TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott Will & Schulte’s real-time tax disputes insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott Will & Schulte’s real-time tax disputes insights
Trial Courts
Subscribe to Trial Courts's Posts

IRS roundup April 1 – April 9, 2026

by and | Apr 13, 2026 | , , , ,

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for April 1, 2026 – April 9, 2026.

April 3, 2026: The White House proposed significant budget cuts to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), reducing its funding by nearly 17% for fiscal year 2027 to the lowest level since 2007. TIGTA warned that the cuts, combined with recent staffing losses, could lead to a 35% reduction in oversight activities at a time when risks at the IRS are increasing and have already forced the watchdog to cancel dozens of audits and reviews.

The proposal comes alongside broader reductions to IRS funding and staffing, including cuts to enforcement resources, raising concerns among practitioners that diminished oversight could weaken accountability and tax administration – particularly as the IRS undergoes workforce reductions and expands its use of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

April 6, 2026: Taxpayers are urging the Supreme Court of the United States to consider whether the Seventh Amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial for IRS civil penalties in Hirsch v. US Tax Court, arguing that the Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy should apply in the tax context. Hirsch arises from fraud penalties exceeding $15 million that were assessed against taxpayers who allegedly misrepresented US Virgin Islands residency. A ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor could significantly alter IRS enforcement by making penalties harder to impose and potentially slowing audits and collections.

To date, courts have largely rejected similar arguments, relying on the “public rights” doctrine and long-standing precedent treating tax penalties as remedial rather than punitive, but practitioners note that the issue is gaining traction. If the Supreme Court requires jury trials for certain tax penalties, it could reshape the balance between taxpayers and the IRS, particularly for high-dollar cases, while raising concerns about reduced deterrence and increased administrative burdens on the agency.

April 6, 2026: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2026-14, providing guidance for states to nominate population census tracts for designation as qualified opportunity zones, effective January 1, 2027, under §§ 1400Z-1 and 1400Z-2, as amended by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The revenue procedure outlines eligibility requirements for low-income communities, limits designations to 25% of eligible tracts per state, and establishes deadlines for nominations and US Department of the Treasury certification.

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

Proposed changes to the Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP)

April 6, 2026: The IRS proposed updates to VDP that would replace the one-time 75% civil fraud penalty with 20% accuracy-related penalties applied annually over the six-year disclosure period while also imposing a new requirement that taxpayers pay all taxes, penalties, and interest and file all required returns within 90 days of conditional acceptance. Practitioners generally support the move away from the 75% penalty but warn that the cumulative penalties (along [...]

Continue Reading



read more

IRS roundup: March 23 – March 31, 2026

by | Apr 3, 2026 | , , , ,

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.

[...]

Continue Reading


read more

The Employee Retention Credit: Ninth Circuit affirms denial of injunction, but leaves door open on merits

by and | Mar 27, 2026 | , , , ,

Case: ERC Today, LLC v. McInelly, Case No. 25-2642 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2026)

We previously discussed the US District Court for the District of Arizona’s April 2025 order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by two tax preparation firms challenging the Internal Revenue Services’ (IRS) automated “risking” model for processing Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims. The firms appealed, and on March 17, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial – but the way in which it did so warrants attention.

Standing, but not substance

The Ninth Circuit affirmed on the narrow ground that the tax preparation firms failed to demonstrate Article III standing. The Court found that the firms offered no evidence that they were making less money or spending more on representations because of the IRS’s processing approach. The Court also rejected claims of procedural and reputational injury, holding that IRS administrative procedures are designed to protect taxpayers, not the economic interests of third-party contingency fee firms.

Given the standing ruling, the Court did not address whether the IRS’s Disallowance During Processing program, which uses automated risk models to categorically disallow thousands of claims without individualized review, violates the Administrative Procedure Act or is otherwise unlawful. Those questions remain open. A challenge brought by a party with proper standing could reach those merits and might reveal the program to be infirm.

The future of taxpayer challenges

This decision comes as the IRS closes the book on ERC processing. In February 2026, the IRS announced it had closed all non-examined ERC claims as of December 31, 2025, meaning businesses whose claims were closed without payment must now pursue litigation to secure their refunds.

Unlike the tax preparation firms in ERC Today, taxpayers whose claims have been disallowed can engage the jurisdiction of a refund court under Internal Revenue Code Sections 6532 and 7422 and would have no standing issues. They would be better positioned to test the legality of the IRS’s automated processing procedures on the merits and should consider raising the argument in their complaint. As we have previously cautioned, however, taxpayers must remain vigilant about statutes of limitations: Administrative delay does not eliminate judicial deadlines, and a protest to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals does not suspend the two-year period under Section 6532(a) to file a refund suit.



read more

IRS roundup: March 9 – March 25, 2026

by , and | Mar 26, 2026 | , , , ,

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for March 9, 2026 – March 25, 2026.

AI controversy developments

March 20, 2026: The US Tax Court is considering developing a disciplinary framework for the misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) in litigation following concerns raised by Judge Mark V. Holmes regarding lawyers citing AI-generated, nonexistent cases. Judge Holmes indicated that the Court is proceeding cautiously given that a large share of its docket involves pro se taxpayers and emphasized the difficulty of crafting appropriate sanctions in that context. The discussion highlights broader concerns about hallucinated authorities, potential IRS misuse of AI, and the need to protect sensitive taxpayer information as the Court balances enforcement with legitimate AI uses.

IRS guidance

March 13, 2026: The IRS announced that the secretary of the US Department of the Treasury is no longer serving as acting IRS commissioner following the expiration of authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998. Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano is currently leading the IRS’s day-to-day operations.

March 16, 2026: The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2026-11, updating the rules and technical specifications for substitute versions of Form 941, Form 8974, and related schedules, including Schedules B, D, and R. The guidance provides standards for paper and computer-generated substitutes used by software developers and payroll providers and supersedes prior guidance.

March 17, 2026: The IRS issued Notice 2026-19, providing updated interest rates for pension the corporate bond monthly yield curve, spot segment rates under Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 417(e)(3), and 24-month average segment rates under Code § 430(h)(2). The notice also includes the applicable 30-year Treasury rate for February 2026 (4.76%) and related weighted average rates.

March 18, 2026: The IRS issued Notice 2026-20, extending for one additional year the temporary relief provided by Notice 2025-7, which allows taxpayers to use alternative methods to identify which units of digital assets are sold, disposed of, or transferred when held with a broker. Under this relief, taxpayers may identify units on their own books and records, including through standing orders, rather than communicating with brokers. The notice clarifies that this does not prevent taxpayers from complying with § 1.1012-1(j)(3)(ii).

March 20, 2026: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2026-17, providing transition relief under Code § 163(j) that allows certain taxpayers to withdraw previously irrevocable elections to be treated as electing real property trades or businesses, electing farming businesses, or excepted regulated utility trades or businesses. The guidance also permits taxpayers withdrawing those elections to make a late election out of bonus depreciation, allows taxpayers to revoke or make controlled foreign corporation group elections without regard to the 60-month limitation, and permits eligible Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) partnerships to file amended Forms 1065 and issue amended Schedules K-1.

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 9, 2026: [...]

Continue Reading



read more

AI platforms and privilege: Tax departments should be wary about what they share

by and | Mar 23, 2026 | , , ,

Today’s artificial intelligence (AI) platforms have shown impressive capabilities that keep evolving. As those capabilities improve, tax departments may be inclined to leverage AI’s analytical power. While this technology has led to incredible efficiencies, we’ve been warning in-house tax departments about which platforms they use and what information they share to avoid waiving privilege or creating documents that cannot be protected.

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a criminal defendant’s communications with a publicly open AI platform were not protected by attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine. United States v. Heppner, No. 1:25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026).

In Heppner, the defendant transmitted confidential information to a public AI system and generated various documents that incorporated the information. The district court concluded that the documents created were not protected by attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine. The AI platform was a public and open system that did not provide confidentiality, the documents created by the AI platform were not prepared by or at the direction of counsel (in fact, counsel had no idea the client was using AI), and documents (regardless if created by AI or other means) can never be cloaked with privilege simply because they are later sent to a lawyer.

Practice point:

While the facts of Heppner are probably distinguishable from how tax departments typically use AI platforms, the case serves as a reminder for tax professionals to have good hygiene when using them. All in-house tax professionals should exercise caution when inputting confidential information into AI platforms and, where possible, rely on closed, internal AI systems that are only accessible by relevant persons within their corporation. Even then, Heppner makes clear that AI platforms are not lawyers, and disclosures of privileged information to such platforms risk waiving that privilege.

Given this risk, tax professionals should use great caution when using AI for sensitive legal issues. At a minimum:

  • Do not input any sensitive, confidential, or privileged information into publicly open AI systems.
  • Remember that AI is not a lawyer, so asking AI legal questions is not the same as asking a lawyer for legal advice.
  • For tax issues that are likely to result in a contentious audit or litigation, work with in-house or outside counsel to establish best practices on AI use to maximize attorney-client privilege and work product protection.


read more

Is your ERC claim protected? Keep an eye on litigation deadlines

by , and | Mar 13, 2026 | , , , ,

In February 2026, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that, as of December 31, 2025, it had closed all non-examined Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims. This development could compel businesses to pursue litigation to secure their ERC refunds. In its announcement, the IRS also noted that approximately 41,000 claims remain under IRS examination or appeal.

The IRS’s announcement brings renewed focus to a risk we have been highlighting for some time: Statutes of limitation can quietly extinguish otherwise valid refund claims. As discussed in our article in Bloomberg on how to litigate and resolve ERC claims, administrative delay does not eliminate judicial deadlines. For taxpayers whose claims have been formally disallowed, Internal Revenue Code Section 6532(a) provides only two years to file a refund suit. A protest to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (IRS Appeals) does not suspend that deadline. Without filing suit or obtaining a written extension (Form 907), the right to a refund can be permanently lost.

For taxpayers with ERC claims that are pending without action (i.e., those described in the IRS’s announcement), the statute of limitations analysis is more complex. Some courts have dismissed taxpayer suits that were filed more than six and a half years from the time the claim arose.[1] Under the logic of these cases, there may be a six-and-a-half-year limit in effect from the date a refund claim is filed – the six months a taxpayer must wait before filing a refund suit plus six years during which the government is susceptible to suit under a general statute of limitations on civil claims against the government (31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)). For ERC claims submitted in 2020, the end of this possibly applicable six-and-a-half-year period is quickly approaching. To the extent a court will apply this limitation, a taxpayer with an ERC refund claim may be barred from suit even without a formal disallowance by the IRS.

The message for businesses is consistent with our earlier guidance: Protecting the right to an ERC refund requires a proactive strategy. Taxpayers must identify which limitations periods apply to their claims, manage calendar critical deadlines, and evaluate whether protective litigation is necessary to preserve their potential refunds. Businesses facing challenged, delayed, or disallowed ERC claims should evaluate their statute posture urgently. Our tax controversy & litigation team continues to advise clients on navigating ERC audits, IRS Appeals proceedings, and refund litigation to ensure procedural missteps do not foreclose recovery.

__________________________________________________________________________________

[1] See Wagenet v. United States, No. CV 08-01234, 2009 WL 4895363, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009) (dismissing tax refund action as filed outside the six-year statute). See also Bowman Transp., Inc. v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 36, 40–41 (1979) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2501 and explaining that “[d]espite the fact that the carrier has only two years from the date on which the refund claim is expressly disallowed or apparently the regular six-year period of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § [...]

Continue Reading



read more

IRS roundup: March 3 – March 10, 2026

by , and | Mar 10, 2026 | , , , ,

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for March 3, 2026 – March 10, 2026.

IRS guidance

March 3, 2026: The IRS released Revenue Procedure 2026-15, which provides the inflation-adjusted luxury automobile depreciation limits under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 280F for passenger vehicles, including trucks and vans, placed in service in 2026 and the lease inclusion amounts for vehicles first leased in 2026. The guidance includes separate first-year depreciation caps depending on whether bonus depreciation under Section 168(k) applies.

March 4, 2026: The IRS released Revenue Procedure 2026-16, which provides information for individuals who failed to meet Code Section 911(d)(1) requirements for 2025 due to adverse conditions, listing countries and “date of departure on or after” thresholds (e.g., Haiti, Ukraine, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among others).

March 5, 2026: The IRS released Notice 2026-4, which requests comments on whether to modify requirements for electronic furnishing of certain payee statements, including for brokers and potentially other furnishers.

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 2, 2026: The US Tax Court held that a German parent company had zero basis in a $610 million promissory note that was contributed to a partnership after its wholly owned subsidiary elected to be disregarded for US tax purposes. Because the subsidiary’s retroactive “check-the-box” election caused the transaction to be treated as the parent’s contribution of its own note, the Tax Court concluded that the note had no tax basis since a taxpayer incurs no “cost” in issuing its own obligation, resulting in zero basis both in the partnership interest and in the partnership’s basis in the note.



read more

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

by and | Dec 2, 2025 | , ,

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



read more

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

by and | Nov 24, 2025 | , ,

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



read more

The Employee Retention Credit: A court challenge to IRS guidance

by , and | Jul 8, 2025 | , ,

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



read more

EDITOR IN CHIEF

Edward Froelich

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge
US Tax Disputes Firm of the Year 2025
2026 Best Law Firms - Law Firm of the Year (Tax Law)
McDermott Will & Schulte Logo White

Legal Notices  |  Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising © 2026 McDermott Will & Schulte

Contact Us: info@mwe.com

Attorney Advertising ©2020 McDermott Will & Emery