Recent legislative proposals, particularly those contained within "Subtitle A—Make American Families and Workers Thrive Again" and "Subtitle C—Make America WIN Again", signal profound changes to the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), with a significant impact on partnerships and S corporations and their owners. As tax advisors, understanding these modifications is crucial for effective planning and compliance for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.

This proposed legislation was approved on a party line vote by the House Ways & Means Committee on May 14, 2025.

This article outlines significant changes proposed affecting the deduction for qualified business income under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 199A in the provisions of The One, Big, Beautiful Bill that were approved in the Ways and Means Committee on the morning of May 14. These modifications, particularly the structural changes to the taxable income limitations and the increase in the deduction rate, warrant careful review for taxpayers engaged in qualified trades or businesses.

A recent Order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the case of Rimon Hanna v. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Case No.: 3:24-cv-00515-RBM-KSC, provides a relevant reminder regarding the strict limitations of suing the government for damages under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 7433. This case, involving a pro se taxpayer challenging IRS actions related to amended returns and resulting balances, was dismissed by the Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Order highlights critical distinctions between tax assessment and collection activities and reinforces the principle of sovereign immunity.

Here is a bulleted summary of the provisions in the Ways and Means May 9 draft bill:

The bill provides that Section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not apply to any change in rate of tax by reason of any provision of, or amendment made by, this title (Title XI). This means the standard tax proration rules for rate changes within a tax year will not apply to changes enacted by this bill.

The House Committee on Ways and Means has put forth budget reconciliation legislative recommendations related to tax, outlined in a recent Committee Print and described in a document prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCX-18-25). These proposals, primarily effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, would significantly alter numerous provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 ("Code"), making permanent many of the temporary changes enacted by Public Law 115-97 and introducing new modifications. This article provides a technical summary of the key proposed changes, including their impact on specified service trade or businesses (SSTBs), their effective dates, and whether they are made permanent based on the provided text.

As tax professionals, we are acutely aware of the potential for disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service. While procedural safeguards exist, taxpayers sometimes seek recourse through litigation, particularly under 26 U.S.C. § 7433, which waives sovereign immunity for damages caused by reckless, intentional, or negligent disregard of the Internal Revenue Code or regulations in connection with the collection of federal tax. A recent Opinion and Order from the District of New Jersey, Manuel Lampon-Paz v. United States of America et al., No. 23-cv-02248 (MEF)(AME) (D.N.J. May 6, 2025), provides valuable insight into how courts interpret the critical phrase "in connection with any collection of Federal tax" and its implications for taxpayer claims.

As CPAs advising clients on federal tax matters, understanding the procedural prerequisites for accessing judicial review, particularly in the United States Tax Court, is paramount. A critical juncture involves the timely filing of a petition to redetermine a deficiency after receiving a Notice of Deficiency from the IRS. The seemingly straightforward 90-day deadline under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6213(a) has become a focal point of complex legal debate, particularly in the wake of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence on the distinction between jurisdictional limits and non-jurisdictional claims-processing rules. The case of Naysha Oquendo v. Commissioner, currently before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals after dismissal by the Tax Court, highlights these complexities and the potential availability of equitable tolling.

Tax practitioners are acutely aware that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) significantly altered many long-standing provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Among these changes was the suspension of the deduction for moving expenses under IRC Section 217 for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026. A narrow exception was carved out for certain members of the U.S. Armed Forces. A recent bench opinion from the Tax Court, Tim Kent & Wendi Kent v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 14884-23, issued on March 20, 2025, provides a straightforward application of this provision, confirming that this exception does not extend to civilian contractors, even those moving under military orders. This article reviews the pertinent facts, the legal framework analyzed by the Court, and its conclusion, which resulted in a decision for the Commissioner.

As tax professionals, navigating the complexities of tax collection and litigation is crucial. The recent decision in United States v. Timothy M. Ragen, Case No. 4:23-CV-306 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, provides valuable insights into the government’s process for reducing tax assessments to judgment, particularly regarding the application of the statute of limitations and the significance of taxpayer actions and defenses.

As tax professionals, we are constantly dealing with the intricacies of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations. While we strive to maximize legitimate tax benefits for our clients, it is crucial to remain vigilant against fraudulent schemes. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Quinones v. United States, serves as a stark reminder of the severe consequences of attempting to defraud the IRS, particularly when claims against the United States are involved. This case highlights the application of the Special Plea in Fraud statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2514, and its "silver bullet" effect on claims before that court.

As tax professionals, we frequently encounter complex medical expense deduction questions under IRC Section 213. IRS Determination Letter 202518023 provides valuable insight into the Service’s position on the deductibility of costs associated with in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gestational surrogacy. This analysis will dissect the facts presented, the taxpayers’ request, the IRS’s legal framework, its application of the law, and the final determination.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released Revenue Procedure 2025-19, providing the inflation-adjusted figures for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and excepted benefit Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) applicable for calendar year 2026 and plan years beginning in 2026, respectively. This guidance is essential for tax practitioners advising clients on health and welfare benefit plans and individual tax planning involving HSAs.

The House Judiciary Committee, as part of the overall budget reconciliation process, has added a provision to their bill that would make modifications to Public Law 86-272, which would serve to broaden the definition of solicitation of sales and thus limit a state’s ability to impose an income tax on an out of state entity, it was reported by Amy Hamilton in Tax Notes Today Federal. The 1959 law has never been amended by Congress since it was originally enacted.

This article analyzes the Tax Court’s Memorandum Opinion in Dealers Auto Auction of Southwest LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-38, filed April 28, 2025. This case provides valuable insights for tax practitioners regarding the application of the reasonable cause defense to penalties for failure to file information returns under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6050I and the relevance of reliance on software in establishing such a defense.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued Program Manager Technical Advice (PTMA 2025-001) addressing the validity of Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims submitted by third-party payers (TPPs) on aggregate employment tax returns or claims for refund when the required allocation schedule, Schedule R (Form 941), is not attached. This guidance, dated February 13, 2025, responds to a request for assistance concerning the treatment of these claims, particularly in light of the moratorium on processing Form 941-X, Adjusted Employer’s QUARTERLY Federal Tax Return or Claim for Refund, due to concerns about ineligible ERC claims. This article will detail the facts underlying this advice, the IRS’s analysis of the relevant law, the application of this law to the presented facts, and the resulting conclusions regarding the validity of these ERC claims.

As CPAs in tax practice, while our primary focus may not always be on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), understanding its intricacies, particularly concerning retirement plans, is crucial as plans covered by ERISA are often part of tax planning for our business clients. The recent Supreme Court decision in Cunningham et al. v. Cornell University et al., No. 23–1007, decided April 17, 2025, provides significant clarification on the pleading requirements for prohibited transaction claims under ERISA § 1106(a)(1)(C). This article will dissect the facts, the petitioners’ arguments, the Court’s legal analysis, its application to the case, and the resulting conclusions, offering insights relevant to our practice.

As tax practitioners, we are frequently faced with intricate collection matters and the nuances of taxpayer rights when the IRS seeks to enforce tax liabilities. The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Jennifer Zuch, No. 24-416, a case that could significantly impact the scope of Tax Court jurisdiction in Collection Due Process (CDP) proceedings under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6330. This article will delve into the facts of the case, the lower courts’ analyses, and, most importantly, the critical issues raised by the Supreme Court Justices during oral arguments that appear central to the resolution of this dispute.

This article delves into the recent Tax Court Memorandum decision in Joanne Salvi Vanover v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-37, offering insights for tax practitioners on the nuances of Innocent Spouse Relief under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6015. The case provides a comprehensive analysis of the statutory requirements and the factors considered by the Tax Court when evaluating a taxpayer’s claim for relief from joint and several liability.

This article discusses the case of United States v. Charles S. Brown, et al., Case No. C24-5021, a decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma, offering key insights for tax practitioners dealing with clients who face both civil and criminal tax consequences arising from the same underlying actions. The court’s analysis clarifies the distinct nature of civil tax liabilities and criminal restitution orders, particularly concerning assessment and the statute of limitations on collection.

This article analyzes the recent Tax Court Memorandum decision in Mark P. Himmel and Deborah W. Himmel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2025-35, which provides valuable insights for tax practitioners navigating the complexities of hobby loss rules under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 183 and penalties for failure to timely file under IRC § 6651(a)(1).