LLC v. Commissioner Archives | TAX CONTROVERSY 360

IRS roundup: March 9 – March 25, 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

An Update on Section 6751 Penalties

Tax penalties are always a hot topic here. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a large arsenal when it comes to grounds for asserting penalties on income tax deficiencies, ranging from the common 20% penalty under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6662(a) to higher penalties ranging from 40% (gross valuation or basis misstatements and economic substance) to 75% (fraud).

However, before the IRS can assert most penalties against taxpayers, it must comply with the procedural requirement in Code Section 6751(b): That the “initial determination” to assert the penalty be “personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination.” As the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained in Chai v. Commissioner, US Congress imposed this requirement because it “believes that penalties should only be imposed where appropriate and not as a bargaining chip” and “[t]he statute was meant to prevent IRS agents from threatening unjustified penalties to encourage taxpayers to settle.”

Over the past several years, there has been substantial litigation over the proper interpretation and application of Code Section 6751(b). The US Tax Court’s recent opinion in Oxbow Bend, LLC v. Commissioner is the latest development. In Oxbow Bend, the Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s position that the “initial determination” was made on the date that the examining agent prepared a penalty lead sheet reflecting her recommendation to assert penalties and stated in a telephone conference with the taxpayer’s representative on that same day that penalties were being considered. Approximately three months later, the examining agent’s supervisor approved the penalty lead sheet, and the IRS issued a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment asserting the penalties. The Tax Court, relying on its prior precedent, held that the word “determination”:

“has an established meaning in the tax context and denotes a communication with a high degree of concreteness and formality”
“signifies a consequential moment of IRS action”
is not a “mere suggestion, proposal, or initial informal mention of penalties”
“will be embodied in a formal written communication that notifies the taxpayer of the decision to assert penalties.”

Thus, under the Tax Court’s analysis, an “initial determination” can only be made in a “written” document that is provided to the taxpayer.

Oxbow Bend is a memorandum opinion of the Tax Court and, therefore, is limited to its facts and technically not precedential, as we have discussed in the past. However, memorandum opinions are often cited by litigants, and the Tax Court does not disregard these types of opinions lightly. One has to wonder whether, under different facts where an examining agent makes an explicit oral statement to a taxpayer that penalties “will” be asserted, courts might reach a different result given Congress’s express intent that examining agents should not threaten penalties and use them as a bargaining chip for settlement purposes. Further, Code Section 6751(b) expressly requires that the supervisory approval be “in writing” but contains a written requirement for purposes of the [...]

Continue Reading

IRS roundup: March 9 – March 25, 2026

An Update on Section 6751 Penalties

EDITOR IN CHIEF

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS