Congress needs to do more to protect taxpayers in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service v. Zuch, National Taxpayer Advocate stated in a recent blog post.

Congress needs to do more to protect taxpayers in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service v. Zuch, National Taxpayer Advocate stated in a recent blog post.

NTA Erin Collins noted in the post that Congress in 1998 created the collection due process (CDP) “to give taxpayers a meaningful opportunity to contest proposed levies and Notices of Federal Tax Lien,” allowing them to request a hearing with appeals and possibly petition the tax court.

The Supreme Court decision, according to Collins, “adopted a narrow view of the Tax Court’s review in a CDP case, holding that the Tax Court’s jurisdiction under IRC Sec. 6330(d)(1) terminates once the lien or levy is no longer at issue.” She cited Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent noting that “under this approach, the IRS can cut off Tax Court review by choosing when and how to collect. He also noted that telling taxpayers to file a refund suit instead is often unrealistic, especially when strict refund claim deadlines have expired while CDP and Tax Court proceedings are still pending.”

Collins noted that the Supreme Court decision and an earlier Tax Court order “reveal serious gaps in the protections Congress intended CDP to provide. They make CDP and Tax Court an unreliable path to a merits-based solution. A taxpayer can do everything right: request a CDO hearing, raise issues with Appeals, and timely petition the Tax Court yet still never receive a final determination on what they owe if, for example, the IRS fully collects through offsets or accepts an OIC and then declares that a levy is no longer warranted.”

She added that “the fallback remedy of refund litigation may not grant a taxpayer full relief … which is an unrealistic option for many small businesses and individuals. … Zuch raises due process concerns when collection action is withdrawn. A taxpayer typically receives only one CDP hearing for a given tax period and type of collection action. If the IRS abandons collection after that hearing and later restarts collection on the same liabilities, the taxpayer may not get a second CDP hearing with Tax Court review, but only an IRS ‘equivalent hearing,’ which does not provide a right to Tax Court review.”

Collins noted that Congress has begun to take steps to remedy this with the House of Representatives’ introduction of the Taxpayer Due Process Enhancement Act (H.R. 6506), including clarifying and expanding Tax Court jurisdiction in CDP cases, ensuring that jurisdiction over a properly underlying liability challenges whether the collection is abandoned, protects refund rights, and prohibits the IRS from crediting the overpayment against other liabilities without taxpayer consent.

However, she is calling for more Congressional action to address the “one hearing” limitation.

“Congress should create an exception to the ‘one hearing’ limitation for cases when the IRS withdraws or abandons collection,” Collins stated in the blog. “If the IRS has effectively reset the collection episode by withdrawing or abandoning the prior levy or lien and later initiates the same collection action for the same tax period, taxpayers should be entitled to a new CDP hearing with the full protections of IRC Sec. 6330, including Tax Court review.”

She added that Congress “should also ensure that taxpayers are not permanently barred from CDP when the IRS withdraws and later restarts collection and the Tax Court has clear authority to grant meaningful relief when the IRS has already collected more than the correct amount.”

The IRS has provided interim guidance addressing the special 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified production property enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). The interim guidance provides the definition of qualified production property, qualified production activities, and other related terms. It also establishes a safe harbor for property placed in service in 2025, provides instructions for the time and manner for electing the 100-percent depreciation allowance, and addresses recapture and certain special rules. Taxpayers may rely on the interim guidance until the Treasury Department issues proposed regulations.

The IRS has provided interim guidance addressing the special 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified production property enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). The interim guidance provides the definition of qualified production property, qualified production activities, and other related terms. It also establishes a safe harbor for property placed in service in 2025, provides instructions for the time and manner for electing the 100-percent depreciation allowance, and addresses recapture and certain special rules. Taxpayers may rely on the interim guidance until the Treasury Department issues proposed regulations.

Background

OBBBA enacted Code Sec. 168(n), which allows taxpayers to elect to take a 100 percent bonus depreciation allowance for qualified production property constructed after January 19, 2025, and before January 1, 2029, and placed in service after July 4, 2025, and before January 1, 2031.

Qualified Production Property Defined

Qualified production property is generally defined as new MACRS nonresidential real property that is (or will be once placed in service) as an integral part of a qualified production activity. Qualified production property must be placed in service in the United States, or its territories. Each building, including its structural components, is a single unit of property and any improvement of structural component that the taxpayer later places in service is a separate unit of property. A special rule is available for integrated facilities. For purposes of determining whether used property is acquired after January 19, 2025, and before January 1, 2029, a taxpayer applies rules consistent with Reg. § 1.168(k)-2(b)(5).

Under the interim guidance satisfies the integral part requirement if the qualified production activity takes place within the physical space of the property. The guidance provides a de minimis rule that permits a taxpayer to elect to treat the entire property as qualified production property if 95 percent or more of the physical space of a property satisfies the integral part requirement.

Although leased property that is owned by the taxpayer and used by a lessee does not qualify, the guidance provides an exception for consolidated groups, commonly controlled pass-through entities, and certain sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations of which 50 percent or more is owned, directly or by attribution by the lessor.

Under the guidance, a taxpayer may use any reasonable method to allocate a property’s unadjusted depreciable basis between eligible property and ineligible property. Each allocation method must be applied consistently and reflect the property’s facts and circumstances. In the case of property that contains infrastructure that serves both eligible property and ineligible property, a taxpayer may allocate the basis of such property between eligible property and ineligible property using any reasonable method.

Qualified Production Activity Defined

Generally, a qualified production activity means the manufacturing, production, or refining of a qualified product. The guidance provides specific definitions of production, qualified product, manufacturing, refining, agricultural production, chemical production, and substantial transformation of the property comprising a qualified product.

Under the guidance, a related business activity will not fail to be a qualified production activity if the related activity occurs within the same property. Such activities include: oversight and management of activities, material selection of vendors or materials related to the qualified product, developing product design and other intellectual property used in conducting a manufacturing, production, or refining activity that results in a substantial transformation of the property comprising the qualified product.

Safe Harbor for Qualified Production Property Placed in Service in 2025

For property placed in service after July 4, 2025, and on or before December 31, 2025, a taxpayer’s trade or business activity will be treated as a qualified production activity if the principal business activity code that the taxpayer, or the relevant trade or business of the taxpayer, used on its most recently filed Federal income tax return filed before February 19, 2026, is listed under sectors 31, 32, or 33, or under subsectors 111 or 112, that appear in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), United States, 2022, published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Executive Office of the President. In addition, the activity must result in, or is otherwise essential to, the substantial transformation of the property comprising a qualified product.

Recapture

Recapture of the 100-percent bonus depreciation taken on qualified production property if a change in use occurs within 10 years after qualified production property is placed in service. Under the guidance a change in use occurs if the qualified production property ceases to satisfy the integral part requirement. A change in use has not occurred if a taxpayer begins to use qualified production property in a different qualified production activity. Property that has been placed in service but is temporarily idle does not cease to satisfy the integral part requirement.

Making the Election

A taxpayer may elect to treat property as qualified production property by attaching a statement to its Federal income tax return for the taxable year in which the eligible property is placed in service. The statement must include the following information: the name and taxpayer identification number of the taxpayer making the election; the street address, city, state, zip code, and a description of the property; the unadjusted depreciable basis of the property; the dollar amount of the unadjusted depreciable basis of eligible property the taxpayer is designating as qualified production property. Separate instructions are available for taxpayers applying the de minimis rule. A election may be revoked only by filing a request for a private letter ruling and obtaining the written consent of the IRS.

Request for Comments

The IRS requests comments on the interim guidance provided in Notice 2026-16. Comments must be submitted by the date, and in the form and manner, specified in Section 10.02 of Notice 2026-16.

Notice 2026-16

IR 2026-25

The Treasury Department and the IRS have extended the deadline for amending individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), SEP arrangements, and SIMPLE IRA plans to comply with the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. The new deadline is December 31, 2027. The extension does not apply to qualified plans such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have extended the deadline for amending individual retirement arrangements (IRAs), SEP arrangements, and SIMPLE IRA plans to comply with the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022. The new deadline is December 31, 2027. The extension does not apply to qualified plans such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

Under section 501 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328), retirement plans and contracts had until the end of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, or by a later date prescribed by the Secretary, to adopt plan amendments reflecting changes made by the SECURE Act, the SECURE 2.0 Act, the CARES Act, and the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020. In the absence of model language from the IRS, IRA custodians have requested more time to ensure proper amendments. Notice 2026-9 gives stakeholders until the end of 2027 to complete the necessary changes.

The extension applies to governing instruments of IRAs under Code Sec. 408(a) and (h), annuity contracts under Code Sec. 408(b), SEP arrangements under Code Sec. 408(k), and SIMPLE IRA plans under Code Sec. 408(p). Further, the IRS is developing model language to be used by IRA trustees, custodians, and issuers to amend an IRA for compliance with the legislation.

Notice 2026-9

The IRS issued answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the implementation of Executive Order 14247, Modernizing Payments to and from America’s Bank Account. The order described advancing the transition to fully electronic federal payments both to and from the IRS. The purposes of said order were to (1) defend against financial fraud and improper payments; (2) increase efficiency; (3) reduce costs; and (4) enhance the security of federal transactions.

The IRS issued answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the implementation of Executive Order 14247, Modernizing Payments to and from America’s Bank Account. The order described advancing the transition to fully electronic federal payments both to and from the IRS. The purposes of said order were to (1) defend against financial fraud and improper payments; (2) increase efficiency; (3) reduce costs; and (4) enhance the security of federal transactions.

The FAQs discussed included:

Tax Refunds and Tax Filing

The IRS stopped issuing paper refund checks for individual taxpayers after September 30, 2025. The Service would publish all guidance for filing 2025 tax returns before opening the 2026 tax filing season.

Further, direct deposit into a bank account would remain the primary method for issuing refunds. Alternative electronic payment methods, mobile apps and prepaid debit cards, would also be available. Limited exceptions to the paper check phase-out would also be established.

Alternative to Providing Direct Deposit Information

It is not mandatory for taxpayers to provide electronic payment information. However, if no exception applies, their refunds could take longer to process.

Sunset of Enrollment to EFTPS

Effective October 17, 2025, individual taxpayers are no longer able to create new enrollments via EFTPS.gov. Individual taxpayers not enrolled in the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS).gov by October 17, 2025 can instead create an IRS Online Account for Individual taxpayers or use the IRS Direct Pay guest path.

FS-2026-2

IR 2026-13

The IRS has encouraged all taxpayers to create an IRS Individual Online Account to access tax account information securely and help protect against identity theft. It emphasized that this digital resource is available to anyone who can verify their identity. Thus, the IRS highlighted how taxpayers have used the account with the same convenience as online banking to view adjusted gross income, check refund statuses, and request identity protection PINs.

The IRS has encouraged all taxpayers to create an IRS Individual Online Account to access tax account information securely and help protect against identity theft. It emphasized that this digital resource is available to anyone who can verify their identity. Thus, the IRS highlighted how taxpayers have used the account with the same convenience as online banking to view adjusted gross income, check refund statuses, and request identity protection PINs.

Further, the IRS supported collaboration between taxpayers and tax professionals through the use of digital authorizations. When taxpayers utilize Individual Online Accounts, they are able to approve power of attorney and tax information authorization requests entirely online. This digital process has allowed tax professionals to use their own Tax Pro Accounts to complete authorized actions on their clients’ behalf more efficiently. Tax professionals have supported this effort by encouraging clients to receive and view over 200 digital notices.

Additionally, the IRS expanded the account’s capabilities in early 2025 to allow taxpayers to view and download certain tax documents. It has made forms such as the W-2, 1095-A, and various 1099s available for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 tax years. These documents provide essential information return data reported by employers and financial institutions to help taxpayers file their returns. Consequently, the IRS advised individuals to visit IRS.gov to learn more about accessing records and managing payment plans.

IR 2026-21

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.