Court Procedure Matters Archives | TAX CONTROVERSY 360

Court Procedure Matters

IRS roundup: November 7 – November 24, 2025

by Evan Walters, Samuel F. Hamer, Edward L. Froelich, Michael J. Scarduzio and Matthew J. Blaney | Dec 2, 2025 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Significant Court Decision, Tax Reform

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for November 7, 2025 – November 24, 2025.

November 10, 2025: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin No. 2025-46, which includes proposed regulations 109742-25. The proposed regulations would remove a rule in previous final regulations that uses the shareholders of certain domestic corporations to determine whether foreign persons hold – directly or indirectly – stock in a domestically controlled qualified investment entity (QIE). If a QIE was not domestically controlled following the changes from the proposed regulations, stock owned by foreign persons in a QIE would qualify as a US real property interest.

November 10, 2025: The IRS released Revenue Procedure 2025-31, providing guidance on a safe harbor that allows trusts qualifying as investment trusts under Section 301.7701-4(c) and as grantor trusts to stake digital assets without losing their tax status and offering a limited period for existing trusts to amend their governing instruments to meet the safe harbor requirements.

November 13, 2025: The IRS released Notice 2025-67, which announces the annual cost-of-living adjustments to the limits on benefits and contributions for qualified retirement plans under Section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These adjustments, required by Section 415(d), follow procedures similar to those used for Social Security benefit updates and apply to certain amounts under deferred compensation plans.

November 13, 2025: The IRS released Revenue Ruling 2025-22, announcing that interest rates will remain unchanged for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2026. The rates are as follows:

7% for individual overpayments and 6% for corporate overpayments
5% on the portion of a corporate overpayment exceeding $10,000
7% for underpayments and 9% for large corporate underpayments

Under the Code, these rates are recalculated quarterly based on the federal short-term rate. For noncorporate taxpayers, both overpayment and underpayment rates equal the federal short-term rate plus three percentage points. For corporations, the underpayment rate is also the short-term rate plus three points while the overpayment rate is the short-term rate plus two points. Large corporate underpayments add five points, and corporate overpayments exceeding $10,000 add 0.5 points. The current rates are based on the federal short-term rate determined in October 2025.

November 19, 2025: The IRS announced that it would resume its regular activities following the 2025 lapse in appropriations during the government shutdown. In its announcement, the IRS included specific frequently asked questions regarding the resumption of regular activities for audits, collections, and appeals and stated that determination letter applications for tax exempt and government entities would resume.

Recent court decisions

November 5, 2025: The US District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an opinion in Ryan, LLC v. IRS. Check out our recent insight on the case, including an analysis of the district court’s holdings and practice points for taxpayers.

November 12, 2025: The US [...]

Continue Reading

Tax consulting firm permitted to challenge final micro-captive reporting regulations

by Samuel F. Hamer | Dec 2, 2025 | Court Procedure Matters, Significant Court Decision, Trial Courts

Ryan, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service[1] is the latest example of success in overcoming procedural hurdles to challenge the validity of a US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) regulation. In a recent opinion, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that:

Ryan has standing to challenge the validity of the Treasury’s final regulations[2] that require disclosure of certain transactions engaged in by businesses and their “micro-captive insurance companies” (MCICs).
Ryan sufficiently pleaded its claim that the final regulations under challenge were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” and must be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[3]
The court’s opinion confirms that nontaxpayer actors may have standing to challenge Treasury regulations. The case is also another example of a plaintiff reaching the merits stage of a challenge to a Treasury regulation in the aftermath of Loper Bright v. Raimondo.[4]

Background

Ryan is an advisor to businesses seeking to establish and maintain MCICs. “Captive” insurance companies are specialized insurance companies that exist to insure the entities that own them. When the owning entities make premium payments to the captive, the premiums do not need to include commissions or other fees associated with traditional insurers, making captives an attractive option especially when coverage is unavailable or costly through traditional insurers. Certain small captive insurance companies, commonly called MCICs, qualify for favorable tax treatment. Under section 831(b), MCICs are not taxed on the first $2.2 million in premiums paid by their owner-insured. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased its scrutiny of the captive insurance industry because of concerns that these arrangements may be exploited for fraud and abuse.

The Treasury’s new regulations

Section 6707A requires the disclosure of certain “reportable transactions,” defined as transactions that, in the IRS’s determination, have a “potential for tax avoidance or evasion.” A “listed transaction” is a type of reportable transaction in which the taxpayer is presumed to have engaged in the transaction for the purpose of tax avoidance or evasion.[5] A “transaction of interest” is a reportable transaction designated by the IRS as having a potential for abuse but is not presumed abusive.[6] These designations create heavy reporting requirements by taxpayers and their advisors (e.g., Ryan).

Under the Treasury’s new regulations, a micro-captive insurance transaction is defined based on a loss ratio factor and a financing factor. The loss ratio factor is the ratio of the captive insurance company’s cumulative insured losses to the cumulative premiums earned over a specified period, typically the most recent 10 taxable years (or all years if less than 10). The financing factor refers to whether the captive insurance company participated in certain related-party financing arrangements within the most recent five taxable years, such as making loans or other transfers of funds to insureds, owners, or related parties. A transaction is classified as a “listed transaction” if the MCIC’s loss ratio is [...]

Continue Reading

Tax Court confirms codified economic substance doctrine requires threshold relevancy determination, upholds 40% strict-liability penalty

by Susan E. Ryba and Edward L. Froelich | Nov 24, 2025 | Court Procedure Matters, Significant Court Decision, Trial Courts

Patel v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. No. 10 (Nov. 12, 2025), gave the US Tax Court its “first opportunity to examine when the codified economic substance doctrine applies.” Patel at *16. The Tax Court made two key holdings:

Section 7701(o) requires a relevancy determination that “is not coextensive with the two-part test set forth in section 7701(o)(1)(A) and (B).” Patel at *17.

Adequate disclosure to reduce the 40% economic substance penalty imposed by sections 6662(b)(6) and (i) must be made at the time the return is filed and not at a later time. Patel at *30.

Relevancy determination

Section 7701(o) provides:

Sec. 7701(o). Clarification of economic substance doctrine.—

(1) Application of doctrine.—In the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant, such transaction shall be treated as having economic substance only if—

(A) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal income tax effects) the taxpayer’s economic position, and

(B) the taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax effects) for entering into such transaction.

While the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) endorses a seemingly limitless application of the codified economic substance doctrine, taxpayers contend that it does not apply to every transaction. Rather, the plain language of section 7701(o)(1) requires a threshold relevancy determination. If the economic substance doctrine is not relevant, the inquiry ends.

There are very few cases that have considered whether section 7701(o) requires a threshold relevancy determination. And those that have found that section 7701(o) does not impose a separate relevancy requirement. See Liberty Global, Inc. v. United States, No. 20-cv-63501, 2023 WL 8062792 (D. Colo. Oct. 31, 2023); Chemoil Corp. v. United States, No. 19-cv-6314, 2023 WL 6257928 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023). While Liberty Global was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – and many speculate the Tenth Circuit may clarify that there is a relevancy requirement – the Tax Court beat the appellate court to the punch.

The Tax Court’s holding had solid statutory support. The plain language of section 7701(o)(1) states: “In the case of any transaction to which the economic substance doctrine is relevant…” After quoting these words, the Tax Court stated, “we easily conclude that the statute requires a relevancy determination. To put it plainly—the statute says so, right there, on its face.” Patel at *17.

Adequate disclosure of transactions

The second key holding in Patel is that the taxpayers in the case are liable for a 40% penalty for engaging in a transaction that lacks economic substance that was not adequately disclosed. Section 6662(b)(6) imposes a 20% penalty on transactions that lack economic substance. This penalty is increased to 40% under section 6662(i) if the transaction is not adequately disclosed.[1]

In the current wave of economic substance challenges, it is unclear what constitutes adequate disclosure under section 6662(i) such that the 20% (instead of the 40%) penalty applies. Based on current audit activity, [...]

Continue Reading

3M Co. v. Commissioner: IRS shipwrecks hard on the shoals of Loper Bright

by Edward L. Froelich | Oct 16, 2025 | Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, Transfer Pricing Resource

3M Co. v. Commissioner, 136 AFTR 2d 2025-, (8th Cir.) (Oct.1, 2025), is perhaps the most significant tax case to date that implements Loper Bright’s instruction regarding evaluation of an agency’s exercise of delegated authority.[1] The unanimous panel held that:

The Internal Revenue Services’ (IRS) adjustment imputing additional royalty income to 3M from its Brazilian affiliate was invalid because it was outside the authority delegated by Internal Revenue Code Section 482.
The underlying regulation, Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2) (the blocked income regulation), was invalid for the same reason.

The IRS’s change of tack

Those following the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s consideration of the case were aware that the Court had asked the parties to file supplemental briefing on the impact of the Loper Bright decision, which was handed down after the US Tax Court’s decision. The focus of the Tax Court dispute was whether the blocked income regulation was a valid implementation of the statute under Chevron and the Administrative Procedure Act. A plurality of that court agreed it was.

In its briefing before the Eighth Circuit, the IRS pivoted[2] and argued that even if the Court determined that the blocked income regulation was invalid, Code Section 482 provided direct authority to the IRS to make adjustments to income. The IRS maintained that it did not need a regulation to support the adjustment in the case. Moreover, the IRS argued, where adjustments relate to the transfer of intangible property (such as here), its authority was only constrained by the requirement that the adjustment conform to the income commensurate with that attributable to the intangible.[3] Because the parties agreed that the higher royalty would have been paid to an unrelated party, slip op. at 2, the IRS maintained it was authorized to make the adjustment to 3M’s income.

No one can be taxed on income they can’t have

The IRS’s maneuver did not deter the Eighth Circuit from carefully following the mandate it had received via Loper Bright to evaluate whether the agency’s exercise of authority was within its statutory mandate. In other words, even if the IRS could act without a regulation to make adjustments under Code Section 482, the exercise of its authority under that section must remain within the confines of the statute: “[I]t is still our job to ‘fix[] the boundaries of [that] delegated authority’ based on the statute’s text, as we have done today.” Slip. op. at 11 (quoting Loper Bright). Viewed through this lens, the Eighth Circuit found that the adjustments asserted by the IRS were well outside the authority granted by Code Section 482. Because the blocked income regulation purported to exercise the same extra-statute authority, it too was found deficient.

According to the Eighth Circuit, Code Section 482’s broad delegation to the IRS by its terms is limited to making adjustments where necessary to avoid evasion or distortion of income. However, in Comm’r v. First Sec. Bank of Utah, N.A., 405 U.S. [...]

Continue Reading

IRS roundup: September 19 – October 1, 2025

by Evan Walters, Samuel F. Hamer, Edward L. Froelich, Michael J. Scarduzio and Matthew J. Blaney | Oct 8, 2025 | Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Tax Reform, Transfer Pricing Resource

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for September 19, 2025 – October 1, 2025.

September 19, 2025: The US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the IRS issued proposed regulations, providing guidance on the “no tax on tips” provision of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The proposed regulations define “qualified tips” and identify which occupations customarily and regularly receive tips on or before December 31, 2024.

September 23, 2025: The IRS issued Notice 2025-54, providing guidance on the 2025 – 2026 special per diem rates for taxpayers when determining their ordinary and necessary business expenses incurred while traveling away from home, including meal and incidental expenses rates, rates for the incidental expenses only deduction, and rates for (and a list of) high-cost localities for purposes of the high-low substantiation method.

September 29, 2025: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2025-30, providing updated procedures for taxpayers requesting private letter rulings from the IRS after September 29, 2025, regarding transactions intended to qualify under Internal Revenue Code § 3551. This guidance specially provides details on the representations, information, and analysis taxpayers should submit when requesting these rulings.

September 30, 2025: The IRS issued Notice 2025-46 and Notice 2025-49, providing guidance on the application of the corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT).

Notice 2025-46 provides interim guidance to domestic corporate transactions, financially troubled companies, and tax consolidated groups. This notice also announces the Treasury and the IRS’s intent to partially withdraw the CAMT Proposed Regulations (described in Section 2.03 of this notice) and instead issue revised proposed regulations with guidance similar to Sections 3 – 6 of this notice. The proposed regulations will reduce compliance burdens related to, and costs associated with, application of the CAMT.

Notice 2025-49 provides interim guidance regarding application of the CAMT as it relates to §§ 55, 56A, and 59. This notice also announced the Treasury and the IRS’s intent to partially withdraw the CAMT Proposed Regulations (described in Section 2.03 of this notice) and instead issue revised proposed regulations with guidance similar to Sections 3 – 10 of this notice.

October 1, 2025: The Treasury and the IRS issued final regulations, providing guidance on interest capitalization requirements on designated property. The final regulations specifically remove the associated property rule (including similar rules in existing regulations), modifies how “improvement” is defined when applying those similar rules, and primarily affects taxpayers making improvements to real or tangible personal property if those improvements are the production of designated property.

October 1, 2025: The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit released its opinion in 3M Company v. Commissioner. The Eighth Circuit reversed the US Tax Court’s decision that 3M must pay taxes on royalties – that it could not legally receive – from a Brazilian subsidiary and remanded the Tax Court’s decision with instructions to redetermine 3M’s tax liability. Relying [...]

Continue Reading

IRS roundup: August 28 – September 15, 2025

by Evan Walters, Samuel F. Hamer, Edward L. Froelich, Michael J. Scarduzio and Matthew J. Blaney | Sep 18, 2025 | Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Tax Reform, Transfer Pricing Resource

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for August 28, 2025 – September 15, 2025.

August 28, 2025: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2025-28, providing guidance on making certain elections for domestic research or experimental expenditures under § 70302(f) of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Revenue Procedure 2025-28 specifically modifies procedures under Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 446 and Treasury Regulation § 1.446-1(e) for obtaining automatic consent from the commissioner of the Internal Revenue to:

Change methods of accounting for research or experimental expenditures under § 174, as amended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

Change methods of accounting to comply with §§ 174 and 174A, as amended by OBBBA.

Revenue Procedure 2025-28 also prescribes the procedure for electing to amortize domestic research or experimental expenditures paid or incurred in the taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, under Code § 174A(c).

September 2, 2025: The IRS issued Tax Tip 2025-59, reminding employers that they can use educational assistance programs to help employees pay for various educational expenses for undergraduate- or graduate-level studies. These programs can help pay for books, equipment, supplies, tuition, and other fees, as well as for qualified education loans. This tax-free benefit is allowed only up to $5,250 per employee per year and does not include meals, lodging, or transportation.

September 3, 2025: In Medtronic, Inc. v. Commissioner, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the US Tax Court’s order, rejecting the Tax Court’s three-step unspecified method to value the arm’s length royalty rate for intercompany licensing agreements. The Eight Circuit also held that the Tax Court incorrectly rejected the application of the comparable profits method, explaining that, on remand, the Tax Court should consider whether the proposed comparable companies were “sufficiently similar” to Medtronic Puerto Rico.

September 15, 2025: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin 2025–38, which includes Notice 2025-38. This notice republishes the inflation adjustment factor and the clean electricity production credit allowable under Code § 45Y for the 2025 calendar year. The inflation adjustment factor – and applicable amounts allowable for the 2025 calendar year – are used to determine the amount of Code § 45Y credits that may apply to calendar year 2025 sales, consumption, or storage of electricity produced at a qualified facility in the United States.

The IRS also released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums, and Chief Counsel Advice).

The Employee Retention Credit: A court challenge to IRS guidance

by Shawn O’Brien, Samuel F. Hamer and Michael J. Scarduzio | Jul 8, 2025 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Trial Courts

Case: Stenson Tamaddon LLC v. IRS, No. CV-24-01123-PHX-SPL, 2025 WL 1725942 (D. Ariz. June 20, 2025)

On June 20, 2025, the US District Court for the District of Arizona denied a motion for summary judgment that was filed by Stenson Tamaddon LLC (StenTam). The tax advisory firm argued that IRS Notice 2021-20, which provided informal guidance on claiming the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), was invalid because it was a “legislative rule” that was not promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court ruled that while StenTam had standing to challenge the validity of the notice, the notice was an “interpretive rule” and its issuance as such did not violate the APA. The court also addressed StenTam’s arguments that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the notice and that it acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

Background on the Employee Retention Credit

The ERC was enacted in 2020 as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act to provide financial relief to businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress’s goal was to incentivize businesses experiencing significant disruptions because of COVID-19-related government orders or a substantial decline in gross receipts to retain employees on payroll and rehire displaced workers. The ERC is calculated as a percentage of qualified wages paid to employees during periods in 2020 and 2021.

Millions of employers have filed refund claims seeking ERC. Since the enactment of the CARES Act, the IRS has issued roughly $269 billion in ERC. However, more than 200,000 claims have been disallowed, reversed, or recaptured, and another 592,000 remain pending as of late April 2025. To the frustration of many, taxpayers whose claims have been processed in 2025 waited an average of more than 18 months before the IRS took action. According to a recent report from the Taxpayer Advocate Service, the IRS will need until at least the end of 2025 to process all remaining ERC claims. However, the IRS may still seek to recapture refunds relating to ERC claims well into the future.

IRS Notice 2021-20

A 102-page document presented in “question-and-answer” format, the IRS published Notice 2021-20 in March 2021 with the intention to “provide[ ] guidance on the [ERC] . . . .” In its suit, StenTam alleged that the notice “defined various terms in Section 3134 [providing for the ERC], identified factors or elements necessary to claim the credit, set minimum thresholds for recovery of ERC, and imposed new, related record-keeping requirements—all of which resulted in the ERC being restricted to a lesser number of businesses than originally contemplated by Congress.” The parties disputed whether the notice created substantive duties and restrictions that carry the force of law. Under the APA, agencies are generally required to follow notice and comment rulemaking procedures before issuing guidance that creates such duties or restrictions.

StenTam’s challenge to Notice 2021-20

StenTam is a tax services firm that advises clients claiming ERC. The firm contended that its business [...]

Continue Reading

The Employee Retention Credit: IRS’s “Risking” Model Faces Legal Challenge

by Shawn O’Brien, Samuel F. Hamer and Michael J. Scarduzio | Apr 24, 2025 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Appeals, Trial Courts

Case: ERC Today LLC et al. v. John McInelly et al., No. 2:24-cv-03178 (D. Ariz.)

In an April 2025 order, the US District Court for the District of Arizona denied a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by two tax preparation firms. The firms sought to halt the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) use of an automated “risk assessment model” that the IRS used to evaluate and disallow claims for the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), seeking to restore individualized review of ERC claims.

BACKGROUND ON THE ERC

The ERC was enacted in 2020 as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act to provide financial relief to businesses affected by COVID-19 by incentivizing employers to retain employees and rehire displaced workers. The ERC allowed employers that experienced significant disruptions due to government orders or a substantial decline in gross receipts to claim a tax credit equal to a percentage of qualified wages paid to employees. Millions of employers have filed amended employment tax returns (Form 941-X) claiming the credit for periods in 2020 and 2021. Since the enactment of the CARES Act, the IRS has issued roughly $250 billion in ERC.

THE IRS’S MORATORIUM AND AUTOMATED RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL

In September 2023, the IRS instituted a moratorium on processing ERC claims to review its procedures, reduce the backlog of claims, and identify potential fraud. Before the moratorium, all ERC claims received individualized review. During the moratorium, the IRS developed an automated “risk assessment model” to facilitate the processing of claims. This model, which is alternatively known as “risking,” utilizes taxpayer-submitted data and publicly available information to predict the likelihood that a taxpayer’s claim is valid or invalid. Claims deemed to be “high risk” by the system are excluded from review by an IRS employee and instead are designated for immediate disallowance. In August 2024, the IRS lifted its ERC processing moratorium and began issuing thousands of disallowance notices to taxpayers. Notwithstanding these actions, the number of pending ERC claims remained above one million as of November 2024.

THE COURT CHALLENGE TO THE IRS’S “RISKING” MODEL

In their motion for a preliminary injunction, filed January 7, 2025, the plaintiffs (the tax preparation firms) sought a court order compelling the IRS to, among other things, stop the use of “risking” and restore individualized employee review of ERC claims. The plaintiffs claimed to be injured by the “risking” model because they were unable to collect contingency fees from clients when claims were disallowed.

In support of their motion, the plaintiffs pointed to having received on behalf of their clients many boilerplate rejections immediately following the end of the moratorium. The plaintiffs alleged that these summary disallowances were arbitrary and capricious, thus violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because the “risking” model precluded the IRS from acquiring information necessary to properly evaluate the claims.[1] The plaintiffs also contended that the disallowances reflected a shift in IRS policy to disfavor ERC, with the result being that several legitimate claims were being [...]

Continue Reading

FedEx Defeats Government’s Loper Bright Gambit

by Samuel F. Hamer, Edward L. Froelich, Michael J. Scarduzio and Evan Walters | Mar 13, 2025 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Guidance, Tax Refunds

On February 13, 2025, a Tennessee federal district court handed FedEx Corporation its second win in a refund action involving the application of foreign tax credits to what are known as “offset earnings.”[1] Offset earnings are earnings from a taxpayer’s profitable related foreign corporations that are offset by losses from other related foreign corporations. FedEx previously prevailed on the question of whether it was entitled to foreign tax credits related to such earnings.[2] In this most recent ruling, the court rejected the Government’s reliance on a certain regulatory provision called the “Regulatory Haircut Rule”[3] to argue that the amount of FedEx’s claimed refund should be reduced. The case now appears to be set for appeal.

Revisiting the analysis in its first ruling, the court explained the error of the Government’s reliance upon the Regulatory Haircut Rule. In short, the court said that the rule’s application conflicted with the best construction of the governing statutes, primarily Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sections 960, 965(b)(4), and 965(g). The Government defended its reliance by appealing to Loper Bright’s instruction that courts must respect legitimate delegations of authority to an agency.[4] Citing IRC Section 965(o), which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations “as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of” Section 965 and to “prevent the avoidance of the purposes” of this section, the Government argued that the Regulatory Haircut Rule furthered the IRC’s broader goal of preventing tax avoidance and that Loper Bright required the court to respect the Secretary’s exercise of his delegated authority.

While acknowledging that legitimate delegations of authority to agencies remain permissible after Loper Bright, the court reminded the Government that an agency does not have the power to regulate in a manner that is inconsistent with the statute, even when a delegation provision grants the agency broad discretionary authority:

Assuming that Congress delegated authority . . . to promulgate regulations implementing section 965 . . . that authority cannot, under Loper Bright, encompass the discretion to promulgate regulations that contravene the “single, best meaning” of section 965, as determined by the courts.[5]

In other words, a statute’s delegation provision should not be interpreted to allow Treasury to eliminate rules that Congress established in other parts of the IRC.

Practice Point: Referencing Loper Bright’s acknowledgment that Congress may “confer discretionary authority on agencies,”[6] the Government has defended (and likely will continue to defend) its regulations on the theory that its exercises of such authority should be respected. But as Loper Bright reminds us, courts have an independent duty to decide the meaning of statutory delegations. Thus, taxpayers should closely examine whether regulations purportedly derived from a statute’s delegation provision comport with the rest of the statute. Those that do not should be challenged.

______________________________________________________________________________

[1] FedEx Corp. & Subs. v. United States, No. 2:20-cv-02794 (W.D. Tenn., Feb. 13, 2025)(electronically available here).

[2] FedEx Corp. [...]

Continue Reading

read more

Upcoming Webinar: Defeating IRS Penalties

by Edward L. Froelich, Shawn O’Brien and Michael J. Scarduzio | Feb 25, 2025 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Audits
The IRS has an extensive set of penalties that it can impose on both corporate and individual taxpayers, and recent audit trends indicate a growing tendency to apply multiple penalties. Join McDermott’s Tax Controversy & Litigation Group on March 5, 2025, for a webinar that will dive into the penalties the IRS may pursue and the strategies you can use to defend against them. Gain key insights into both the substantive and procedural aspects of IRS penalties, along with critical steps to safeguard your interests.

Discuss topics will include:
• Strategies for seeking abatement of IRS penalties and available defenses
• Preserving the attorney-client privilege during penalty cases
• Emerging trends in litigating penalty cases
• Understanding the IRS’s enforcement efforts relating to partnerships

Click here for details and to register.

read more

Older Posts »

Search for:

BLOG EDITORS

Evan Walters

Edward Froelich

Michael Scarduzio

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS
TOPICS

ARCHIVES
ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS

IRS roundup: November 7 – November 24, 2025

Tax consulting firm permitted to challenge final micro-captive reporting regulations

Tax Court confirms codified economic substance doctrine requires threshold relevancy determination, upholds 40% strict-liability penalty

IRS roundup: October 23 – November 6, 2025

IRS roundup: October 7 – October 23, 2025