Contributions to Trump accounts will be treated as completed gifts that are not future interests in property and the gift tax annual exclusion amount will apply under a safe harbor for certain donors making contributions to Trump accounts created under Code Sec. 530A.

Contributions to Trump accounts will be treated as completed gifts that are not future interests in property and the gift tax annual exclusion amount will apply under a safe harbor for certain donors making contributions to Trump accounts created under Code Sec. 530A.

Pursuant to the rules of Code Sec. 530A, distributions from Trump accounts are limited during the growth period, which is the period ending on January 1 of the year in which the account beneficiary attains age 18. During the growth period, annual contributions are limited to $5,000 per year, as adjusted for inflation after 2027. Gifts of future interests in property are not eligible for the annual gift tax exclusion and must be reported on a federal gift tax return.

The safe harbor applies for a particular year if the following requirements of section 4.02 are met:

• The taxpayer is an individual;
• The only taxable gifts made by the taxpayer during the calendar year are cash contributions to one or more Trump accounts, each made before the calendar year in which the account beneficiary attains age 18;
• The taxpayer's total gifts during the calendar year to each individual who is an account beneficiary, including contributions to that individual beneficiary's Trump account, do not exceed the Code Sec. 2503(b) annual exclusion;
• Such contributions to Trump accounts during the calendar year do not generate for that year either a gift or generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax liability after application of the taxpayer's remaining applicable credit amount against the gift tax or remaining GST exemption; and
• Disregarding the Trump account contributions described in section 4.02(2) of the revenue procedure, a gift tax return is not required to be filed, and no gift tax return is otherwise filed for that calendar year by or on behalf of the taxpayer for any other purposes.

If these requirements are satisfied, each Trump account contribution made by the taxpayer during the calendar year will be treated as a completed gift to the account beneficiary that is not a future interest in property and to which the annual exclusion applies for purposes of gift and GST tax reporting. As a result, taxpayers within the scope of the safe harbor will not be required to file a gift tax return reporting the such contributions.

Rev. Proc. 2026-25

IR 2026-80

The IRS has issued final regulations identifying certain Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust (CRAT) transactions and substantially similar transactions as listed transactions subject to the reportable transaction disclosure rules. The regulations require participants and material advisors to disclose these transactions to the IRS while clarifying that charitable organizations whose only interest is as charitable remaindermen are not treated as participants or parties to prohibited tax shelter transactions. The regulations are effective July 9, 2026.

The IRS has issued final regulations identifying certain Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust (CRAT) transactions and substantially similar transactions as listed transactions subject to the reportable transaction disclosure rules. The regulations require participants and material advisors to disclose these transactions to the IRS while clarifying that charitable organizations whose only interest is as charitable remaindermen are not treated as participants or parties to prohibited tax shelter transactions. The regulations are effective July 9, 2026.

Under Code Secs. 6011 and 6707A, the IRS may identify transactions with tax avoidance potential as listed transactions. The final regulations add Reg. §1.6011-15, identifying transactions in which appreciated property is contributed to a purported CRAT, sold by the trust, and the sale proceeds are used to purchase an annuity, with the beneficiary improperly treating the annuity payments under Code Sec. 72 instead of applying the distribution ordering rules of Code Sec. 664(b).

Although participants and material advisors remain subject to the applicable disclosure requirements, organizations described in Code Sec. 170(c) that merely receive the charitable remainder interest are excluded from participant status and are not treated as parties to prohibited tax shelter transactions under Code Sec. 4965 solely because of that interest. The IRS finalized the regulations without substantive changes from the proposed regulations issued in 2024.

T.D. 10051

IR 2026-82

A portion of litigation settlement proceeds consisting of attorney’s fees and costs was includible in the gross income of two individuals (taxpayers). Said portion was not deductible under Code Sec. 62(a)(20). The Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) (P.L. 91-508) fee-shifting provisions were inapplicable in this case.

A portion of litigation settlement proceeds consisting of attorney’s fees and costs was includible in the gross income of two individuals (taxpayers). Said portion was not deductible under Code Sec. 62(a)(20). The Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) (P.L. 91-508) fee-shifting provisions were inapplicable in this case.

Background

The taxpayers sued multiple credit reporting agencies under FCRA provisions. They eventually settled with each agency. In all relevant Forms 1099–MISC the settlement amounts were reflected without the attorney’s fees and costs.

Civil Rights Interpretation for FCRA Claims Denied

The taxpayers’ FCRA claims of unlawful discrimination did not fall under Code Sec. 62(e)(18)(i). Said claims were based on fair and accurate credit reporting and not consumer privacy. Particularly, the taxpayers’ concerns did not fall under “highly sensitive” and “intimate personal information” categories.

J.W. Eiler, 167 T.C. No. 3, Dec. 62,865

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that major life events can affect tax filing requirements, eligibility for tax benefits and the amount of tax withheld from paychecks. The agency explained that changes such as marriage, the birth or adoption of a child, divorce or the death of a loved one may require updates to tax information and a review of filing status.

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that major life events can affect tax filing requirements, eligibility for tax benefits and the amount of tax withheld from paychecks. The agency explained that changes such as marriage, the birth or adoption of a child, divorce or the death of a loved one may require updates to tax information and a review of filing status. A name change following marriage should be reported to the Social Security Administration so the updated name matches Social Security records. An address change should be reported to the IRS by filing Form 8822, Change of Address, and employers, financial institutions and the U.S. Postal Service should also be notified. Marriage may also require submission of a new Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Certificate, to ensure the correct amount of tax is withheld.

Additionally, the IRS noted that the birth or adoption of a child may make a taxpayer eligible for valuable tax benefits, including the Child Tax Credit, Adoption Credit and Child and Dependent Care Credit, if applicable requirements are satisfied. Divorce or the death of a spouse may also affect filing status, tax withholding and eligibility for certain tax benefits. The IRS encouraged prompt updates to tax records, careful evaluation of changes affecting tax obligations and use of available IRS resources to better understand the tax consequences of major life events. Early action can help avoid filing issues, support accurate tax reporting, maximize available tax benefits and improve preparation for the next tax filing season.

IRS Tax Tip 2026-55

The Internal Revenue Service received and processed less returns during 2026, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The Internal Revenue Service received and processed less returns during 2026, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

In a recently released report, TIGTA stated that from March 1, 2025, through February 28, 2026, the IRS received 51.5 million tax returns, down from 52. 4 million in the previous year, though it did see a significant drop in paper returns received from 1.2 million in 2025 to 618,000 in 2026. Of the returns received in 2026, the agency processed 50.9 million returns, down from 51.8 million.

From the beginning of the 2026 tax filing season to the end of February 2026, TIGTA reported that the inventory backlog in key tax return processing programs increased from 1.9 million to 2.4 million. Additionally, nearly 75 percent of the amended return inventory is over-aged during the 2026 tax filing season.

“Generally, inventories increase during the filing season as the IRS balances efforts to answer phone calls and reduce inventories,” TIGTA stated in the report. “However, with the reduction in staff, increases in key inventories could become a concern.”

The number of refunds dipped to 36.5 million from 36.9 million, although there was a $360 increase in the average refund from $3,382 in 2025 to $3,742.

TIGTA also reported that the IRS did not meet its hiring goals for the 2026 tax filing season. The agency had been approved to hire 1,900 employees for submission processing (these workers process original and amended returns and resolve tax return errors) but only onboarded 800 individuals. Likewise, it was approved to hire 3,500 account management employees (handlers of taxpayer contacts through telephone and mail and process adjustments) but brought 2,300 on board.

Submission processing management said it would be onboarding new hires throughout the tax season, while account management leadership had no plans to hire new employees and would only be onboarding those who previously received offers but had delays in the hiring process.

In a positive from the 2026 season, TIGTA reported that the new and modified “e-file business rules associated with the child tax Credit, state and local tax deduction, and adoption credit are working as intended.”

Taxpayer Assistance Centers offered incorrect tax guidance during nearly half of unannounced visits by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration staff.

Taxpayer Assistance Centers offered incorrect tax guidance during nearly half of unannounced visits by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration staff.

According to a recent TIGTA report, during the 2025 tax filing season, the Treasury watchdog made 91 unannounced visits to TACs nationwide at various time (regular and extended hours), at the 61 visits where TIGTA staff did receive assistance, “TAC employees did not provide the correct tax law guidance during 28 of those visits (46 percent).”

TAC employees were presented with questions across one of the three areas – injured spouse, selling your main home, and American Opportunity Tax Credit. The report notes that for questions related to tax law topics, “TAC employees must use the Interactive Tax Law Assistant ITLA) tool to respond to taxpayers. The ITLA tool asks a series of questions, then generates accurate and complete responses based on the taxpayer’s situation. The tool is designed for TAC employees and is intended to improve operational performance in the areas of quality, efficiency, customers satisfaction, and employee satisfaction.”

TIGTA noted that during the 2025 filing season, “managers counseled several TAC employees for not using the ITLA tool during taxpayer interactions. During our site visits, we also observed that TAC employees did not always the ITLA tool to answer our tax law questions.”

Additionally, of those 91 visits, TIGTA “did not receive full assistance during 30 of our 91 visits due to incomplete or inaccurate responses to tax law questions, denial of entry by security or unexpected TAC closures.”

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.