The Treasury Department and IRS have finalized regulations regarding the deduction of up to $10,000 in personal car loan interest by individuals for tax years 2025 through 2028. This includes regulations on information returns required to be filed by a lender or other person engage in a trade or business who receives $600 or more of qualified interest during the calendar year. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations published in January 2026 (NPRM REG-113515-25) with some changes in response to public comments.

The Treasury Department and IRS have finalized regulations regarding the deduction of up to $10,000 in personal car loan interest by individuals for tax years 2025 through 2028. This includes regulations on information returns required to be filed by a lender or other person engage in a trade or business who receives $600 or more of qualified interest during the calendar year. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations published in January 2026 (NPRM REG-113515-25) with some changes in response to public comments.

Qualified Personal Vehicle Loan Interest

For tax years beginning in 2025 through 2028, a noncorporate taxpayer may claim a deduction of up to $10,000 for qualified personal vehicle loan interest (QPVLI) paid or accrued during the tax year on a specified passenger vehicle loan (SPVL) incurred by the taxpayer for the purchase of an applicable personal vehicle (APV) for personal use. Generally, interest includes an amount paid, received, or accrued as compensation for the use or forbearance of money under the debt instrument.

The final regulations clarify that QPVLI also includes prepaid interest in the form of points and deferred or capitalized interest. In addition, it may include origination-related or financing-related charges, prepayment penalties, late-payment charges, default-related charges, and similar fees, if characterized as an interest expense for federal income tax purposes.

Secured by First Lien

Interest is QPVLI only if it is paid or accrued on debt for the purchase of an APV for personal use that is secured by a first lien. The final regulations clarify that an SPVL is secured by a first lien with the first voluntary security interest recorded against the vehicle. Any involuntary liens are disregarded even if given temporary higher priority at a later date.

A vehicle also may be considered secured by a first lien even if the lien has not yet been perfected or recorded due to short-term delays arising under State or local law. It may also be considered secured by a first lien where the lien is removed in connection with the taxpayer no longer owning the vehicle, but the taxpayer continues to be liable for the loan (repossession or insurance payout).

Purchase of Applicable Passenger Vehicle

An SPVL is qualified only to the extent the debt is incurred for the purchase of a new vehicle and any other items or amounts customarily financed in the same purchase transaction (for example, vehicle service plans, extended warranties, sales taxes, and vehicle-related fees). Any portion of a loan for items or amounts not customarily financed in the purchase are not qualified.

The taxpayer must allocate the debt on a pro rata basis. Whether items are customarily financed and directly related to the purchase of the vehicle is determined on an industry-wide basis and not on the particular financing terms. The final rules, however, expand the list of examples of items customarily financed in an APV purchase. The final regulations also maintain that debt incurred for negative equity in a prior purchased vehicle is not incurred for the purchase of an APV.

The requirement that an APV must be a new vehicle under the loan documentation refers to the lender’s classification of the vehicle for purposes of its financing programs. The original use of the vehicle must commence with the taxpayer. However, original use does not commence with a dealer if the vehicle is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of its trade or business. Original does not commence with a lessee if the lessee purchases the vehicle during or at the end of the lease term.

Information Reporting

Any lender or other person who, in the course of that trade or business, receives from any individual interest aggregating $600 or more for any calendar year on an SPVL, must report the receipt of interest on Form 1098-VLI to the IRS and the payee. The final regulations affirm that lenders are required to include only interest received on an SPVL for the purchase of an APV, the first use of which begins with the payee. This is required by statute and may require the lender to collect information it currently does not collect. The lender must file Form 1098-VLI for each SPVL.

T.D. 10054

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued proposed regulations providing that a private school is not eligible for Federal income tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) if it considers race, color, or national or ethnic origin in any of its educational, admissions, scholarship, athletic, or other school-administered policies. Any such consideration, under the proposed regulation subsection, would be considered de facto racial discrimination. The proposed rules would apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued proposed regulations providing that a private school is not eligible for Federal income tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) if it considers race, color, or national or ethnic origin in any of its educational, admissions, scholarship, athletic, or other school-administered policies. Any such consideration, under the proposed regulation subsection, would be considered de facto racial discrimination. The proposed rules would apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.

Racial Nondiscrimination

The proposed regulations would treat all race-based consideration in private education as contrary to a fundamental public policy, regardless of its purpose, including remedial or diversity-related objectives. This restriction does not inclulde policies or actions designed to eliminate prejudice or other forms of discrimination. The rules would cover private primary and secondary schools, colleges, professional or trade schools, and universities. The rules specifically do not include governmental units, any agency or instrumentality of a governmental unit, or any organization owned or operated by such an agency or instrumentality.

Application to Private Schools

To qualify for tax exemption, a private school could not consider race, color, or national or ethnic origin in:

• (1) Educational or admissions policies
• (2) Scholarship or loan programs
• (3) Athletic or other school-supported programs

The proposal would not prevent religious schools from maintaining religious missions or selecting students based solely on religious affiliation. If finalized, Rev. Proc. 75-50 would also be modified to remove provisions permitting certain race-based preferences for minority groups.

The proposed regulations would add §1.501(c)(3)-2 and apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-119986-25

IR 2026-103

A Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment (FPA) issued by the IRS to a partnership was timely under Code Sec. 6235 because the partnership and IRS had agreed to extend the limitations period for making partnership adjustments. It was determined that the extended period under Code Sec. 6235(a)(1) controlled because the statute permits adjustments until the latest of the periods specified in Code Sec. 6235(a). Accordingly, the partnership’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

A Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment (FPA) issued by the IRS to a partnership was timely under Code Sec. 6235 because the partnership and IRS had agreed to extend the limitations period for making partnership adjustments. It was determined that the extended period under Code Sec. 6235(a)(1) controlled because the statute permits adjustments until the latest of the periods specified in Code Sec. 6235(a). Accordingly, the partnership’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The partnership, which was subject to the centralized partnership audit (CPA) regime, challenged an FPA disallowing a charitable contribution deduction. The partnership argued that the FPA was issued outside the applicable limitations period because the 330-day period following the notice of proposed partnership adjustment had expired. However, the parties had previously executed an agreement extending the limitations period for partnership adjustments under Code Sec. 6235(b).

Further, it was concluded that the periods specified in Code Sec. 6235(a) were not sequential deadlines. The statutory phrase “later of” required use of the latest applicable period, and an agreed extension under Code Sec. 6235(b) extended the limitations period for making adjustments, including issuance of the FPA. Because the FPA was mailed before expiration of the agreed extended period, the FPA was timely.

Katanga Properties, LLC, 167 TC No. 10, Dec. 62,899

The Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act has been signed into law by President Trump.

The Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act has been signed into law by President Trump.

The law (H.R. 5366) allows victims of federally declared disasters to deduct qualified losses above $500 per disaster without itemizing and removes the 10 percent adjusted gross income threshold for those losses. A fact sheet on the bill can be found here.

Under the law, this treatment of personal casualty loss is available until Jan. 1, 2027.

It also excludes wildfire relief payments from taxable income regardless of when they are received, so long as the wildfire disaster declaration occurs after Dec. 31, 2014, and before Jan. 1, 2027.

President Trump signed the bill into law on Sept. 11, 2026.

The IRS has modified automatic accounting method change procedures for research or experimental expenditures and certain residential construction contracts. Rev. Proc. 2026-32 modifies sections 7 and 19 of Rev. Proc. 2025-23 to reflect changes made by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

The IRS has modified automatic accounting method change procedures for research or experimental expenditures and certain residential construction contracts. Rev. Proc. 2026-32 modifies sections 7 and 19 of Rev. Proc. 2025-23 to reflect changes made by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

For research expenditures, the procedure modifies accounting method changes under Code Secs. 174 and 174A. Code Sec. 174 continues to require capitalization and 15-year amortization for foreign research expenditures. Code Sec. 174A generally allows a current deduction for domestic research expenditures paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2024.

The procedure also revises rules governing adjustments associated with accounting method changes. It coordinates certain Code Sec. 481 adjustments with the OBBBA transition method for recovering unamortized domestic research expenditures. It also extends through tax years beginning before 2028 waivers of certain eligibility restrictions for specified automatic changes.

Further, the IRS provides automatic accounting method changes for residential construction contracts affected by the OBBBA amendments to Code Sec. 460. Taxpayers may change from the percentage-of-completion method to an exempt contract method for qualifying contracts entered into in tax years beginning after July 4, 2025. Certain taxpayers may also change their treatment of costs under Code Sec. 263A.

The modified procedures generally apply to Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, filed after September 4, 2026. Special transition rules apply to certain previously filed Forms 3115.

Rev. Proc. 2026-32

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.