Seventh Circuit Archives | TAX CONTROVERSY 360

IRS roundup: June 10 – June 21, 2026

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for June 10, 2026 – June 21, 2026.

June 9, 2026: A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report found that the IRS lost a significant number of experienced employees during the workforce reductions and voluntary departures that occurred in the first year of the second Trump administration. Approximately 40% of departing employees had more than 11 years of experience while another 45% had between one and 11 years of service, raising concerns about the loss of institutional knowledge and expertise within the agency.

The report also noted that the IRS has redirected personnel to maintain taxpayer service operations, including hiring approximately 2,000 customer service representatives and tax examiners and detailing more than 1,100 employees from other divisions to assist with return processing. TIGTA observed that many reassigned employees retained higher-grade salaries while performing lower-grade taxpayer service duties and announced a separate review examining the impact of these resource reallocations on IRS operations and enforcement activities.

June 10, 2026: The IRS issued Notice 2026-39, updating the list of qualifying energy communities for purposes of the bonus credit amounts and rates available under Internal Revenue Code (Code) §§ 45, 45Y, 48, and 48E. The notice provides updated county and census tract information for the Statistical Area and Coal Closure Categories, reflecting 2025 unemployment data, newly identified coal mine closures, and coal-fired electric generating unit retirements.

The updated designations determine whether eligible clean energy projects qualify for enhanced energy community bonus credits. The notice also provides revised appendices identifying qualifying counties, metropolitan and non-metropolitan statistical areas, and census tracts, with the updated energy community status generally effective beginning June 10, 2026.

June 13, 2026: US Department of the Treasury officials announced that forthcoming proposed regulations under Code § 987 will allow certain controlled foreign corporations to make an election to not compute foreign currency gains and losses for their qualified business units and that the election may be made on amended 2025 tax returns. The election was first outlined in Notice 2026-17 and is intended to simplify compliance with the complex § 987 foreign currency rules.

The Treasury indicated that taxpayers will be given additional time to decide whether to make the election, but the election must be made within a reasonable period rather than years later. The proposed regulations are intended to reduce compliance burdens, simplify the operation of the § 987 regime, and limit the application of certain rules to routine business transactions involving US-owned foreign corporations.

June 15, 2026: The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2026-12, providing the applicable federal rates (AFRs) for July 2026, including short-, mid-, and long-term rates under Code § 1274; adjusted AFRs under § 1288; and rates relevant to §§ 382, 42, 7520, and 7872. The ruling sets the § 7520 rate at 5.20% and the adjusted federal long-term rate under § 382 at 3.77%.

The ruling [...]

Continue Reading

Circuit Courts Agree Timely Filing Requirement for a Tax Court Petition is Jurisdictional

Arguably the most important aspect of litigating a case in the Tax Court or in a refund forum is the timely filing of the petition or complaint. Absent timely filing, the court may not have jurisdiction and the case could be dismissed without the court ever reaching the substantive issues. On January 13, 2017, the Seventh Circuit joined several other circuit courts in confirming that the time for filing a petition in Tax Court is jurisdictional, not a claims processing rule.

In Tilden v. Commissioner, No. 15-3838 (available here), the taxpayer’s petition was mailed on the last day of the 90-day filing deadline. It was not stamped and bore no postmark; instead, a USPS print-at-home postage label was attached by legal staff, and it was delivered to the post office the same day. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) argued this was insufficient for timelymailing under the “mailbox rule” of Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 7502. The Tax Court disagreed with both parties about what section of the regulations applied, and used the date the envelope was entered into the postal service’s tracking system as the date of postmark and filing—which was two days late. Thus, the Tax Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction (available here).

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit raised sua sponte the issue of whether the filing deadline for a Tax Court petition is jurisdictional or a claims processing rule. The proper characterization of the filing deadline is extremely important. If the deadline is considered jurisdictional, then late filing automatically precludes the taxpayer from seeking relief in the Tax Court. But, the taxpayer may still pay the tax due, file a claim for refund with the IRS, and file a complaint in a refund forum (if the IRS denies or fails to timely act on the claim). On the other hand, if the deadline is a claims processing rule, the taxpayer’s options may be limited. Although the taxpayer that files a late petition might be able to demonstrate that the Tax Court should hear its case, if the court were to determine that the petition was untimely, it arguably would be required under the Code to enter a decision on the merits for the IRS, rather than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. That result eliminates the alternative refund forum.

In Tilden, the Seventh Circuit considered the Supreme Court’s current approach in non-tax cases for determining whether deadlines are jurisdictional or claims processing rules, but decided that the language of the relevant statute and the body of Tax Court and circuit court precedent compelled a finding that the 90-day deadline is jurisdictional. Finding it “imprudent to reject that body of precedent” under principles of stare decisis, the Seventh Circuit followed the Tax Court and other circuit court precedent. The Seventh Circuit further disagreed with the Tax Court’s holding on the relevant postmark regulations to conclude that the petition was timely filed.

Practice Point: The Seventh Circuit’s opinion is a good reminder as to the [...]

Continue Reading