standing Archives | TAX CONTROVERSY 360

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

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.

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

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