- Newsletters

Congress needs to do more to protect taxpayers in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service v. Zuch, National Taxpayer Advocate stated in a recent blog post.

NTA Erin Collins noted in the post that Congress in 1998 created the collection due process (CDP) “to give taxpayers a meaningful opportunity to contest proposed levies and Notices of Federal Tax Lien,” allowing them to request a hearing with appeals and possibly petition the tax court.

The Supreme Court decision, according to Collins, “adopted a narrow view of the Tax Court’s review in a CDP case, holding that the Tax Court’s jurisdiction under IRC Sec. 6330(d)(1) terminates once the lien or levy is no longer at issue.” She cited Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent noting that “under this approach, the IRS can cut off Tax Court review by choosing when and how to collect. He also noted that telling taxpayers to file a refund suit instead is often unrealistic, especially when strict refund claim deadlines have expired while CDP and Tax Court proceedings are still pending.”

Collins noted that the Supreme Court decision and an earlier Tax Court order “reveal serious gaps in the protections Congress intended CDP to provide. They make CDP and Tax Court an unreliable path to a merits-based solution. A taxpayer can do everything right: request a CDO hearing, raise issues with Appeals, and timely petition the Tax Court yet still never receive a final determination on what they owe if, for example, the IRS fully collects through offsets or accepts an OIC and then declares that a levy is no longer warranted.”

She added that “the fallback remedy of refund litigation may not grant a taxpayer full relief … which is an unrealistic option for many small businesses and individuals. … Zuch raises due process concerns when collection action is withdrawn. A taxpayer typically receives only one CDP hearing for a given tax period and type of collection action. If the IRS abandons collection after that hearing and later restarts collection on the same liabilities, the taxpayer may not get a second CDP hearing with Tax Court review, but only an IRS ‘equivalent hearing,’ which does not provide a right to Tax Court review.”

Collins noted that Congress has begun to take steps to remedy this with the House of Representatives’ introduction of the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act (H.R. 6506), including clarifying and expanding Tax Court jurisdiction in CDP cases, ensuring that jurisdiction over a properly underlying liability challenges whether the collection is abandoned, protects refund rights, and prohibits the IRS from crediting the overpayment against other liabilities without taxpayer consent.

However, she is calling for more Congressional action to address the “one hearing” limitation.

“Congress should create an exception to the ‘one hearing’ limitation for cases when the IRS withdraws or abandons collection,” Collins stated in the blog. “If the IRS has effectively reset the collection episode by withdrawing or abandoning the prior levy or lien and later initiates the same collection action for the same tax period, taxpayers should be entitled to a new CDP hearing with the full protections of IRC Sec. 6330, including Tax Court review.”

She added that Congress “should also ensure that taxpayers are not permanently barred from CDP when the IRS withdraws and later restarts collection and the Tax Court has clear authority to grant meaningful relief when the IRS has already collected more than the correct amount.”

Close

The IRS has provided interim guidance addressing the special 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified production property enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). The interim guidance provides the definition of qualified production property, qualified production activities, and other related terms. It also establishes a safe harbor for property placed in service in 2025, provides instructions for the time and manner for electing the 100-percent depreciation allowance, and addresses recapture and certain special rules. Taxpayers may rely on the interim guidance until the Treasury Department issues proposed regulations.

Background

OBBBA enacted Code Sec. 168(n), which allows taxpayers to elect to take a 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified production property constructed after January 19, 2025, and before January 1, 2029, and placed in service after July 4, 2025, and before January 1, 2031.

Qualified Production Property Defined

Qualified production property is generally defined as new MACRS nonresidential real property that is (or will be once placed in service) as an integral part of a qualified production activity. Qualified production property must be placed in service in the United States, or its territories. Each building, including its structural components, is a single unit of property and any improvement of structural component that the taxpayer later places in service is a separate unit of property. A special rule is available for integrated facilities. For purposes of determining whether used property is acquired after January 19, 2025, and before January 1, 2029, a taxpayer applies rules consistent with Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(b)(5).

Under the interim guidance satisfies the integral part requirement if the qualified production activity takes place within the physical space of the property. The guidance provides a de minimis rule that permits a taxpayer to elect to treat the entire property as qualified production property if 95 percent or more of the physical space of a property satisfies the integral part requirement.

Although leased property that is owned by the taxpayer and used by a lessee does not qualify, the guidance provides an exception for consolidated groups, commonly controlled pass-through entities, and certain sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations of which 50 percent or more is owned, directly or by attribution by the lessor.

Under the guidance, a taxpayer may use any reasonable method to allocate a property’s unadjusted depreciable basis between eligible property and ineligible property. Each allocation method must be applied consistently and reflect the property’s facts and circumstances. In the case of property that contains infrastructure that serves both eligible property and ineligible property, a taxpayer may allocate the basis of such property between eligible property and ineligible property using any reasonable method.

Qualified Production Activity Defined

Generally, a qualified production activity means the manufacturing, production, or refining of a qualified product. The guidance provides specific definitions of production, qualified product, manufacturing, refining, agricultural production, chemical production, and substantial transformation of the property comprising a qualified product.

Under the guidance, a related business activity will not fail to be a qualified production activity if the related activity occurs within the same property. Such activities include: oversight and management of activities, material selection of vendors or materials related to the qualified product, developing product design and other intellectual property used in conducting a manufacturing, production, or refining activity that results in a substantial transformation of the property comprising the qualified product.

Safe Harbor for Qualified Production Property Placed in Service in 2025

For property placed in service after July 4, 2025, and on or before December 31, 2025, a taxpayer’s trade or business activity will be treated as a qualified production activity if the principal business activity code that the taxpayer, or the relevant trade or business of the taxpayer, used on its most recently filed Federal income tax return filed before February 19, 2026, is listed under sectors 31, 32, or 33, or under subsectors 111 or 112, that appear in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), United States, 2022, published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Executive Office of the President. In addition, the activity must result in, or is otherwise essential to, the substantial transformation of the property comprising a qualified product.

Recapture

Recapture of the 100-percent bonus depreciation taken on qualified production property if a change in use occurs within 10 years after qualified production property is placed in service. Under the guidance a change in use occurs if the qualified production property ceases to satisfy the integral part requirement. A change in use has not occurred if a taxpayer begins to use qualified production property in a different qualified production activity. Property that has been placed in service but is temporarily idle does not cease to satisfy the integral part requirement.

Making the Election

A taxpayer may elect to treat property as qualified production property by attaching a statement to its Federal income tax return for the taxable year in which the eligible property is placed in service. The statement must include the following information: the name and taxpayer identification number of the taxpayer making the election; the street address, city, state, zip code, and a description of the property; the unadjusted depreciable basis of the property; the dollar amount of the unadjusted depreciable basis of eligible property the taxpayer is designating as qualified production property. Separate instructions are available for taxpayers applying the de minimis rule. A election may be revoked only by filing a request for a private letter ruling and obtaining the written consent of the IRS.

Request for Comments

The IRS requests comments on the interim guidance provided in Notice 2026-16. Comments must be submitted by the date, and in the form and manner, specified in Section 10.02 of Notice 2026-16.

Notice 2026-16

IR 2026-25

Close

The Treasury Department and the IRS have extended the deadline for amending individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), SEP arrangements, and SIMPLE IRA plans to comply with the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. The new deadline is December 31, 2027. The extension does not apply to qualified plans such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

Under section 501 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328), retirement plans and contracts had until the end of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, or by a later date prescribed by the Secretary, to adopt plan amendments reflecting changes made by the SECURE Act, the SECURE 2.0 Act, the CARES Act, and the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020. In the absence of model language from the IRS, IRA custodians have requested more time to ensure proper amendments. Notice 2026-9 gives stakeholders until the end of 2027 to complete the necessary changes.

The extension applies to governing instruments of IRAs under Code Sec. 408(a) and (h), annuity contracts under Code Sec. 408(b), SEP arrangements under Code Sec. 408(k), and SIMPLE IRA plans under Code Sec. 408(p). Further, the IRS is developing model language to be used by IRA trustees, custodians, and issuers to amend an IRA for compliance with the legislation.

Notice 2026-9

Close

The IRS issued answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the implementation of Executive Order 14247, Modernizing Payments to and from America’s Bank Account. The order described advancing the transition to fully electronic federal payments both to and from the IRS. The purposes of said order were to (1) defend against financial fraud and improper payments; (2) increase efficiency; (3) reduce costs; and (4) enhance the security of federal transactions.

The FAQs discussed included:

Tax Refunds and Tax Filing

The IRS stopped issuing paper refund checks for individual taxpayers after September 30, 2025. The Service would publish all guidance for filing 2025 tax returns before opening the 2026 tax filing season.

Further, direct deposit into a bank account would remain the primary method for issuing refunds. Alternative electronic payment methods, mobile apps and prepaid debit cards, would also be available. Limited exceptions to the paper check phase-out would also be established.

Alternative to Providing Direct Deposit Information

It is not mandatory for taxpayers to provide electronic payment information. However, if no exception applies, their refunds could take longer to process.

Sunset of Enrollment to EFTPS

Effective October 17, 2025, individual taxpayers are no longer able to create new enrollments via EFTPS.gov. Individual taxpayers not enrolled in the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS).gov by October 17, 2025 can instead create an IRS Online Account for Individual taxpayers or use the IRS Direct Pay guest path.

FS-2026-2

IR 2026-13

Close

The IRS has encouraged all taxpayers to create an IRS Individual Online Account to access tax account information securely and help protect against identity theft. It emphasized that this digital resource is available to anyone who can verify their identity. Thus, the IRS highlighted how taxpayers have used the account with the same convenience as online banking to view adjusted gross income, check refund statuses, and request identity protection PINs.

Further, the IRS supported collaboration between taxpayers and tax professionals through the use of digital authorizations. When taxpayers utilize Individual Online Accounts, they are able to approve power of attorney and tax information authorization requests entirely online. This digital process has allowed tax professionals to use their own Tax Pro Accounts to complete authorized actions on their clients’ behalf more efficiently. Tax professionals have supported this effort by encouraging clients to receive and view over 200 digital notices.

Additionally, the IRS expanded the account’s capabilities in early 2025 to allow taxpayers to view and download certain tax documents. It has made forms such as the W-2, 1095-A, and various 1099s available for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 tax years. These documents provide essential information return data reported by employers and financial institutions to help taxpayers file their returns. Consequently, the IRS advised individuals to visit IRS.gov to learn more about accessing records and managing payment plans.

IR 2026-21

Close

A new, 10 percent middle-income tax cut is conditionally expected to be advanced in 2019, according to the House’s top tax writer. This timeline, although largely already expected on Capitol Hill, departs sharply from President Donald Trump’s original prediction that the measure would surface by November.

Middle-Income Tax Cut

President Donald Trump announced on October 22 that a new 10 percent tax cut would soon be unveiled that will focus specifically on middle-income taxpayers. "President Trump is determined to provide further tax relief for middle-class families," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Tex., said in an October 23 statement. "We will continue to work with the White House and Treasury over the coming weeks to develop an additional 10 percent tax cut focused specifically on middle-class families and workers, to be advanced as Republicans retain the House and Senate," Brady added.

Comment. Notably, Brady is essentially highlighting in his statement that any such additional tax cut measure would require a Republican majority for congressional approval. As November midterm elections near, there is "talk" on Capitol Hill that Republicans may lose control of the House.

The additional 10 percent tax cut for middle-income taxpayers would aim to build upon the individual tax cuts enacted last December under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97). To that end, the House passed a "Tax Reform 2.0"package last month, which would make permanent the TCJA’s individual and small business tax credits. The TCJA’s individual tax cut provisions were enacted temporarily through 2025 in accordance with certain Senate budget rules. Although the TCJA did not receive one Democratic vote, the Tax Reform 2.0 package did clear the House with some bipartisan support.

New Congress, New Tax Cut

"We expect to advance this in the new session of Congress if Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate," Brady, said of the tax cut in an October 26 televised interview. However, President Trump said a couple of days before that a " resolution" would be introduced for the tax cut by the week of October 29.

Democratic lawmakers have been criticizing Trump’s announcement as nothing more than politically-driven rhetoric ahead of the November 6 midterm elections. Several top congressional Democrats have voiced intent to repeal, at least in part, the TCJA enacted last December. While Republicans, on the other hand, want to continue building upon the TCJA’s tax cuts.

"What President Trump is looking at is a 10 percent cut focused on middle-class workers and families…he still believes middle-class families are the ones always in the squeeze," Brady said on October 26. "We’ve been working with the White House and the Treasury on some ideas about how best to do it," he added.

Net Neutral

Trump has predicted that the tax cut will be net neutral. A chief complaint of last year’s tax reform among Democrats is the TCJA estimated $1.4 trillion price tag over a 10-year budget window.

"If you speak to Brady and a group of people, we're putting in a tax reduction of 10 percent, which I think will be a net neutral because we're doing other things, which I don't have to explain now," Trump said. A spokesperson for Brady has reportedly said that cost measures for the tax cut will be addressed once the proposal has been scored.

Looking Ahead

At this time, it is considered likely on Capitol Hill that Republicans will retain control of the Senate, but several predictions continue to float that the GOP will lose its House majority. Republicans would likely need to retain control of both chambers for any chance of approving further individual tax cuts or making permanent those enacted under the TCJA.

Although, the House approved its "Tax Reform 2.0" package last month, which includes measures to make permanent the TCJA’s individual tax cuts and enhance various savings accounts and business innovation, the Senate has showed little interest in taking up the package as a whole before the end of the year. However, consideration of the retirement and savings measure in the lame-duck session remains a possibility.

Close

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Taxation are urging the IRS to make extensive changes to proposed "transition tax" rules.

Transition Tax

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted last December, revived and amended Code Sec. 965. The new Code Sec. 965 generally requires U.S. shareholders pay a mandatory one-time repatriation "transition" tax on untaxed foreign earnings of certain foreign corporations.

"The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act treats these foreign earnings as repatriated and places a 15.5 percent tax on cash or cash equivalents, and an 8 percent tax on the remaining earnings. Generally, the transition tax can be paid in installments over an eight-year period when a taxpayer files a timely election under section 965(h),"Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.

The IRS held an October 22 public hearing on NPRM REG-104226-18, which provides rules for implementing the transition tax created under last year’s tax reform. IRS officials did not provide any feedback at the hearing.

AICPA Recommendations

In an October 31 comment letter to the IRS, the AICPA offered 15 recommendations to provide taxpayers further clarity and guidance on tax reform’s transition tax requirements. The AICPA’s recommendations include the following:

Clarify that previously taxed earnings (PTI) under Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A) are deemed included in Code Sec. 951 for purposes of applying Code Sec. 1248(d).
Clarify that the portion of a Code Sec. 965 inclusion liability attributable to Code Sec. 956 is eligible for the appropriate reduced rate of tax as a consequence of the deduction provided for in Code Sec. 965(c).
Provide taxpayers with additional flexibility when making the basis adjustment election under Proposed Reg. §1.965-2(f) by including the ability to make partial basis adjustments, elect adjustments on an entity-by-entity basis, and modify the proposed consistency provision on related persons.
Provide guidance as to the ordering of distributions of PTI between Code Sec. 965(a) PTI and Code Sec. 965(b) PTI for purposes of applying Code Sec. 959(c) and Code Sec. 986(c).
Provide relief to taxpayers that make or have made late elections under the proposed regulations and clarify the procedure for obtaining such relief.
Provide that U.S. shareholders that are members of the same consolidated group are treated as a single U.S. shareholder for all purposes with respect to Code Sec. 965.
Clarify that the PTI amount created under Code Sec. 965(b)(4)(A) is not taken into account under Code Sec. 864(e)(4)(D) for purposes of allocating and apportioning interest expense.
Exercise the authority under Code Sec. 965(o) to provide relief from the income inclusion to certain affected taxpayers. Specifically, provide guidance excluding a foreign corporation that is considered a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) solely as a result of the "downward attribution" rules of Code Sec. 318(a)(3) from the definition of an specified foreign corporation (SFC) for any U.S. shareholder not considered a related party (within the meaning of Code Sec. 954(d)(3)) with respect to the domestic corporation to which ownership was attributed.
Provide a carve-out for certain "triggering events" of an S corporation Code Sec. 965(i), such as where the S corporation and relevant shareholders maintain direct or indirect ownership of the transferred assets (e.g., tax-free transfers).
Provide guidance on the interaction between a Code Sec. 962 election and a Code Sec. 965(i) election, including clarifying that an eligible taxpayer may make a Code Sec. 962 election for a Code Sec. 965 tax liability for which they intend to defer inclusion under Code Sec. 965(i).

ABA Recommendations

Likewise, the ABA made similar recommendations on the proposed regulations and related guidance in an October 29 letter sent to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. The ABA’s 80-page letter grouped its principal recommendations into the three categories:

the application of Code Sec. 965 to passthrough entities (other than S corporations) and individuals;
the application of the netting of accumulated post-1986 deferred foreign income with deficits in other related entities; and
issues in applying the foreign tax credit.

Close

Last year’s Tax Reform created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income for passthrough entities, subject to certain limitations. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97) created the new Code Sec. 199A passthrough deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, the provision was enacted only temporarily through 2025. The controversial deduction has remained a buzzing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders. In addition to its impermanence, the new passthrough deduction’s ambiguous statutory language has created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS released the much-anticipated proposed regulations on the new passthrough deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8. The guidance has generated a mixed reaction on Capitol Hill, and while significant questions may have been answered, it appears that many remain. Indeed, an IRS spokesperson told Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting before the regulations were released that the IRS’s goal was to issue complete regulations but that the guidance "would not cover every question that taxpayers have."

Wolters Kluwer recently spoke with Joshua Wu, member, Clark Hill PLC, about the tax implications of the new passthrough deduction and proposed regulations. That exchange included a discussion of the impact that the new law and IRS guidance, both present and future, may have on taxpayers and tax practitioners.

I. Qualified Business Income and Activities

Wolters Kluwer: What is the effect of the proposed regulations requiring that qualified business activities meet the Code Sec. 162 trade or business standard? And for what industries might this be problematic?

Joshua Wu: The positive aspect of incorporating the Section 162 trade or business standard is that there is an established body of case law and administrative guidance with respect to what activities qualify as a trade or business. However, the test under Section 162 is factually-specific and requires an analysis of each situation. Sometimes courts reach different results with respect to activities constituting a trade or business. For example, gamblers have been denied trade or business status in numerous cases. In Groetzinger, 87-1 ustc ¶9191, 480 U.S. 23 (1987), the Court held that whether professional gambling is a trade or business depends on whether the taxpayer can show he pursued gambling full-time, in good faith, regularly and continuously, and possessed a sincere profit motive. Some courts have held that the gambling activity must be full-time, from 60 to 80 hours per week, while others have questioned whether the full-time inquiry is a mandatory prerequisite or permissive factor to determine whether the taxpayer’s gambling activity is a trade or business. See e.g., Tschetschot , 93 TCM 914, Dec. 56,840(M)(2007). Although Section 162 provides a built-in body of law, plenty of questions remain.

Aside from the gambling industry, the real estate industry will continue to face some uncertainty over what constitutes a trade or business under Code Secs. 162 and 199A. The proposed regulations provide a helpful rule, where the rental or licensing of tangible or intangible property to a related trade or business is treated as a trade or business if the rental or licensing and the other trade or business are commonly controlled. But, that rule does not help taxpayers in the rental industry with no ties to another trade or business. The question remains whether a taxpayer renting out a single-family home or a small group of apartments is engaged in a trade or business for purposes of Code Secs. 162 and 199A. Some case law indicates that just receiving rent with nothing more may not constitute a trade or business. On the other hand, numerous cases have found that managing property and collecting rent can constitute a trade or business. Given the potential tax savings at issue, I suspect there will be additional cases in the real estate industry regarding the level of activity required for the leasing of property to be considered a trade or business.

Qualified Business Income

Wolters Kluwer: How does the IRS define qualified business income (QBI)?

Joshua Wu: QBI is the net amount of effectively connected qualified items of income, gain, deduction, and loss from any qualified trade or business. Certain items are excluded from QBI, such as capital gains/losses, certain dividends, and interest income. Proposed Reg. §1.199A-3(b) provides further clarity on QBI. Most importantly, they provide that a passthrough with multiple trades or businesses must allocate items of QBI to such trades or businesses based on a reasonable and consistent method that clearly reflects income and expenses. The passthrough may use a different reasonable method for different items of income, gain, deduction, and loss, but the overall combination of methods must also be reasonable based on all facts and circumstances. Further, the books and records must be consistent with allocations under the method chosen. The proposed regulations provide no specific guidance or examples of what a reasonable allocation looks like. Thus, taxpayers are left to determine what constitutes a reasonable allocation.

Unadjusted Basis Immediately after Acquisition

Wolters Kluwer: What effect does the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property attributable to a trade or business have on determining QBI?

Joshua Wu: For taxpayers above the taxable income threshold amounts, $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly), the Code limits the taxpayer’s 199A deduction based on (i) the amount of W-2 wages paid with respect to the trade or business, and/or (ii) the unadjusted basis immediately after acquisition (UBIA) of qualified property held for use in the trade or business.

Where a business pays little or no wages, and the taxpayer is above the income thresholds, the best way to maximize the deduction is to look to the UBIA of qualified property. Rather than the 50 percent of W-2 wages limitation, Section 199A provides an alternative limit based on 25 percent of W-2 wages and 2.5 percent of UBIA qualified property. The Code and proposed regulations define UBIA qualified property as tangible, depreciable property which is held by and available for use in the qualified trade or business at the close of the tax year, which is used at any point during the tax year in the production of qualified business income, and the depreciable period for which has not ended before the close of the tax year. The proposed regulations helpfully clarify that UBIA is not reduced for taxpayers who take advantage of the expanded bonus depreciation allowance or any Section 179expensing.

De Minimis Exception

Wolters Kluwer: How is the specified service trade or business (SSTB) limitation clarified under the proposed regulations? And how does the de minimis exception apply?

Joshua Wu: The proposed regulations provide helpful guidance on the definition of a SSTB and avoid what some practitioners feared would be an expansive and amorphous area of section 199A. Under the statute, if a trade or business is an SSTB, its items are not taken into account for the 199A computation. Thus, the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial and brokerage services, investment management, trading, dealing in securities, and any trade or business where the principal asset of such is the reputation or skill of one or more of its employees or owners, do not result in a 199A deduction.

There is a de minimis exception to the general rule for taxpayers with taxable income of less than $157,500 (single or married filing separate) or $315,000 (married filing jointly). Once those thresholds are hit, the 199A deduction phases-out until it is fully eliminated at $207,500 (single) or $415,000 (joint).

The proposed regulations provide guidance for each of the SSTB fields. Importantly, they also limit the "reputation or skill" category. The proposed regulations state that the "reputation or skill" clause was intended to describe a "narrow set of trades or businesses, not otherwise covered by the enumerated specified services." Thus, the proposed regulations limit this definition to cases where the business receives income from endorsing products or services, licensing or receiving income for use of an individual’s image, likeness, name, signature, voice, trademark, etc., or receiving appearance fees. This narrow definition is unlikely to impact most taxpayers.

Close