For tax professionals, the requirement to maintain adequate books and records under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6001 is foundational. However, when a fellow practitioner fails to adhere to these standards, the resulting litigation offers a stark reminder of the judicial application of the bank deposits method and the doctrine of dominion and control. In the recent case of Algarawi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-8, the United States Tax Court addressed the tax liability of a prolific tax return preparer who commingled business receipts, alleged charitable donations, and personal funds, ultimately sustaining the IRS’s deficiency determinations and accuracy-related penalties.

In two recent Orders, Kristen B. Hillenbrand v. Commissioner and Shea M. Hillenbrand v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court addressed the critical procedural intersection between proper mailing of a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) and a taxpayer’s actual receipt of that notice. For tax professionals representing clients in Collection Due Process (CDP) hearings, these cases provide a significant precedent regarding the evidentiary weight of taxpayer testimony against United States Postal Service (USPS) tracking records when contesting underlying tax liabilities.

Following the enactment of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), P.L. 119-21, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Fact Sheet 2026-01 (FS-2026-01) to provide immediate guidance regarding the new deduction for qualified overtime compensation. This guidance arrives alongside Notice 2025-62 (providing penalty relief for information reporting) and Notice 2025-69 (providing calculation methods for individuals). While the Notices provide the substantive administrative framework for the 2025 transition year, the Fact Sheet serves a distinct purpose by translating these technical requirements into accessible FAQs while offering specific, reliance-based guidance not found in the accompanying Notices.

For tax professionals representing clients in criminal tax matters or forensic accounting engagements, the distinction between "tax loss" for Sentencing Guidelines purposes and "restitution" under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is a critical technical concept. A recent opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, United States v. Eckerd (Case No. 2:22-cr-00237(1)), provides a stark illustration of how these two figures can diverge significantly without violating a plea agreement. The court’s January 2026 ruling emphasizes that a stipulated loss cap for calculating a prison sentence does not shield a defendant—particularly in conspiracy cases—from joint and several liability for the full scope of victim restitution.

For tax professionals representing clients seeking refunds outside the standard statutory window, Internal Revenue Code Section 6511(h) offers a narrow path for relief through "financial disability." However, the mere existence of a medical condition is often insufficient to toll the statute of limitations. As the Court of Federal Claims recently illustrated in Goldman v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-01920 (Fed. Cl. 2026), the presence of an authorized representative can negate a claim of financial disability. This article examines the court’s rigorous application of the "authorized person" exception and the substantiation requirements of Revenue Procedure 99-21.

In the recent decision of Zaheen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-7, the United States Tax Court addressed the complexities of equitable relief under Internal Revenue Code section 6015(f). The case highlights the significant weight the Court places on substantiation of spousal abuse and financial control when evaluating a requesting spouse’s eligibility for relief from joint and several liability. For tax professionals, the opinion provides a critical examination of how the "reason to know" standard interacts with the exceptions provided in Revenue Procedure 2013-34, particularly when the underlying income technically originates from the requesting spouse’s assets.

For tax professionals assisting clients with litigation proceeds, the proper issuance of information returns regarding settlement payments is a frequent source of contention. In the recent case of Adusei v. Auer, No. CV-25-01722-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Jan. 20, 2026), the United States District Court for the District of Arizona addressed a plaintiff’s claims that the defendants fraudulently filed Form 1099-MISC regarding a settlement payout. The Court’s order provides a reinforcement of the broad definition of gross income and the high bar required to establish a claim for fraudulent filing of information returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7434.

In the recent decision of Plastic Film, LLC v. United States, Civil No. 5:25-cv-30-DCB-LGI (S.D. Miss. Jan. 20, 2026), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued an order granting in part and denying in part the government’s motion to dismiss. This case provides insight for tax professionals regarding the pleading requirements for Employee Retention Credit (ERC) refund suits and the viability of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges against IRS guidance, specifically Notice 2021-20.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has delivered a significant decision regarding self-employment (SE) tax liability for limited partners, overturning the Tax Court’s reliance on the "functional analysis" test established in Soroban Capital Partners LP v. Commissioner. In Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. v. Commissioner, No. 24-60240 (5th Cir. 2026), the Fifth Circuit rejected the IRS’s position that the Section 1402(a)(13) exclusion applies only to "passive investors." Instead, the Court held that the statutory term "limited partner" must be interpreted based on its ordinary meaning at the time of enactment: a partner in a limited partnership who possesses limited liability.

This article details the factual background, the arguments presented, and the technical statutory analysis employed by the Fifth Circuit in this pivotal ruling.

The United States Tax Court, in its recent memorandum opinion Whistleblower 11099-13W v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-5, addressed a pivotal question for tax professionals regarding the definition of "collected proceeds" under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) § 7623(b). The case centers on whether a whistleblower is entitled to an award when a taxpayer, allegedly prompted by an IRS investigation, voluntarily changes its accounting method and self-reports additional tax on original returns.

As tax professionals, it is critical to stay updated on the specific exclusions provided to members of the U.S. armed forces. A recent development from the Internal Revenue Service has clarified the treatment of one-time supplemental payments, reinforcing the broad protections offered under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).

IRS News Release IR-2026-09: The "Warrior Dividend"

On January 16, 2026, the Department of the Treasury and the IRS issued News Release IR-2026-09, confirming that supplemental basic allowance for housing (BAH) payments made to members of the uniformed services in December 2025 are not taxable.

Internal Revenue Bulletin publication of Revenue Procedure 2026-8 marks a significant shift in the administration of group tax-exempt status under § 501(c). This procedure "modifies and supersedes Rev. Proc. 80-27" and "sets forth updated procedures to obtain recognition of exemption from federal income tax on a group basis". For practitioners, this guidance is the first comprehensive update in over four decades, designed to align the group exemption process with modern electronic filing requirements and more stringent oversight standards.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued Notice 2026-13, which provides updated safe harbor explanations for plan administrators to satisfy the requirements of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 402(f). This notice is a response to significant legislative modifications introduced by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 and recommendations from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding participant comprehension of distribution options. For tax professionals, understanding these revisions is essential to ensuring plan compliance and providing accurate guidance on the taxability of distributions from exempt employees’ trusts.

The enactment of Public Law 119-21, 139 Stat. 72, known as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), on July 4, 2025, represents a significant shift in the federal tax treatment of capital expenditures. For tax practitioners, the primary vehicle for understanding the administrative implementation of these changes is Notice 2026-11, which provides interim guidance on the additional first-year depreciation deduction under Internal Revenue Code Section 168(k). This analysis examines the statutory modifications, the IRS’s technical substitutions for existing regulations, and the specific treatment of newly eligible asset classes through the lens of strict statutory construction.

The determination of whether an unsatisfied tax obligation constitutes a "deficiency" under IRC § 6211 or an amount "shown on the return" under IRC § 6201 dictates the procedural rights of a taxpayer. In Walker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-4, the United States Tax Court addressed a critical procedural question regarding the Premium Tax Credit (PTC): Must the IRS issue a Notice of Deficiency before assessing excess Advance Premium Tax Credit (APTC) repayments when the reconciliation form is submitted after the original return? The Court held that such liabilities constitute deficiencies, requiring the IRS to follow deficiency procedures rather than summary assessment.

The Internal Revenue Service has issued News Release IR-2026-02, formally announcing the commencement of the 2026 filing season. For tax practitioners, this season presents significant compliance changes resulting from the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill." Key developments include the introduction of Schedule 1-A to handle new exclusions for tips and overtime, the deployment of Form 1099-DA for digital assets, and a mandatory shift toward electronic funds transfer for refunds.

The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have issued proposed regulations (REG-112829-25) addressing backup withholding obligations for Third Party Settlement Organizations (TPSOs). These proposals are designed to harmonize the backup withholding regulations under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 3406 with the recent statutory amendments to IRC section 6050W enacted by the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act" (OBBBA).

For tax professionals advising TPSOs or participating payees, these proposed regulations represent a significant technical shift from the existing regulatory framework. Specifically, they modify the determination of "reportable payments" subject to backup withholding by incorporating the de minimis thresholds found in section 6050W(e).

In a decision solidifying the judicial consensus regarding civil penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently affirmed a summary judgment ruling in United States v. Reyes. The court held that the statutory term "willfully" encompasses reckless conduct for purposes of imposing enhanced civil penalties for failing to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). Furthermore, the court confirmed that the six percent late payment penalty assessed by the Treasury Department is mandatory, leaving district courts with no discretion to reduce it.

For tax professionals representing clients with significant noncash charitable contributions, the statutory and regulatory substantiation hurdles remain high. A recent decision by the United States Tax Court, Gibson v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2026-1, serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of failing to strictly comply with Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 170(f)(11) and the associated Treasury Regulations. Although summary opinions are not binding precedent, the Gibson case offers a textbook illustration of how the Court applies the tiered substantiation requirements to high-value property donations.

The United States Tax Court recently issued a Memorandum Opinion in Milk Saving Starving Children Foundation v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-1, which serves as a stark reminder regarding the operational test under Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) section 501(c)(3). The Court granted the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, sustaining the revocation of the petitioner’s tax-exempt status due to its failure to operate exclusively for exempt purposes. This article details the factual background, the legal framework applied by Special Trial Judge Leyden, and the specific operational failures that led to the adverse determination.