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
statute of limitations
Subscribe to statute of limitations's Posts

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

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

Potential refund opportunity of buyback excise tax based on § 4501 final regulations

by , , , and | Dec 15, 2025 | ,

Taxpayers who paid the stock repurchase excise tax based on prior guidance provided in Notice 2023-2 and the proposed regulations under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 4501 may be entitled to a refund based on changes made in the recently issued IRC § 4501 final regulations.

On November 21, 2025, the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued final regulations under IRC § 4501, which took effect on November 24 and significantly narrowed the applicability of the stock repurchase excise tax compared to prior guidance provided in Notice 2023‑2 and the April 9, 2024, proposed regulations (collectively, the prior guidance). As a result, many transactions that were previously treated by the prior guidance as “repurchases” subject to the 1% stock repurchase excise tax are now no longer taxable. Taxpayers who paid the excise tax based on the prior guidance may be eligible for a refund.

The final regulations eliminated the prior guidance’s broad “funding rule,” which treated a US affiliate that was considered to have “funded” a foreign publicly traded parent (or its foreign affiliates), including via distributions or capital contributions, as having engaged in a covered stock repurchase. The final regulations also significantly narrowed the proposed regulations’ expansive treatment of transactions as “economically similar” to a stock repurchase by specifically excluding leveraged buyouts and other take-private transactions, complete liquidations, and tax-free acquisitive reorganizations under IRC § 368 from being subject to the excise tax. Moreover, the final regulations narrowed what qualifies as “stock” for IRC § 4501 purposes, specifically excluding certain preferred stock described in IRC § 1504(a)(4) (e.g., “plain vanilla” non-voting, non-participating preferred stock) and certain mandatorily redeemable or puttable stock issued before August 16, 2022 (i.e., the date of enactment of IRC § 4501).

The changes in the final regulations have potentially sweeping implications for taxpayers who paid the IRC § 4501 stock repurchase excise tax based on the prior guidance. The narrower scope of the applicability of stock repurchase excise tax under the final regulations creates a substantial opportunity to seek a refund of stock repurchase excise tax previously paid under the now-obsolete prior guidance.

To seek a refund, taxpayers should file Form 720-X, Amended Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return, for each quarter they filed an original Form 720 reporting and paid the stock repurchase excise tax and attach a Form 7208 (with “Amended” at the top of each form) to each quarterly Form 720-X. Both Form 720-X and amended Form 7208 should be completed, and the excise tax recomputed, based on the final regulations. Because Form 720-X will serve as the taxpayer’s refund claim, it is critical that Form 720-X contains a detailed explanation of the legal basis for the adjustments to the original Forms 720 and 7208 to meet regulatory requirements imposed by the Treasury on refund claims. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6402-2 (setting forth the basic requirements for refund claims).

Taxpayers considering this refund opportunity should be aware that the statute of limitations deadline for filing a refund [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Major update: Potential refund opportunity for interest and penalty amounts accrued during COVID-19 federally declared disaster

by and | Dec 8, 2025 | , , , , , ,

The US Court of Federal Claims’ (CFC) recent decision in Kwong v. United States, No. 23-267 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 25, 2025), provides significant support for the potential refund opportunity we identified in a previous blog post titled, “Refund opportunity for interest and penalty amounts accrued during COVID-19 federally declared disaster.” The refund opportunity applies to taxpayers who made payments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that included underpayment interest and/or failure-to-file/failure-to-pay penalties that accrued during all or part of the period from January 20, 2020, through July 10, 2023.

Although the CFC’s holding in Kwong addressed whether Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 7508A provided the taxpayer an extension of the two-year statute of limitations deadline for filing a refund suit (in IRC § 6532(a)) that fell after the COVID-19 disaster was declared, Kwong answered important questions for those taxpayers pursuing refunds for underpayment interest and/or failure-to-file/failure-to-pay penalties that accrued during COVID-19. The CFC held that the 2019 version of IRC § 7508A applies to the COVID-19 federally declared disaster. This is a significant holding because Congress amended IRC § 7508A in 2021 to significantly limit the IRC § 7508A(d) mandatory extension period. The CFC also held that the IRC § 7508A(d) mandatory extension period, as applied to the COVID-19 disaster, commenced on January 20, 2020, and ended on July 10, 2023.

Kwong has potentially sweeping implications for taxpayers who faced federal tax filing and/or payment deadlines that fell between January 20, 2020, and July 10, 2023. Under the CFC’s Kwong analysis, the deadline for payment of any federal tax falling between these two dates was extended to July 11, 2023. Since the IRS computes underpayment interest and/or failure-to-file/pay penalties from the payment due date, penalties should not accrue from January 20, 2020, through July 10, 2023, and any taxpayers who already paid these amounts may be entitled to a refund. The CFC’s analysis also does not rule out the possibility that taxpayers with payment due dates preceding January 20, 2020, may be entitled to relief to the extent the underpayment interest and/or failure-to-file/failure-to-pay penalties accrued during the COVID-19 disaster period.

As noted in our previous post, taxpayers considering this refund opportunity should be aware that the statute of limitations to file a refund claim expires three years from the filing deadline of the original tax return or two years from the date on which payment was made, whichever is later (unless the statute of limitations period was otherwise extended). This refund opportunity may apply to underpayment interest and/or penalties paid with respect to federal income, estate, gift, employment, or excise taxes.



read more

“Big, Beautiful Bill”: Federal Tax Bill Would Restrict the Employee Retention Credit

by , and | May 20, 2025 |

A sweeping federal tax bill that is currently under consideration in the US House of Representatives contains provisions that would significantly change the administration and enforcement of the Employee Retention Credit (ERC).

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 by incentivizing employers to retain employees on payroll and rehire displaced workers. The ERC allowed employers that experienced significant disruptions due to government orders or a substantial decline in gross receipts to claim a tax credit equal to a percentage of qualified wages paid to employees. Millions of employers have filed refund claims seeking ERC for periods in 2020 and 2021. Since the enactment of the CARES Act, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued roughly $250 billion in ERC. More than 500,000 claims remained pending as of April 2025.

The federal tax bill, dubbed the “Big, Beautiful Bill” by US President Donald Trump, would prevent the IRS from allowing ERC that was claimed by a taxpayer on or before January 31, 2024. The deadline to claim ERC for taxable quarters in 2020 was April 15, 2024, and the deadline to claim ERC for taxable quarters in 2021 was April 15, 2025. The tax bill would thus appear to render ineligible all pending claims that were made after January 31, 2024, which are likely to be considerable in number. The bill is ambiguous as to whether taxpayers who have already been allowed ERC would need to repay those amounts to the extent their claims were made after January 31, 2024.

The tax bill would also extend the statute of limitations on the IRS’s ability to assess amounts attributable to ERC. Presently, the IRS has three years to assess amounts associated with ERC for all periods in 2020 and for Q1 and Q2 of 2021. The IRS has five years to assess amounts associated with ERC for Q3 and Q4 of 2021. The proposed legislation would extend both of these limitations periods to six years. This change would be significant, especially because the IRS is authorized to assess and collect erroneously allowed ERC by notice and demand.

Practice Point: Taxpayers with pending ERC claims should be alert to ongoing legislative developments – as this area continues to be a prominent focus of federal tax policy – and prepare now to defend ERC claims (even those filed after the potentially new deadline of January 31, 2024). Enactment of the changes proposed in the tax bill could dramatically restrict the amount of ERC currently eligible to be paid or credited and may empower the IRS to recapture a greater amount of claims already allowed. But considerable uncertainties remain as to the scope of the changes proposed in the bill. In the face of this uncertainty, taxpayers should consult experienced counsel who can assist them in preparing to defend ERC claims to which they are entitled.



read more

Extending the Statute of Limitations for Assessing Federal Tax

by and | Jan 14, 2022 | , ,

We previously provided an overview of the time limits imposed on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for assessing federal tax. The general rule is that the IRS must assess tax within three years from the later of the due date of the original tax return or the date it was filed. If the IRS does not assess tax during this period, it is foreclosed from doing so in the future. Note that the filing of an amended return does not restart or extend the limitations period. There are numerous exceptions to this rule, including if there is a substantial omission of income, fraud, failure to file a return, extension by agreement and failure to provide certain information regarding foreign transactions. We discussed many of these exceptions in Seeking Closure on Tax Positions: A Look at Tax Statutes of Limitation and Omitted Subpart F and GILTI Income May Be a Statute of Limitations Trap for the Unwary. Below, we discuss the rules and considerations for consenting to extending the time to assess federal tax.

Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6501(c)(4) provides that, except in the case of estate taxes, taxpayers (or their duly authorized representative) and the IRS may consent in writing to an extension of the limitations period for assessment. Importantly, such an agreement must be executed before the limitations period expires. In other words, assuming no other exception applies to the general three-year rule, an agreement to extend the limitations must be executed within the later of three years from the date the tax return was due or filed. If executed after that date, the consent is invalid. Thus, a late-filed consent cannot revive an otherwise closed limitations period. Under Code Section 6511(c), extending the statute of limitations on assessment also extends the period for filing a claim for credit or refund to six months after the expiration of the extended assessment period.

Form 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, is generally used to effectuate an agreed extension to a certain date, however, other versions of the form may be used for different types of taxpayers or issues (e.g., Form 872-M, Consent to Extend the Time to Make Partnership Adjustments, is used for partners subject to the centralized partnership audit regime under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015). Form 872-A, Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax, may be used to extend the limitations period for an indefinite period (referred to as an Open-Ended Consent). An Open-Ended Consent ends 90 days after the mailing by the IRS of written notification of termination or receipt by the IRS of written notification of termination from the taxpayer (both actions are accomplished through the use of Form 872-T, Notice of Termination of Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax), or the mailing of a notice of deficiency. The IRS’s views on Open-Ended Consents are summarized in
Continue Reading



read more

Omitted Subpart F and GILTI Income May Be a Statute of Limitations Trap for the Unwary

by and | Dec 17, 2021 | ,

Taxpayers large and small desire closure with respect to tax reporting positions. This can occur in several ways, one of which is the closing of the limitations period for assessing additional tax. In this article published in the November-December 2021 issue of the International Tax Journal, McDermott Partners Andrew R. Roberson and Kevin Spencer discuss recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance relating to the limitations period for omitted Subpart F income.

Access the article.



read more

What are the Time Limits for Assessing Additional Federal Tax and Filing a Refund Claim?

by and | Sep 3, 2021 | , , ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) must follow the “statute of limitations” as stated in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6501 to “assess” additional federal tax. Likewise, taxpayers must seek a tax overpayment or refund within the statutory period stated in IRC Section 6511. In this article, we’ll answer some of the most common questions regarding when the IRS can assess additional federal tax and when taxpayers must file a refund claim.

WHEN DOES THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR ASSESSING ADDITIONAL TAXES START?

Typically, the period during which the IRS can seek additional tax starts when the taxpayer files their tax return. A taxpayer “self-assesses” when the amount of tax is stated on the return, but tax assessment can also occur when the IRS creates a “substitute for return” under IRC Section 6020. (For example, when the taxpayer fails to timely file a return.) Assessment merely means that the IRS records the tax liability on its official ledger for each taxpayer. An assessment is significant because it is legally considered a debt of the taxpayer for which the IRS can commence collection activities, like placing a lien and levy on property.

Self-Assessment Example: The taxpayer reports on a timely filed return a tax liability of $10,000 and submits payment of $5,000. The $10,000 tax is automatically assessed and constitutes a tax debt of the taxpayer, despite only a partial payment. In this case, the IRS would seek to collect the balance due ($5,000) from the taxpayer under the collection rules.

WHAT IS A TAX ASSESSMENT?

The IRS assesses tax by recording the amount owed in its official records. The assessment establishes the fact and amount of the tax liability that’s due to the IRS and starts the period during which the IRS can collect the amounts due and owing. Generally, the IRS may not lien or levy a taxpayer’s property until after an assessment is made.

There are three primary types of assessments:

  1. A “summary assessment” occurs automatically when the taxpayer reports an amount of tax on a return.
  2. A “jeopardy assessment” occurs when the IRS determines that the taxpayer may abscond with property that the IRS may need to lien and/or levy to satisfy a tax deficiency.
  3. A “tax deficiency assessment” occurs after the IRS determines the amount owed by the taxpayer and follows its procedures to permit the taxpayer to challenge its determination (usually after an audit).

STATUTORY NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY (THE 90-DAY LETTER)

If the IRS audits a return and determines that the taxpayer owes additional tax, it generally cannot assess the tax before sending the taxpayer a statutory notice of deficiency, or the so-called “90 day letter.” The letter must be sent by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the taxpayer (which is usually the address listed on the last return filed with the IRS). If the taxpayer does not file a timely petition with the US Tax Court in response to the 90-day letter, the IRS may then assess [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Section 965 Statutes of Limitations for Partnerships

by and | Jun 29, 2020 | , ,

On May 26, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued PMTA 2020-08 to provide guidance on the period of limitations for Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 965, transition tax-related adjustments of partnerships. Typically, pursuant to IRC section 6501, the IRS has three years to assess a tax liability for a tax year. However, IRC section 6501(e)(1)(C) states that if the taxpayer omits from gross income an amount properly includible in income under IRC section 951(a), the tax may be assessed at any time within six years after the return was filed. Moreover, this special six-year limitation on assessment applies to the entire tax liability reportable on that return. Because special assessment and adjustment rules apply to partnerships, the IRS issued guidance on how the rules are applicable to certain partnerships and partners with section 965-related items.

For a deferred foreign income corporation’s (DFIC) last taxable year beginning before January 1, 2018, IRC section 965 imposes a one-time tax on a US shareholder’s pro rata share of the DFIC’s earnings and profits (E&P) otherwise deferred from US taxation. The IRS describes three steps for the calculation under IRC section 965: (1) IRC section 965(a) deems the DFIC to repatriate its untaxed E&P through a subpart F inclusion in the US shareholder’s gross income equal to the greater of its E&P as of two measurement dates in 2017; (2) IRC section 965(b) reduces the IRC section 965(a) inclusion by the E&P deficits of the US shareholder’s other foreign corporations; and (3) IRC section 965(c) provides for a deduction (based on the aggregate IRC section 965(a) inclusion amount and on cash positions) that has the effect of reducing the effective rate of US tax on the US shareholder’s IRC section 965(a) inclusion.

With respect to partnerships, in the guidance the IRS indicated that it can make three broad categories of adjustments that affect the computation of IRC section 965 amounts. Revisions could be made to the tax attributes and financial data underlying the computation of the IRC section 965(a) inclusion, the IRC section 965(c) deduction and foreign tax amounts. Such adjustments could affect the IRC section 965(a) inclusion amount and IRC section 965(c) deduction amount reportable by the partnership and affect the IRC section 965(a) inclusion and the IRC section 965(c) deduction reported by the partners. Accordingly, the IRS outlined how to apply the assessment and adjustment period rules apply when there are partners with IRC section 965-related items arising from partnerships subject to different procedures and audit regimes.

Under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), the IRS indicated it can make adjustments at any time provided the period for assessing tax attributable to the adjustments is open. The IRC section 965(a) inclusion amount and the IRC section 965(c) deduction amount reported by the partnership may be adjusted for the required reporting year if either: (1) the partner’s IRC section 6501 period of limitations on assessing tax attributable to adjustments to partnership items has not [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Don’t File Fraudulent Returns Because Amending Them Will Not Help

by , and | Jun 22, 2018 | , , ,

The US Tax Court (Tax Court), in a short opinion, provided a reminder to taxpayers that penalties for filing fraudulent returns cannot be avoided by subsequently filing amended returns. In Gaskin v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2018-89, the taxpayer admitted his original returns were fraudulent. While under criminal investigation, he attempted to cure the fraudulent filings by filing amended returns, reporting more than $100,000 of additional tax. Ultimately, the tax due exceeded the amount reported on the amended returns.

Despite admitting his original fraud, the taxpayer argued that the fraud penalty did not apply because the tax due only modestly exceeded the tax reported on his amended returns. The Tax Court disagreed. Relying on the regulations and Supreme Court precedent, the court held that the amount of the underpayment and the fraudulent intent are both determined by reference to original—not amended—returns. It therefore upheld imposition of the fraud penalty.

Practice Point: Don’t file fraudulent returns! All joking aside, this case reminds us that although filing an amended return can cure some infirmities on your return, you have to be very careful in choosing whether to amend a return. As long as you did your best to accurately calculate your tax due on your original return, you are not required to amend that return if you later find out you were wrong. This is true even if the statute of limitations is still open. Indeed, there is no requirement to amend a return. However, there may be reasons to file an amended return; for example, if you know that you will need to base a future return’s position on a previous return’s position (e.g., the amount of earnings and profits stated on the return). Taxpayers need to be mindful, however, that if you amend your return, it must be accurate to the best of your knowledge when you sign it as to all items and any other errors discovered after the original return was filed must also be corrected. Accordingly, you cannot amend only the favorable positions discovered after you filed your original return.



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