The U.S. Tax Court’s recent memorandum opinion in Vincent J. Fumo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-97, provides an examination of constructive receipt, civil fraud, and the excise tax on excess benefit transactions under I.R.C. § 4958. The case, arising from the criminal conviction of a former Pennsylvania state senator, offers valuable insights for tax professionals on how the IRS and the courts quantify and tax benefits diverted from both governmental and tax-exempt entities. This article will explore the court’s analysis of the facts, legal principles, and conclusions in this complex case.

In a recent memorandum opinion, Jackson Stone South, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-96, the U.S. Tax Court dismantled a syndicated conservation easement transaction, disallowing a deduction for one of the two easements at issue and drastically reducing the value of the other. This case provides a valuable technical review for tax professionals, covering issues from donative intent and baseline documentation to highest and best use (HBU) valuation and penalty application. The court’s detailed analysis reinforces critical substantiation requirements and offers a clear rejection of speculative valuation methodologies in the context of conservation easements.

On September 23, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in conjunction with the U.S. Department of the Treasury, announced in IR-2025-94 a significant operational change: the phasing out of paper tax refund checks for individual taxpayers. This initiative, marking the first step in a broader transition to electronic payments, is mandated by Executive Order 14247 and will begin on September 30, 2025, to the extent permitted by law. For tax professionals, understanding the specifics of this change, its legal underpinnings, and the guidance for taxpayers is critical for the upcoming filing seasons.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued Notice 2025-54, providing the 2025-2026 special per diem rates for substantiating business travel expenses. This notice, effective October 1, 2025, works in conjunction with the rules established in Rev. Proc. 2019-48 and is essential for tax professionals advising clients on accountable plan reimbursements and travel deductions. This article will analyze the new rates, their interaction with procedural rules, and the methodology the IRS uses to establish the high-low rates.

For tax professionals with clients in agriculture, managing the tax implications of weather-related events is a critical service. The Internal Revenue Service recently issued Notice 2025-52 on September 22, 2025, which provides an extension of the replacement period under Internal Revenue Code § 1033(e) for farmers and ranchers who were forced to sell livestock due to drought conditions. This notice works in conjunction with prior guidance established in Notice 2006-82 and offers crucial relief by allowing additional time to defer capital gains from these involuntary conversions.

In a recent memorandum opinion, Young v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-95, the U.S. Tax Court provides a detailed application of the "hobby loss" rules under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 183. The case serves as a reminder for tax professionals of the rigorous, fact-intensive analysis required to defend a client’s claimed business losses, particularly when the activity involves elements of personal pleasure or recreation. The court ultimately sided with the Commissioner, disallowing substantial farm losses and upholding accuracy-related penalties against the taxpayers. This article will examine the facts, legal analysis, and key takeaways from the Young decision.

The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-110032-25) providing critical guidance on the new income tax deduction for "qualified tips" under Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 224. This new deduction was enacted as part of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). For tax professionals, understanding the nuances of these proposed regulations is essential for advising clients in tipped occupations. This article provides a technical breakdown of the proposed rules, including the legislative mandate for their issuance, key definitional provisions, the methodology for identifying eligible occupations, and applicability dates.

On September 17, 2025, the House Ways and Means Committee unanimously advanced two bipartisan bills aimed at improving tax administration: the "Fair and Accountable IRS Reviews Act" (H.R. 5346) and the "Tax Court Improvement Act" (H.R. 5349). For tax practitioners, these bills propose significant procedural changes concerning IRS penalty assessments and Tax Court judicial authority. Both bills have garnered support from groups like the National Taxpayers Union and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.

These two tax administration bills have successfully passed the Ways and Means Committee with strong bipartisan support. However, their next challenge is to be scheduled for a vote on the House floor. Despite the committee’s broad approval, there’s no guarantee that House leadership will allocate time in the House’s schedule for these bills to be brought to a vote.

In Blomquist Holdings, LLC, Crestlawn Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. No. 6, filed September 17, 2025, the U.S. Tax Court addressed a critical procedural issue under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). The Court held that a nonparticipating partner’s statutory right to participate in a partnership-level proceeding under I.R.C. § 6226(c)(2) is not absolute and is subject to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Specifically, when nonparticipating partners seek to object to a settlement at the eleventh hour, they must make a "substantial showing" under Tax Court Rule 248(b)(4) to be granted leave to participate. The Court’s denial of the partners’ motion in this case provides a valuable lesson on the importance of timely action for partners wishing to protect their rights in TEFRA proceedings.

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.