Tax professionals should be aware that in mid-September 2025, several state revenue departments issued alerts to taxpayers and tax professionals regarding a surge in phishing and "smishing" (text message phishing) scams. Scammers are impersonating state tax agencies through various channels—including text messages, emails, and phone calls—in an attempt to steal sensitive personal and financial information.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) periodically releases draft forms to provide taxpayers and practitioners with an early look at potential changes. One such draft, Schedule 1-A (Form 1040), titled "Additional Deductions," has been released for the 2025 tax year, presenting new below-the-line deductions that warrant careful examination.

It is critical to note that this is an early release draft and is explicitly marked "DRAFT—NOT FOR FILING". While significant changes are generally incorporated before final release, unexpected issues or new legislation may lead to further revisions. Professionals can submit comments to the IRS regarding draft forms at IRS.gov/FormsComments, including "NTF" followed by the form number in the message body for proper routing.

This article provides a technical overview of the sections found on the Draft Schedule 1-A (Form 1040) for 2025, detailing the information required for each part and elucidating the placement of these deductions on the new draft Form 1040, specifically highlighting their nature as deductions from Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).

The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service have issued final regulations (TD 10033) providing comprehensive guidance for retirement plans regarding catch-up contributions, particularly reflecting statutory changes introduced by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. These regulations primarily focus on the new requirement that certain higher-income participants’ catch-up contributions must be designated Roth contributions, along with adjustments to catch-up contribution limits and operational rules for plan administrators. This article aims to distill the key provisions of these final regulations, highlight significant changes from the proposed regulations, clarify effective and applicability dates, and note other crucial items for tax professionals involved in administering affected retirement plans.

This article provides an analysis of the recent decision by the United States Court of Federal Claims in Roger T. Richter v. The United States, No. 22-1690 (Filed: September 10, 2025), focusing on the determination of "responsible person" and "willfulness" under 26 U.S.C. § 6672, as well as the timeliness of a tax refund claim. This case offers insights for tax professionals grappling with the complexities of trust fund liabilities and procedural requirements in tax litigation.

The recent decision in American Properties, Co. G.P. v. The Welfont Group, LLC, US DC WD TN, Case No. 2:22-cv-0239-SHL-tmp, offers a salient reminder to tax professionals regarding the severe consequences of fraudulent or negligent tax advice and appraisal practices, particularly in the context of charitable contributions. This article provides a technical overview of the case, detailing the factual matrix, the plaintiff’s requested relief, the court’s legal analysis, its application to the facts, and the ultimate conclusions, including the imposition of substantial actual and treble damages.

For taking the clean vehicle credits on a personal income tax returns, an understanding of when a vehicle is considered "placed in service" is paramount—or even how often it may be placed in the service in this case. This concept dictates the timing and eligibility of the credit, as highlighted in the recent United States Tax Court decision, Moon v. Commissioner.

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.