The recent U.S. Tax Court memorandum opinion in Soroban Capital Partners LP v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-52, provides further application of the functional analysis test previously established in Soroban Capital Partners LP v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. 310 (2023) and applied in cases like Denham Capital Management LP v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2024-114. This case underscores the critical need for tax practitioners to look beyond state law labels when determining whether a partner’s distributive share of income is subject to self-employment tax under Section 1402(a)(13).

The recent decision by the New York Tax Appeals Tribunal in Matter of Edward A. and Doris Zelinsky (DTANOS. 830517 AND 830681, May 9, 2025) provides crucial guidance for CPAs advising nonresident clients employed by New York businesses, particularly in the wake of the increased remote work environment. This article delves into the factual background, the petitioners’ arguments, the legal framework applied, and the Tribunal’s reasoning, highlighting the continued relevance and application of New York’s "convenience of the employer" rule.

Practitioners specializing in international taxation and transfer pricing are keenly aware of the complexities inherent in intercompany transactions, particularly those involving high-value intangible property. The United States Tax Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, 164 T.C. No. 9 (2025), offers crucial insights into the application of Section 482 and the temporary cost sharing regulations (Temp. Treas. Reg. § 1.482-7T) to such arrangements. This article delves into the facts, the taxpayer’s challenges, the Court’s legal analysis, the application of the law to the specifics of the case, and the resulting conclusions.

On May 20, 2025, the Senate unanimously passed S.129, titled the "No Tax on Tips Act". This Act proposes amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with the stated purpose of eliminating the application of the income tax on qualified tips through a deduction allowed to all individual taxpayers, and for other purposes. The bill also includes provisions related to the employer credit for a portion of social security taxes paid with respect to employee tips.

There are similar, but not identical, tip provisions in The One, Big, Beautiful Bill under consideration in the House of Representatives.

In Jordan John O’Neill v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2025-49, the United States Tax Court addressed crucial jurisdictional questions stemming from a taxpayer’s challenge to Notices of Deficiency and the timeliness of his petition. The case highlights the technical requirements for both the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxpayers in deficiency proceedings before the Tax Court.

A recent Memorandum and Order from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, The Estate of Vincenzo Sandonato v. United States of America, C.A. No. 23-304-JJM-AEM, offers valuable insights for a tax practice regarding the "reasonable cause" exception to the failure to file penalty under I.R.C. § 6651(a)(1). The case underscores the importance of documented advice and the factual nature of the reasonable reliance defense.

The U.S. Tax Court recently addressed a matter of first impression concerning the scope of its review in cases challenging a certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that a taxpayer owes a "seriously delinquent tax debt" under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 7345(a). This certification triggers the Commissioner’s transmittal to the Secretary of State for potential denial, revocation, or limitation of a taxpayer’s passport. The case, Alberto Garcia, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 164 T.C. No. 8, reviewed by the full court, clarifies that such reviews in the Tax Court can be de novo, based on a new record developed in court, rather than being limited to the administrative record. This ruling has significant implications for how these cases will be litigated.

The U.S. Tax Court recently issued a memorandum opinion in Estate of Martin W. Griffin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-47, addressing the includibility of two bequests in the decedent’s gross estate for federal estate tax purposes. The case centered on whether two specific monetary bequests made through the decedent’s revocable trust to the trustee of his surviving spouse’s irrevocable trust qualified for the marital deduction under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 2056. The dispute required the Court to apply the terminable interest rule and the Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) exception, as well as consider state law (Kentucky) regarding the creation and terms of trusts.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently addressed a critical issue for estate tax practitioners: the deductibility of transfers mandated by a prenuptial agreement as "claims against the estate" under 26 U.S.C. § 2053(a)(3). The case, Estate of Richard D. Spizzirri, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (No. 23-14049), centered on whether a $3 million payment to the decedent’s stepchildren, stipulated in a modification to a prenuptial agreement, qualified for deduction. This opinion from Chief Judge William Pryor provides valuable insight into the application of the "contracted bona fide" requirement for related-party transactions.

On May 16, 2025, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued an interim final rule (TD 10031) and a corresponding notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-107459-24) regarding the user fee for requesting IRS Letter 627, commonly known as the estate tax closing letter. These documents, to be published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2025, detail a reduction in this fee and explain the underlying cost methodology used for its determination. Understanding these changes and the basis for the fee calculation is crucial for tax practitioners advising estates.

Tax Court Memo 2025-45, Stevens v. Commissioner, provides important insights for tax practitioners advising clients engaged in complex financial transactions, particularly those involving purported debt designed to generate significant tax deductions. This case examines whether notes issued as part of a "Bermuda Call Option Agreement" constituted true indebtedness for purposes of Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 163, and the taxpayers’ liability for accuracy-related and excessive-refund penalties.

As CPAs engaged in tax and ERISA practice, understanding the nuances of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is paramount. A recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in Marie Watson v. EMC Corp., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02667-RMR-STV, decided May 7, 2025, provides valuable insights into a plan administrator’s obligation to provide complete and accurate information to beneficiaries.

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.