Tax preparers are required to adhere to the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations, particularly concerning due diligence. A recent case, United States v. Martha A. Velarde, from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, offers a stark reminder of the serious consequences, including civil contempt and financial sanctions, that can arise from persistent non-compliance with court orders and due diligence requirements.  Because, it turns out, the court believes that randomly generating social security numbers to use on tax returns is a failure of a tax preparer to exercise due diligence.

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Farber v. Feldman, offers a critical analysis of the requirements for exempting Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) from a bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(12). The case highlights the intersection of bankruptcy law and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), particularly concerning the consequences of funding an IRA with amounts exceeding the annual contribution limits prescribed by IRC § 219(b)(1)(A). This article examines the court’s detailed analysis and its implications for advising clients on the proper handling of retirement funds, especially those originating from an inheritance.

The California Office of Tax Appeals (OTA) recently released an opinion in In the Matter of the Consolidated Appeals of R. Peters, OTA Case No. 22019564, which provides a valuable analysis of California’s residency and domicile rules. This case is an important read for tax professionals advising high-net-worth individuals with connections to multiple states, especially when one of those states is California. The taxpayer, an entertainer with significant ties to both Nevada and California, challenged the Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) determination that he was a California resident for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 tax years, which resulted in proposed additional taxes exceeding $2.1 million plus interest.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has once again vacated and remanded a U.S. Tax Court decision in the long-running transfer pricing dispute between Medtronic, Inc. and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. This latest opinion, filed September 3, 2025, provides analysis for tax professionals on the application of the best method rule, particularly concerning the Comparable Uncontrolled Transaction (CUT) method, the Comparable Profits Method (CPM), and the use of unspecified methods under Treasury Regulations § 1.482. The case revolves around the appropriate arm’s length royalty rates for intangible property licensed by Medtronic’s U.S. parent to its Puerto Rican manufacturing subsidiary for the 2005 and 2006 tax years.

The IRS has released a preliminary list of tipped occupations as required by the One Big Beautiful Bill.

What is the title and purpose of this document?

The document is titled "Occupations That Customarily and Regularly Received Tips on or Before December 31, 2024". It was released by the Treasury Department (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to provide a preliminary list of occupations that qualify for the “no tax on tips” provision of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB Act). This list is not final; the official proposed list will be published later in the Federal Register for public comment, though the Treasury and IRS expect it to be "substantially the same" as this preliminary version.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a Tax Court decision against Buckelew Farm, LLC, upholding a 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty related to a conservation easement donation. The case, Buckelew Farm, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, provides insights into the standards for property valuation, the concept of "highest and best use," and the procedural posture of appellate review. The court’s ruling underscores the importance of substantiating valuations with credible market data and illustrates how an independent basis for a lower court’s decision can insulate it from reversal, even if other aspects of its reasoning are challenged.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision impacting the President’s authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. This ruling, in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, clarifies the boundaries of presidential power in economic emergencies, a topic of critical importance for tax professionals. This article will detail the facts, the plaintiffs’ requests, the court’s legal analysis, and its conclusions.

This article examines Private Letter Ruling (PLR) 202535015, which addresses a taxpayer’s request for a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement for an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) distribution. This ruling provides insight into how the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) applies its discretionary authority in cases involving fraud.

The enactment of Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (July 4, 2025), commonly known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), has introduced significant changes to the tax treatment of research or experimental (R&E) expenditures. Revenue Procedure (Rev. Proc.) 2025-28 provides crucial administrative guidance and procedures for taxpayers to navigate these amendments, particularly concerning elections and changes in accounting methods. This article will detail the OBBBA changes addressed by this revenue procedure and outline the necessary steps and qualifications for taxpayers.

The United States Tax Court, in James D. Sullivan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2025-92, recently outlined procedural requirements for taxpayers seeking relief from IRS collection actions. This memorandum opinion highlights the importance of timely response to a Notice of Deficiency and the necessity of presenting concrete collection alternatives during a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the procedural hurdles and the specific legal standards applied by the Court in collection cases.

The recent Tax Court memorandum decision in Lisa Marie Walsh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-91 (filed August 26, 2025), offers significant insights into the application of Section 6015 relief from joint and several liability, particularly concerning the doctrines of res judicata and the various factors considered for equitable relief. This article details the factual background, the taxpayer’s request, the court’s legal analysis, and the ultimate conclusions, providing a technical overview for tax professionals.

The third time was not a charm for the IRS and the Tax Court regarding the question of whether the 90-day deadline to file a Tax Court petition to dispute a Notice of Deficiency is a jurisdictional requirement. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently issued a significant decision in Naysha Y. Oquendo v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, reversing the Tax Court’s dismissal of a petition for redetermination due to untimely filing.

As tax professionals, staying abreast of procedural changes from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is paramount to ensuring client compliance and avoiding unnecessary complications. In an email issued by Spidell Publishing on August 22, Spidell noted that the IRS has recently confirmed significant revisions to certain mailing addresses for tax payments in recently published IRS Publication 3891, a development that requires immediate attention from all practitioners. These changes affect a variety of federal tax forms submitted with payments, particularly Forms 1040-ES and 941, and carry implications for tax software updates and client communication.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued FAQs (FS-2025-05, Aug. 21, 2025) providing initial guidance on modifications to various energy-related tax provisions under Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (July 4, 2025), commonly known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). These FAQs are intended to offer general information to taxpayers and tax professionals expeditiously. While these FAQs have not been published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and thus will not be relied upon by the IRS to resolve cases, taxpayers who reasonably and in good faith rely on them will not be subject to certain penalties, such as negligence or other accuracy-related penalties, to the extent such reliance results in an underpayment of tax.

These modifications specifically impact sections 25C, 25D, 25E, 30C, 30D, 45L, 45W, and 179D of the Internal Revenue Code. Future guidance is anticipated on other provisions affected by OBBBA.

The United States Tax Court, in Silver Moss Properties, LLC v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. No. 3 (2025), recently addressed a critical question for tax professionals: whether the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial for civil fraud penalties under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) Section 6663(a) in a Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) partnership-level proceeding. The court unequivocally held that it retains the authority to adjudicate such penalties without a jury.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued a draft version of the 2026 Form W-2, offering insights into the future reporting requirements for employers concerning the qualified tips deduction under IRC §224 and the qualified overtime deduction under IRC §225. Additionally, the draft references a new IRS form, presumably intended for the reporting of these and potentially other items deductible under §63.

The recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Stephanie Murrin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 24-2037 (3d Cir. August 18, 2025), delivers a crucial interpretation of Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 6501(c)(1) that impacts how tax professionals advise clients regarding statutes of limitations, at least in the Third Circuit. This ruling clarifies that the exception allowing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assess tax "at any time" for a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax does not require the taxpayer’s personal intent. Instead, the intent of a third party, such as a tax preparer, is sufficient to trigger the indefinite assessment period.

This article examines the recent Tax Court Memorandum decision in Corri A. Feige v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2025-88, a case that provides critical insights for tax professionals regarding the income inclusion of property transferred in connection with services, particularly when its receipt is disputed by the taxpayer. The Court’s analysis touches upon the applicability of Section 83, the concept of a "substantial risk of forfeiture," and the nuanced burden of proof rules for both income deficiencies and various additions to tax.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of the Treasury have issued proposed regulations (REG-108822-25) aimed at modifying information reporting obligations concerning sales or exchanges of certain partnership interests. These proposed changes affect partnerships and seek to alleviate existing compliance burdens by refining the timing of certain reporting requirements for Section 751(a) exchanges.

Superior Pediatric Care, Inc., a for-profit corporation specializing in speech, occupational, and physical therapy services primarily for school children in the Northern District of Texas, has filed an original complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the United States of America. This complaint seeks a refund of an employee retention credit (ERC), along with interest and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, asserting that its properly filed claims have remained unpaid by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The case highlights significant concerns among taxpayers and tax professionals regarding the processing delays of ERC claims by the Service.