The Treasury Department and IRS have finalized regulations regarding the deduction of up to $10,000 in personal car loan interest by individuals for tax years 2025 through 2028. This includes regulations on information returns required to be filed by a lender or other person engage in a trade or business who receives $600 or more of qualified interest during the calendar year. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations published in January 2026 (NPRM REG-113515-25) with some changes in response to public comments.

The Treasury Department and IRS have finalized regulations regarding the deduction of up to $10,000 in personal car loan interest by individuals for tax years 2025 through 2028. This includes regulations on information returns required to be filed by a lender or other person engage in a trade or business who receives $600 or more of qualified interest during the calendar year. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations published in January 2026 (NPRM REG-113515-25) with some changes in response to public comments.

Qualified Personal Vehicle Loan Interest

For tax years beginning in 2025 through 2028, a noncorporate taxpayer may claim a deduction of up to $10,000 for qualified personal vehicle loan interest (QPVLI) paid or accrued during the tax year on a specified passenger vehicle loan (SPVL) incurred by the taxpayer for the purchase of an applicable personal vehicle (APV) for personal use. Generally, interest includes an amount paid, received, or accrued as compensation for the use or forbearance of money under the debt instrument.

The final regulations clarify that QPVLI also includes prepaid interest in the form of points and deferred or capitalized interest. In addition, it may include origination-related or financing-related charges, prepayment penalties, late-payment charges, default-related charges, and similar fees, if characterized as an interest expense for federal income tax purposes.

Secured by First Lien

Interest is QPVLI only if it is paid or accrued on debt for the purchase of an APV for personal use that is secured by a first lien. The final regulations clarify that an SPVL is secured by a first lien with the first voluntary security interest recorded against the vehicle. Any involuntary liens are disregarded even if given temporary higher priority at a later date.

A vehicle also may be considered secured by a first lien even if the lien has not yet been perfected or recorded due to short-term delays arising under State or local law. It may also be considered secured by a first lien where the lien is removed in connection with the taxpayer no longer owning the vehicle, but the taxpayer continues to be liable for the loan (repossession or insurance payout).

Purchase of Applicable Passenger Vehicle

An SPVL is qualified only to the extent the debt is incurred for the purchase of a new vehicle and any other items or amounts customarily financed in the same purchase transaction (for example, vehicle service plans, extended warranties, sales taxes, and vehicle-related fees). Any portion of a loan for items or amounts not customarily financed in the purchase are not qualified.

The taxpayer must allocate the debt on a pro rata basis. Whether items are customarily financed and directly related to the purchase of the vehicle is determined on an industry-wide basis and not on the particular financing terms. The final rules, however, expand the list of examples of items customarily financed in an APV purchase. The final regulations also maintain that debt incurred for negative equity in a prior purchased vehicle is not incurred for the purchase of an APV.

The requirement that an APV must be a new vehicle under the loan documentation refers to the lender’s classification of the vehicle for purposes of its financing programs. The original use of the vehicle must commence with the taxpayer. However, original use does not commence with a dealer if the vehicle is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of its trade or business. Original does not commence with a lessee if the lessee purchases the vehicle during or at the end of the lease term.

Information Reporting

Any lender or other person who, in the course of that trade or business, receives from any individual interest aggregating $600 or more for any calendar year on an SPVL, must report the receipt of interest on Form 1098-VLI to the IRS and the payee. The final regulations affirm that lenders are required to include only interest received on an SPVL for the purchase of an APV, the first use of which begins with the payee. This is required by statute and may require the lender to collect information it currently does not collect. The lender must file Form 1098-VLI for each SPVL.

T.D. 10054

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued proposed regulations providing that a private school is not eligible for Federal income tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) if it considers race, color, or national or ethnic origin in any of its educational, admissions, scholarship, athletic, or other school-administered policies. Any such consideration, under the proposed regulation subsection, would be considered de facto racial discrimination. The proposed rules would apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued proposed regulations providing that a private school is not eligible for Federal income tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) if it considers race, color, or national or ethnic origin in any of its educational, admissions, scholarship, athletic, or other school-administered policies. Any such consideration, under the proposed regulation subsection, would be considered de facto racial discrimination. The proposed rules would apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.

Racial Nondiscrimination

The proposed regulations would treat all race-based consideration in private education as contrary to a fundamental public policy, regardless of its purpose, including remedial or diversity-related objectives. This restriction does not inclulde policies or actions designed to eliminate prejudice or other forms of discrimination. The rules would cover private primary and secondary schools, colleges, professional or trade schools, and universities. The rules specifically do not include governmental units, any agency or instrumentality of a governmental unit, or any organization owned or operated by such an agency or instrumentality.

Application to Private Schools

To qualify for tax exemption, a private school could not consider race, color, or national or ethnic origin in:

• (1) Educational or admissions policies
• (2) Scholarship or loan programs
• (3) Athletic or other school-supported programs

The proposal would not prevent religious schools from maintaining religious missions or selecting students based solely on religious affiliation. If finalized, Rev. Proc. 75-50 would also be modified to remove provisions permitting certain race-based preferences for minority groups.

The proposed regulations would add §1.501(c)(3)-2 and apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-119986-25

IR 2026-103

A Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment (FPA) issued by the IRS to a partnership was timely under Code Sec. 6235 because the partnership and IRS had agreed to extend the limitations period for making partnership adjustments. It was determined that the extended period under Code Sec. 6235(a)(1) controlled because the statute permits adjustments until the latest of the periods specified in Code Sec. 6235(a). Accordingly, the partnership’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

A Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment (FPA) issued by the IRS to a partnership was timely under Code Sec. 6235 because the partnership and IRS had agreed to extend the limitations period for making partnership adjustments. It was determined that the extended period under Code Sec. 6235(a)(1) controlled because the statute permits adjustments until the latest of the periods specified in Code Sec. 6235(a). Accordingly, the partnership’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The partnership, which was subject to the centralized partnership audit (CPA) regime, challenged an FPA disallowing a charitable contribution deduction. The partnership argued that the FPA was issued outside the applicable limitations period because the 330-day period following the notice of proposed partnership adjustment had expired. However, the parties had previously executed an agreement extending the limitations period for partnership adjustments under Code Sec. 6235(b).

Further, it was concluded that the periods specified in Code Sec. 6235(a) were not sequential deadlines. The statutory phrase “later of” required use of the latest applicable period, and an agreed extension under Code Sec. 6235(b) extended the limitations period for making adjustments, including issuance of the FPA. Because the FPA was mailed before expiration of the agreed extended period, the FPA was timely.

Katanga Properties, LLC, 167 TC No. 10, Dec. 62,899

The Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act has been signed into law by President Trump.

The Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act has been signed into law by President Trump.

The law (H.R. 5366) allows victims of federally declared disasters to deduct qualified losses above $500 per disaster without itemizing and removes the 10 percent adjusted gross income threshold for those losses. A fact sheet on the bill can be found here.

Under the law, this treatment of personal casualty loss is available until Jan. 1, 2027.

It also excludes wildfire relief payments from taxable income regardless of when they are received, so long as the wildfire disaster declaration occurs after Dec. 31, 2014, and before Jan. 1, 2027.

President Trump signed the bill into law on Sept. 11, 2026.

The IRS has modified automatic accounting method change procedures for research or experimental expenditures and certain residential construction contracts. Rev. Proc. 2026-32 modifies sections 7 and 19 of Rev. Proc. 2025-23 to reflect changes made by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

The IRS has modified automatic accounting method change procedures for research or experimental expenditures and certain residential construction contracts. Rev. Proc. 2026-32 modifies sections 7 and 19 of Rev. Proc. 2025-23 to reflect changes made by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

For research expenditures, the procedure modifies accounting method changes under Code Secs. 174 and 174A. Code Sec. 174 continues to require capitalization and 15-year amortization for foreign research expenditures. Code Sec. 174A generally allows a current deduction for domestic research expenditures paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2024.

The procedure also revises rules governing adjustments associated with accounting method changes. It coordinates certain Code Sec. 481 adjustments with the OBBBA transition method for recovering unamortized domestic research expenditures. It also extends through tax years beginning before 2028 waivers of certain eligibility restrictions for specified automatic changes.

Further, the IRS provides automatic accounting method changes for residential construction contracts affected by the OBBBA amendments to Code Sec. 460. Taxpayers may change from the percentage-of-completion method to an exempt contract method for qualifying contracts entered into in tax years beginning after July 4, 2025. Certain taxpayers may also change their treatment of costs under Code Sec. 263A.

The modified procedures generally apply to Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, filed after September 4, 2026. Special transition rules apply to certain previously filed Forms 3115.

Rev. Proc. 2026-32

Hopes for a pre-election resolution to the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, extenders and other tax incentives are quickly fading as summer approaches.  This year is increasingly looking like a replay of 2010, the last time the Bush-era tax cuts were facing imminent expiration.  The White House, the Democratic-controlled Senate and the GOP-controlled House all have different opinions on the fate of these tax incentives and negotiations, which have been few and far between, and have quickly bogged down.  One solution, which is being talked about more and more, is a temporary extension of the tax cuts.  While this would punt the issue to the next Congress, it does little to ease taxpayers’ concerns about tax planning in a climate of constant uncertainty.

Hopes for a pre-election resolution to the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, extenders and other tax incentives are quickly fading as summer approaches.  This year is increasingly looking like a replay of 2010, the last time the Bush-era tax cuts were facing imminent expiration.  The White House, the Democratic-controlled Senate and the GOP-controlled House all have different opinions on the fate of these tax incentives and negotiations, which have been few and far between, and have quickly bogged down.  One solution, which is being talked about more and more, is a temporary extension of the tax cuts.  While this would punt the issue to the next Congress, it does little to ease taxpayers’ concerns about tax planning in a climate of constant uncertainty.

Bush-era tax cuts

Unless extended, the tax cuts in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) (as extended by the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010) will sunset after December 31, 2012.  The list of expiring tax incentives is long and includes reduced individual income tax rates and capital gains/dividends tax rates; the $1,000 child tax credit; enhancements to the earned income tax credit (EIC); and much more.

On May 15, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that the House will vote before the November elections on legislation to extend the Bush-era tax cuts.  Boehner gave no timetable for a vote.  It is unclear at this time if the GOP plans to vote on making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent or merely to extend them one or two more years. Also unclear is whether or not any extension would be offset with revenue raisers elsewhere.  Even if the House votes on the tax cuts, there is no guarantee the Senate will take them up.

Complicating matters is the federal budget deficit.  After months of partisan wrangling last year, Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA).  The BCA imposes mandatory, across-the-board spending cuts through sequestration.  The BCA’s spending cuts are scheduled to take effect in 2013.  The GOP wants to repeal the BCA and on May 10, the House approved legislation to effectively do that.  The GOP bill has no chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate.  So the BCA remains, for now, law.

Few Capitol Hill observers expect Congress to take any meaningful action on the Bush-era tax cuts before the November elections. This leaves the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts to the lame duck Congress.  Depending on the outcome of the November elections, the lame duck Congress could do nothing and allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, make the tax cuts permanent, or – and this appears to be the most likely scenario – extend the tax cuts for one year. Either way, the uncertainty complicates tax planning for 2012 and beyond.

Small businesses

Lawmakers are also dueling over competing small business tax bills. The House has approved the GOP-sponsored Small Business Tax Cut Act.  The GOP bill would, among other provisions, provide a deduction for 20 percent of qualified domestic business income of the taxpayer for the tax year, subject to limitations. In the Senate, the Democrats’ small business bill would give a 10 percent income tax credit to small employers that increase wages or create jobs in 2012 and extend 100 percent bonus depreciation through 2012 (which had expired at the end of 2011).   If the Senate approves the Democratic bill, the two chambers could iron-out the differences in the bills in conference.

Tax extenders

Since January, supporters of the tax extenders have tried several times, all unsuccessfully, to attach the extenders to other bills.  Some of the extenders were initially attached to the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which extended the employee-side payroll tax cut for all of calendar year 2012, but were subsequently dropped. Supporters also tried to include many of the extenders, especially energy-related tax incentives, to the Senate’s highway funding bill: the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act.  At the last minute, the extenders were removed from the Senate bill.

A drag on the extenders is their estimated cost to the federal budget.  According to the Congressional Research Service, renewing all of the extenders for 2012 would cost $35 billion. This is one reason why supporters have tried to move only some of the extenders.  There have also been calls in Congress to let some of the extenders expire permanently; but every extender has its supporter.

Federal estate tax

Another big question mark hovers over the federal estate tax.  Unless Congress acts, the federal estate tax is schedule to revert to its pre-EGTRRA levels (a top tax rate of 55 percent with a $1 million exclusion).  In 2010, the White House and the GOP agreed on a top tax rate of 35 percent with a $5 million exclusion (indexed for inflation) for decedents dying in 2011 and 2012 (special rules applied to decedents dying in 2010).  The GOP has proposed to eliminate the estate tax entirely or, if not abolished, to retain the 35/$5 million amounts for decedents dying after 2012; the White House has proposed to reduce the exclusion amount to $3.5 million. 

Our office will monitor developments and keep you posted of any changes. If you have any questions about legislative developments, please contact our office.