adequate disclosure Archives | TAX CONTROVERSY 360

IRS roundup: February 9 – February 17, 2026

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for February 9, 2026 – February 17, 2026.

IRS guidance

February 9, 2026: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2026-13, providing discount factors for insurance companies to compute Section 846 discounted unpaid losses and recoverable Section 832 discounted estimated salvage for the 2025 accident year. This revenue procedure also provides discount factors to be used in tax years beginning in 2025 for losses incurred in the 2024 accident year and earlier accident years. Discount factors for tax years prior to 2025 were previously provided in Revenue Procedure 2025-15 and Revenue Procedure 2023-10.

February 12, 2026: The IRS issued Notice 2026-15, describing interim guidance on restrictions for certain energy credits related to the status of, and sourcing from, a prohibited foreign entity (PFE). These restrictions were enacted by Public Law 119- 21, 139 Stat. 72 (July 4, 2025) and provide:

Descriptions of rules the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the IRS intend to provide in proposed regulations regarding material assistance from a PFE.
Descriptions of the Sections 45X, 45Y, and 48E interim safe harbor guidance for determining a qualified facility’s, energy storage technology’s, or eligible component’s material assistance cost ratio related to determining whether there was material assistance from a PFE.
PFE restrictions that the Treasury and the IRS will include in forthcoming proposed regulations.
A glossary of defined terms, a request for comments, and guidance on substantiation and taxpayer ability to rely on guidance provided in Sections 3 – 5 of the notice.

February 17, 2026: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin No. 2026-8, which includes Revenue Ruling 2026-5. This revenue ruling provides Section 6621 interest rates for underpayments and overpayments for Q2 2026, as described below:

6% for overpayments generally
5% for overpayments in the case of a corporation, which drops to 3.5% for the portion of a corporate overpayment exceeding $10,000
6% for underpayments generally
8% for large corporate underpayments

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

Penalty disclosure guidance

February 9, 2026: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin No. 2026-7, which includes Revenue Procedure 2026-12. This revenue procedure specifies when information shown on a return is considered an adequate disclosure for purposes of reducing an understatement of income tax under Section 6662(d) and avoiding a Section 6694(a)’s preparer penalty.

Under Revenue Procedure 2026-12, taxpayers generally “must furnish all required information in accordance with the applicable forms and instructions, and the money amounts entered on these forms must be verifiable.” An amount is verifiable where, “on audit, the taxpayer can prove the origin of the amount (even if that number is not ultimately accepted by the Service) and the taxpayer can show good faith in entering that number on the applicable form.” And where an item is being reported does not [...]

Continue Reading

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

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