certification, and the Tax Court would find the IRS's certification erroneous. The Tax Court therefore denied the IRS's motion for summary judgment and ordered a trial.
A. Garcia Jr., 164 TC No. 8, Dec. 62,658
The IRS has reminded taxpayers that disaster preparation season is kicking off soon with National Wildfire Awareness Month in May and National Hurricane Preparedness Week between May 4 and 10. Disasters impact individuals and businesses, making year-round preparation crucial.
The IRS has reminded taxpayers that disaster preparation season is kicking off soon with National Wildfire Awareness Month in May and National Hurricane Preparedness Week between May 4 and 10. Disasters impact individuals and businesses, making year-round preparation crucial. In 2025, FEMA declared 12 major disasters across nine states due to storms, floods, and wildfires. Following are tips from the IRS to taxpayers to help ensure record protection:
- Store original documents like tax returns and birth certificates in a waterproof container;
- keep copies in a separate location or with someone trustworthy. Use flash drives for portable digital backups; and
- use a phone or other devices to record valuable items through photos or videos. This aids insurance or tax claims. IRS Publications 584 and 584-B help list personal or business property.
Further, reconstructing records after a disaster may be necessary for tax purposes, insurance or federal aid. Employers should ensure payroll providers have fiduciary bonds to protect against defaults, as disasters can affect timely federal tax deposits.
A decedent's estate was not allowed to deduct payments to his stepchildren as claims against the estate.
A decedent's estate was not allowed to deduct payments to his stepchildren as claims against the estate.
A prenuptial agreement between the decedent and his surviving spouse provided for, among other things, $3 million paid to the spouse's adult children in exchange for the spouse relinquishing other rights. Because the decedent did not amend his will to include the terms provided for in the agreement, the stepchildren sued the estate for payment. The tax court concluded that the payments to the stepchildren were not deductible claims against the estate because they were not "contracted bona fide" or "for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth" (R. Spizzirri Est., Dec. 62,171(M), TC Memo 2023-25).
The bona fide requirement prohibits the deduction of transfers that are testamentary in nature. The stepchildren were lineal descendants of the decedent's spouse and were considered family members. The payments were not contracted bona fide because the agreement did not occur in the ordinary course of business and was not free from donative intent. The decedent agreed to the payments to reduce the risk of a costly divorce. In addition, the decedent regularly gave money to at least one of his stepchildren during his life, which indicated his donative intent. The payments were related to the spouse's expectation of inheritance because they were contracted in exchange for her giving up her rights as a surviving spouse. As a results, the payments were not contracted bona fide under Reg. §20.2053-1(b)(2)(ii) and were not deductible as claims against the estate.
R.D. Spizzirri Est., CA-11
The IRS issued interim final regulations on user fees for the issuance of IRS Letter 627, also referred to as an estate tax closing letter. The text of the interim final regulations also serves as the text of proposed regulations.These regulations reduce the amount of the user fee imposed to $56.
The IRS issued interim final regulations on user fees for the issuance of IRS Letter 627, also referred to as an estate tax closing letter. The text of the interim final regulations also serves as the text of proposed regulations.These regulations reduce the amount of the user fee imposed to $56.
Background
In 2021, the Treasury and Service established a $67 user fee for issuing said estate tax closing letter. This figure was based on a 2019 cost model.
In 2023, the IRS conducted a biennial review on the same issue and determined the cost to be $56. The IRS calculates the overhead rate annually based on cost elements underlying the statement of net cost included in the IRS Annual Financial Statements, which are audited by the Government Accountability Office.
Current Rate
For this fee review, the fiscal year (FY) 2023 overhead rate, based on FY 2022 costs, 62.50 percent was used. The IRS determined that processing requests for estate tax closing letters required 9,250 staff hours annually. The average salary and benefits for both IR paybands conducting quality assurance reviews was multiplied by that IR payband’s percentage of processing time to arrive at the $95,460 total cost per FTE.
The Service stated that the $56 fee was not substantial enough to have a significant economic impact on any entities. This guidance does not include any federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.
NPRM REG-107459-24
The Tax Court appropriately dismissed an individual's challenge to his seriously delinquent tax debt certification. The taxpayer argued that his passport was restricted because of that certification. However, the certification had been reversed months before the taxpayer filed this petition. Further, the State Department had not taken any action on the basis of the certification before the taxpayer filed his petition.
The Tax Court appropriately dismissed an individual's challenge to his seriously delinquent tax debt certification. The taxpayer argued that his passport was restricted because of that certification. However, the certification had been reversed months before the taxpayer filed this petition. Further, the State Department had not taken any action on the basis of the certification before the taxpayer filed his petition.
Additionally, the Tax Court correctly dismissed the taxpayer’s challenge to the notices of deficiency as untimely. The taxpayer filed his petition after the 90-day limitation under Code Sec. 6213(a) had passed. Finally, the taxpayer was liable for penalty under Code Sec. 6673(a)(1). The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the taxpayer presented classic tax protester rhetoric and submitted frivolous filings primarily for purposes of delay.
Affirming, per curiam, an unreported Tax Court opinion.
Z.H. Shaikh, CA-3