TAX CONTROVERSY 360
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
TAX CONTROVERSY 360
McDermott’s Real-Time Tax Disputes Insights
Tax Court
Subscribe to Tax Court's Posts

IRS Roundup February 10 – 14, 2025

by , , and | Feb 25, 2025 | ,

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of February 10, 2025 – February 14, 2025.

TAX-CONTROVERSY-RELATED DEVELOPMENTS

The previous IRS Roundup provided general coverage of the proposed Taxpayer Assistance and Service (TAS) Act. This post highlights Section 310 of the TAS Act, which would give the US Tax Court authority to hear general refund suits similar to those currently heard in the US district courts and the US Court of Federal Claims.

Historically, taxpayers could only contest their tax liability by first paying the tax and then suing for a refund in a district court or the Court of Federal Claims. The Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), the forerunner to the Tax Court, was created in 1924 to give taxpayers a prepayment forum in which to dispute their tax liability. The BTA was initially proposed to have general refund suit jurisdiction, but Congress limited its jurisdiction to cases brought in response to a notice of deficiency. Several proposals have been made over the years to expand the jurisdiction of the BTA and (now) the Tax Court to include general refund suits, which they would share with the district courts and the Court of Federal Claims. Recent support for this approach has come from National Taxpayer Advocates Nina Olson and Erin Collins. As one commentator noted, the proposed expansion to the Tax Court’s jurisdiction has the potential to improve access to justice for taxpayers and reduce the burden on district courts and the Court of Federal Claims.

IRS GUIDANCE

February 12, 2025: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2015-16, which provides depreciation deduction limitations for “passenger automobiles” (including trucks and vans) placed in service during 2025 and income inclusion amounts for lessees of such vehicles. The revenue procedure also includes two tables detailing depreciation limits based on whether the Internal Revenue Code (Code) § 168(k) additional first-year depreciation deduction applies. Additionally, the revenue procedure outlines the inflation adjustment calculation for these limits and provides a table for determining income inclusions for leased passenger automobiles. The tables reflect the automobile price inflation adjustments required by Code § 280F(d)(7).

February 12, 2025: The IRS released Notice 2025-14, which provides guidance on the corporate bond monthly yield curve, spot segment rates under Code § 417(e)(3), and 24-month average segment rates under Code § 430(h)(2). The notice also provides guidance as to the interest rate on 30-year Treasury securities under Code § 417(e)(3)(A)(ii)(II) as in effect for plan years beginning before 2008 and the 30-year Treasury weighted average rate under Code § 431(c)(6)(E)(ii)(I).

February 13, 2025: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2025-15, which provides discount factors for the 2024 accident year for insurance companies to use when computing discounted unpaid losses under Code § 846 and discounted estimated salvage recoverable under Code § 832. The revenue procedure includes tables with discount factors for various lines of business (both short- and long-tail) and addresses the use of [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Tax Court Rules Limited Partners May Be Subject to Self-Employment Tax

by and | Dec 1, 2023 | ,

On November 28, 2023, the US Tax Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Soroban Capital Partners LP v. Commissioner and held that “limited partners” are defined functionally—not by state law—for purposes of Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1402(a)(13), which excludes distributions to a “limited partner, as such” from self-employment tax.

Partners are generally required to include their distributive shares of partnership income in their net earnings from self-employment under IRC Sections 1402(a) and 702(a)(8). IRC Section 1402(a)(13), however, provides an exception. It excludes “the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than [certain] guaranteed payments” from self-employment tax. However, in the context of IRC Section 1402(a)(13), “limited partner” is not defined. The Tax Court previously held that “limited partners” are determined functionally (e.g., by what they actually do with respect to the partnership), not by their status or title under state law, in the context of a limited liability partnership. (See Renkemeyer v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 137 (2011).) Soroban argued that in the distinct context of a limited liability partnership, plain statutory meaning, legislative history, past guidance from the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the IRS, and policy considerations all pointed to the same conclusion: “limited partner” for purposes of the self-employment tax must be determined by reference to state law.

The Tax Court disagreed. The Court fixed its attention on the phrase “limited partner, as such” and found that under the canon of construction against surplusage, the words “as such” demonstrate “that the limited partner exception applies only to a limited partner who is functioning as a limited partner.” To the extent legislative history or Soroban’s “myriad other arguments” suggest otherwise, they cannot “overcome the plain meaning of the statute.”

The Tax Court held that IRC Section 1402(a)(13) applies only to “passive investors” and excludes “earnings from a mere investment” only. Therefore, the Court “must examine the functions and roles of the limited partners in the partnership to determine whether their shares of earnings are excluded from net earnings from self-employment.” The Court concluded that it has jurisdiction to complete this task during partnership-level proceedings because the applicability of IRC Section 1402(a)(13) “is a partnership item” under Treasury Regulation § 301.6231(a)(3)-1.

Practice Point: The Court’s holding in Soroban will likely provide the IRS with additional incentive to audit taxpayers as part of the IRS’s Self-Employment Contributions Act compliance campaign, which the IRS placed on hold to see “what develops in” cases like Soroban. This issue has been hotly contested in the Tax Court, with several cases currently being litigated, including Denham Capital Management LP v. Commissioner, Docket. No. 9973-23, and Point72 Asset Management LP v. Commissioner, Docket. No. 12752-23. We will see whether the taxpayer in Soroban seeks review by an appellate court. In the meantime, if you have this issue, we advise consulting with your tax professional to ensure you are poised to [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Tax Court Says Pollution Control Systems Are Not Pilot Models, Rejects Tax Research Credits

by and | Jul 14, 2023 | ,

On July 6, 2023, the US Tax Court issued its decision in Betz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-84. Betz considers the application of the pilot model supply rule to expenses incurred by a designer (CPI[1]) of made-to-order air pollution control systems called oxidizers. At issue was approximately $500,000 of research and development tax credits pursuant to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41 on wage and supplies expenses for 19 different oxidizers that CPI produced under various purchase agreements or purchase orders. Generally, IRC Section 41 grants qualifying taxpayers federal income tax credits for increasing research activities, calculated with respect to the amount of “qualified research expenses” (QREs) incurred by the taxpayer during the tax year over a base amount. The statute is complex and has been the subject of substantial controversy between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and taxpayers since its enactment in 1981.

In Betz, CPI generally oversaw the component fabrication process and the assembly of the systems at its subcontractor facilities and then installed or oversaw installation of the oxidizer at the customer’s location. Testing of the oxidizers generally occurred after assembly or after installation. The supply expenses generally included the major components of the various oxidizers, all of which were fabricated by subcontractors. CPI claimed the credit based on a study performed by a tax consultancy group, the fees for which were capped at a percentage of the research credits identified.

The IRS challenged whether the taxpayer met the test in IRC Section 41 that the research must be research “with respect to which expenditures may be treated as expenses under [IRC] section 174.” (See IRC Section 41(d)(1)(A).) The Tax Court found that CPI failed to substantiate that the claimed wages and supplies constituted IRC Section 174 “investigative” activities. CPI’s primary evidence was in the form of testimony from CPI executives and supervisory personnel whom the Tax Court found to be “vague, in conflict with the record, and lacking in credibility[.]” Alternatively, the Tax Court found that, even assuming CPI engaged in IRC Section 174 research activities that gave rise to IRC Section 41 creditable expenses, five of the projects constituted funded research given CPI’s complete transfer of rights in the results of any such research to its customers.

Regarding the supply QREs, the Tax Court held that taxpayer intent was essential to determining whether its efforts to create a pilot model satisfy the “uncertainty” standard in IRC Section 174 regulations. In that regard, the taxpayer had to show “that its purpose in producing that representation or model was to evaluate and resolve uncertainty about the product (i.e., to obtain unavailable information necessary to establish capability, method, or appropriate design).” The taxpayer failed to make this showing. The Tax Court pointed to the lack of “early-stage” testing as an indication that the oxidizers were not used as pilot models but were, in fact, final products.

Practice Point: Betz demonstrates that the IRS continues to scrutinize claims of qualified research expenses. The Tax Court’s [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Tax Court Tells IRS It Cannot Assess or Collect Certain Tax Penalties

by , , and | Apr 26, 2023 | , , ,

On April 3, 2023, the US Tax Court issued its opinion in Farhy v. Commissioner, holding that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lacked the statutory authority to both assess tax penalties under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6038(b) and collect said penalties via a levy against the taxpayer.

The decision in Farhy is significant because the IRS regularly assesses civil tax penalties for the late filing of international information return forms, such as Form 5471, Information Return of US Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. Moreover, for any taxpayer who paid a penalty for filing Form 5471 late, arguably the assessment of that penalty was improper, and the taxpayer may be able to seek a refund of the penalty paid.

Read more.



read more

IRS Proposes New Regulations to Settle Supervisory Approval of Penalties Requirements

by and | Apr 14, 2023 | , , , ,

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has proposed regulations to clarify the rules regarding supervisory approval of federal civil tax penalties under IRC Section 6751(b). Since Chai v. Commissioner, there has been a substantial number of cases litigating issues involving supervisory approval of federal civil tax penalties. Back in September, we posted about the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits split in which both Courts departed from long-standing US Tax Court precedence on the timing requirement of supervisor approval. Those two decisions, along with others, prompted this new guidance “to have clear and uniform regulatory standards.”

The proposed regulations address three timing rules: (1) penalties subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court; (2) penalties raised in the Tax Court after a petition and (3) penalties assessed without prior opportunity for Tax Court review.

Specifically, the proposed regulations allow supervisors to approve the initial determination of a penalty up until the time the IRS issues a pre-assessment notice, such as a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, which is the notice that provides taxpayers with a ticket to the Tax Court. The proposed regulations explain that “earlier deadlines created by the Tax Court do not ensure that penalties are only imposed where appropriate” and the “bright-line rule relieves supervisors from having to predict whether approval at a certain point will be too early or too late.” Additionally, penalties raised in the Tax Court after a petition is filed, such as an answer or an amended answer, would need supervisory approval any time prior to the penalty being raised. Supervisory approval for penalties not subject to pre-assessment review in the Tax Court may be obtained at any time prior to the assessment.

The proposed regulations require the approval of “the immediate supervisor,” which is defined as “any individual with responsibility to approve another individual’s proposal of penalties without the proposal being subject to an intermediary’s approval.” The term is also not limited to any particular individual.

Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by July 10, 2023.

Practice Point: Penalties continue to be a hot topic in the tax controversy arena. The updated guidance promises to clarify and standardize the requirements of supervisory approval of IRS penalties, with the hope and expectation of reducing litigation on the issue. From the taxpayer’s perspective, ideally, the new regulations will enable examiners and managers the opportunity to thoroughly review the facts and circumstances of cases before deciding if penalties are warranted. We will continue to follow and report on any new developments.

Please see the links to our prior commentary on Code Section 6751 below:



read more

Tax Court Rules That the IRS Cannot Assess or Collect Certain Tax Penalties

by , and | Apr 5, 2023 | , , ,

On April 3, 2023, the US Tax Court issued its opinion in Farhy v. Commissioner, ruling that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could neither assess tax penalties under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6038(b) against Alon Farhy nor collect those penalties via a levy.

This is a significant development because the IRS automatically assesses these penalties on any late-filed Form 5471, Information Return of US Persons with Respect to Certain Foreign Corporations. This practice will presumably be immediately ceased. Moreover, any taxpayer who was assessed and paid a penalty on a late-filed Form 5471 may be able to obtain a refund on the penalty paid.

Farhy had failed to file Form 5471 with his US federal income tax return. Failure to timely file Form 5471 comes with a civil tax penalty of $10,000 for each year. (See IRC Section 6038(b)(1).) If the IRS sends the taxpayer notice of its failure to file Form 5471, the taxpayer has 90 days after the notice is mailed to comply with the filing requirement. Failure to comply within the 90-day period subjects the taxpayer to an additional penalty of $10,000 for each 30-day period, with a $50,000 maximum. (See IRC Section 6038(b)(2).)

Code Section 6201(a) permits the IRS to “assess” taxes and assessable penalties. Assessment is the act of formally recording a tax liability on the IRS’s records for a taxpayer. After assessment and failure to pay, the IRS can enforce the collection of tax, penalties and interest by asserting a lien on property or by levying (taking) property.

The Code provides statutes that permit the IRS to assess taxes (including interest, additional amounts and additions to tax) and certain types of penalties (assessable penalties). In Farhy, the Tax Court held that the Code does not contain any statute that permits the IRS to assess the penalty provided in Code Section 6038(b). As such, although the IRS correctly determined that Farhy should be penalized for failing to file Form 5471 with his return, the IRS lacked the statutory ability under the Code to assess and collect the penalty under traditional assessment and collection procedures that they use for other penalties (essentially treated similar to deemed taxes).

The Tax Court did note that the government had other tools at its disposal to collect the penalties, for example, 28 U.S.C. § 2461(a): “Whenever a civil fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for the violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of recovery or enforcement thereof, it may be recovered in a civil action.”

Practice Point: Farhy is a major taxpayer victory and demonstrates that a technical deficiency in the Code can have substantial ramifications for the administration of our tax laws and the potential collection of penalties relating to violations thereof. Clearly, Congress intended to permit the IRS the ability to collect the penalties determined under the Code but failing to connect Code Section 6038(b) with the statutory provisions to assess tax and penalties makes the IRS unable to practically and efficiently collect said penalties. We expect (and are [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Weekly IRS Roundup March 13 – March 17, 2023

by | Mar 20, 2023 | , ,

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for the week of March 13, 2023 – March 17, 2023.

March 13, 2023: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin 2023-11, which highlights the following:

  • Notice 2023-21: This notice postpones the beginning of the lookback periods under Section 6511 for certain taxpayers to file a claim for refund. Affected taxpayers include those who had tax returns due from April 15, 2020 to July 15, 2020, or from April 15, 2021 to May 17, 2021, and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, those due dates were postponed by Notice 2020-23 or Notice 2021-21 to July 15, 2020 or May 17, 2021, respectively.
  • Treasury Decision 9972: These final regulations amend the rules for filing certain returns and statements electronically to reflect changes made by the Taxpayer First Act of 2019 and to promote electronic filing.
  • Notice 2023-19: This notice provides guidance on the corporate bond monthly yield curve, corresponding spot segment rates and the 24-month average segment rates for February 2023. The notice also provides guidance as to interest rates on 30-year Treasury securities and 30-year Treasury weighted average rates.
  • REG 122286-18: These proposed regulations provide rules relating to the use of forfeitures in qualified retirement plans, including a deadline for the use of forfeitures in defined contribution plans, and clarify that forfeitures arising in any defined contribution plan may be used for one or more of the following purposes, as specified in the plan, to (1) pay plan administrative expenses, (2) reduce employer contributions under the plan or (3) increase benefits in other participants’ accounts in accordance with plan terms.
  • Action on Decision 2023-2: The IRS announced nonacquiescence to the US Tax Court’s decision in Complex Media, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2021-14, that the parties’ failure to report transactions fully or consistently should not be a major factor in a decision of whether to allow a taxpayer to disavow the form of its transactions and to the standard the Court applied to allow a petitioner to disavow its form. The IRS also announced nonacquiescence to the court’s determination that the fair market value of a “Deferred Payment Right” for purposes of Section 351(b)(1) is not equal to its issue price.
  • Treasury Decision 9973: This document contains final regulations that treat members of a consolidated group as a single US shareholder in certain cases for purposes of Section 951(a)(2)(B). The final regulations affect consolidated groups that own stock of foreign corporations.

March 13, 2023: The IRS announced that Danny Werfel began work as the 50th Commissioner of the IRS. Werfel was confirmed by the US Senate on March 9, 2023, and his term will run through November 12, 2027. You can read more about his confirmation
Continue Reading



read more

Tax Court Holds That Deficiency Petition 90-Day Time Limit Is Jurisdictional

by , and | Dec 1, 2022 | , ,

Last summer, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the 30-day time limit to file a Collection Due Process (CDP) petition is a non-jurisdictional deadline subject to equitable tolling (Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner). (Our prior discussion of Boechler can be found here.) The natural follow-up issue was whether this holding extended to the 90-day limit for deficiency petitions.

On November 29, 2022, in a unanimous 17-0 opinion in Hallmark Research Collective v. Commissioner, the US Tax Court held that the 90-day time limit is jurisdictional not subject to equitable tolling. The taxpayer in that case filed its deficiency petition one day late but argued that the 90-day limit is non-jurisdictional under Boechler and that it should be allowed to show cause for equitable tolling of the limitations period.

The Tax Court analyzed the relevant statute (Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6213(a)) and found that the statutory text, context and relevant historical treatment all confirmed that the 90-day time limit clearly provided that the deadline was jurisdictional. Its analysis started with the US Constitution and tracked the deficiency procedures from the days of its predecessor (the Board of Tax Appeals) through various statutory changes and the overall framework of the procedures. Based on its analysis of almost 100 years of statutory and judicial precedent, the Tax Court concluded that it and the US Courts of Appeals have expressly and uniformly treated the 90-day time limit as jurisdictional, and the US Congress was presumptively aware of this treatment and had acquiesced in it.

The Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments to the contrary. It noted that the Supreme Court in Boechler rejected the analogy of the statutory 30-day limit for a CDP petition to the statutory 90-day limit for a deficiency petition. The Court also provided separate reasons why the statutory 30-day time limit was different, both in its text and in prior judicial constructions from the 90-day time limit.

Practice Point: The Tax Court’s opinion in Hallmark will not be the last word on the issue, and we expect further developments in this area. Additionally, there are other types of petitions that can be filed in the Tax Court (e.g., so-called “innocent spouse” petitions filed in non-deficiency cases) that contain language different from the statutes addressed in Boechler and Hallmark. We will continue to follow this area and provide relevant updates as they develop.



read more

Tax Court to Host COVID-19 Webinar

by and | Oct 19, 2022 | ,

On November 16, 2022, the US Tax Court will host an informative webinar panel discussion moderated by Chief Judge Kathleen Kerrigan from 12:00 – 1:00 pm (EST). The program will highlight changes to Tax Court practice that were made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and include lessons learned, best practices and practical implications for ongoing controversy matters and trial calendars. The webinar is free and open to everyone—register here.

Practice Point: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the tax world significantly. For those with an active practice in the Tax Court, this webinar should be very informative and helpful. Additional COVID-19 resources for the Tax Court can be found here.

For some of our prior coverage on the impact of COVID-19 on the Tax Court’s operations, see here and here.



read more

Former Tax Court Judge Herbert Chabot Passes Away

by and | Oct 17, 2022 | ,

The US Tax Court announced that former Judge Herbert Chabot passed away on October 11, 2022.

Judge Chabot joined the Tax Court in 1978, serving as a regular judge and then as a senior judge for almost 40 years. Before being appointed to the Tax Court, he served on the staff of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation for over a dozen years. Prior to that, he clerked at the Tax Court, served on the Legal Staff of the American Jewish Congress and served in the US Army and the Army Reserves.

We both knew Judge Chabot well during our time clerking at the Tax Court. He was very thoughtful and cared deeply about reaching the correct result in each case. The Tax Court’s announcement aptly states: “He was a delightful storyteller and often regaled his colleagues and law clerks with wonderful stories. His charm, humor, and ubiquitous bowtie will be missed.”



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Evan Walters

Edward Froelich

Michael Scarduzio

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge