Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for March 23, 2026 – March 31, 2026.
March 23, 2026: A US Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report found that the IRS’s approach to auditing large partnerships has been ineffective due to resource constraints and inefficient selection processes, resulting in missed audit opportunities before the statute of limitations expired. The report highlighted delays caused by duplicative review steps, prompting TIGTA to recommend improvements to streamline procedures and better target high-risk partnerships.
March 30, 2026: The IRS released its annual Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) report for 2025, summarizing the operations of the Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement Program and transfer pricing agreement trends. The report shows that 178 APA applications were filed and 110 APAs were executed in 2025, with 622 cases pending at year-end, reflecting continued demand for advance certainty in transfer pricing. Bilateral APAs remained the dominant category, and a significant portion of cases involved jurisdictions such as India (26%) and Japan (24%) for filings, with similar trends reflected in executed agreements.
The report further indicates that most APAs covered intercompany service transactions, and the comparable profits method/transactional net margin method was used in approximately 86% of cases involving tangible and intangible property, with the operating margin as the most common profit level indicator. The average time to complete an APA was approximately 44 months overall (about 50 months for new bilateral APAs), and the typical APA term averaged six years, often including rollback years to prior tax periods.
The IRS also released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums, and Chief Counsel Advice).
Recent court decisions
March 26, 2026: The Tax Court held that taxpayers involved in a micro-captive insurance arrangement were liable for a 40% accuracy-related penalty under Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 6662(i) because the transaction lacked economic substance and was not adequately disclosed. The Court analyzed economic substance within the meaning of Code § 7701(o). The Court found that the arrangement did not meaningfully change the taxpayers’ economic position, involved a circular flow of funds among related entities, and was undertaken primarily to obtain tax benefits.
The Court noted that a “circular flow of funds among related entities” may be a strong indication that a transaction lacks economic substance. The Court further emphasized that the taxpayers failed to satisfy the adequate disclosure requirements under Code § 6662(i)(2), judging that merely reporting an “insurance” deduction without providing details of the micro-captive structure was insufficient for alerting the IRS to the potential issue.
March 26, 2026: The Tax Court rejected a $180 million conservation easement deduction, finding that the partnership’s valuation exceeded the property’s actual value and imposing a 40% gross valuation misstatement penalty. The Court rejected the taxpayer’s income-based valuation, which it considered “inherently speculative and unreliable,” and instead relied on comparable sales to determine a substantially lower value.
The Court also disallowed most related business expense deductions and emphasized that the transaction was driven by investor demand for tax benefits rather than economic reality, noting that the partnership’s valuation bore no relationship to the underlying land value.
