The House Ways and Means Committee recently offered a window into what the legislative body is working on when it comes to developing legislation to govern the taxation of digital assets, highlighting six bills and a discussion draft covering a range of topics.

The House Ways and Means Committee recently offered a window into what the legislative body is working on when it comes to developing legislation to govern the taxation of digital assets, highlighting six bills and a discussion draft covering a range of topics.

As part of the development, the committee held a June 9, 2026, hearing to solicit commentary from industry on the bills, during which committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) called the “digital asset status quo is untenable. America needs clear tax rules of the road to remain the crypto capital of the world.”

Smith stated that cryptocurrency has “a market capitalization of over $2 trillion. That’s a massive industry by any measure, and nearly all other industries of a similar size enjoy clear tax policies.”

Chairman Smith noted that more and more people own cryptocurrency and “nearly a quarter of cryptocurrency holders earn less than $75,000 and the average crypto holder is nearly as likely to work in construction, manufacturing, or food service as tech or finance.”

The bills and discussion draft include:

• The Applying Existing Tax Anti-Abuse Rules to Digital Assets Act (H.R. 9172)
• The Charitable Deductions for Digital Donations Act (H.R. 9173)
• The Digital Assets Voluntary Disclosure Program Act (H.R. 9174)
• The Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act (H.R. 9175)
• The Providing Analogous Rules for Digital Assets Act (H.R. 9176)
• The Less Tax Paperwork for Digital Asset Owners Act (H.R. 9178)
• The End Digital Assets Tax Shelters Act (Discussion Draft)

The proposed legislation address “three key gaps in the current tax regime that make it harder for Americans to fully participate in the digital asset ecosystem,”

First, he said, “common digital transactions like mining and staking do not fit clearly into existing tax law. In other places, the tax code is silent as to the treatment of digital assets. The ambiguity creates an opening for taxpayers to exploit the law and avoid paying taxes in some circumstances and creates unfair tax burdens on others.

Second, Smith stated that “digital assets do not receive the tax benefit nor the protection from anti-abuse rules long granted to traditional financial assets. The imbalance between digital assets and traditional financial assets creates a two-tier system that unintentionally favor certain assets over others.”

Third, “crypto owners face burdensome tax compliance that makes using digital assets in ordinary commerce almost impossible.” Smith noted that “31 percent of crypto owners would like to buy a cup of coffee at the local shop, yet each $5 cup of coffee bought with a digital asset generates two new pieces of tax paperwork,” which adds a significant burden to both the IRS and the taxpayer.

Ranking Member Richard Neal (R-Mass.) had mixed reviews on the bills. He described his initial observation as some of the bills being “quite sensible, providing clear rules of the road for taxpayers looking to comply with the law. Other provisions sought the common sense goal of alleviating burdensome paperwork requirements, especially in situations where it’s highly unlikely that there would be any tax associated with those transactions, and indeed there are provisions that would close loopholes that are specific to the digital asset industry.”

However, Neal also noted that “it appears there are some provisions that deviate substantially from general tax principles, providing a distinct advantage that are beyond some other investments. We want to be careful about putting a thumb on the scale, and as we all know, it’s much easier to put something into the tax code than it is to take it out.”

Lawrence Zlatkin, Coinbase vice president of tax, testified during the hearing that the bills “represent the most comprehensive effort to modernize digital asset taxation that we have seen to date. Most importantly, this legislation recognized a fundamental reality: market structure and tax policy go hand-in-hand.”

In particular, Zlatkin highlighted H.R. 9178, which he testified “is an important step forward towards making stablecoin payments practical while reducing unnecessary reporting noise,” as well as H.R. 9173, which “provides long-needed clarity for mining and staking rewards, helping ensure taxpayers are not forced into tax obligations before they’ve generated liquidity though an actual sale.”

Mike Kaercher, deputy director of the Tax Law Center at New York University, cautioned that as the bills move through the process, “I encourage policymakers to consider three tax policy principles most closely: parity, administrability, and guardrails to prevent abuse. Some of the provisions in these bills would make improvements consistent with these principles.”

Among those, Kaercher testified that for example, “one of the bills would extend anti-abuse regimes, like wash sale rules and constructive sale rules, to digital assets. That’s a good idea. Another example is the de minimis provision on qualifying stablecoins – a targeted approach with guardrails can reduce paperwork and compliance burdens without creating substantial hidden tax subsidies for digital assets, but the rule should remain targeted because a broader de minimis provision risks abuse and would favor investments in digital assets over those in traditional finance.”

On the provision of deferring tax on mining and staking rewards, Kaercher testified that deferral “isn’t just the distortive subsidy, it could also undermine administrability. Deferral increases complexity for taxpayers and makes it harder for the IRS to do its job.”

He also warned about the possibility of government bailouts if guardrails and policy are not correctly developed.

“I think one thing for policymakers to consider on this is that if digital assets become a larger part of retirement accounts and the assets remain highly volatile, or in a worst-case scenario, crash, that would have an enormous impact on households’ retirement savings, and if that were to happen, I think policymakers would have to think about whether to respond with something like a bailout.”

The Treasury Department, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations implementing the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (P.L. 116-260). The regulations provide new disclosure and administration requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers related to surprise billing protections. Although the final rules are generally effective August 3, 2026, several provisions have delayed applicability dates.

The Treasury Department, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations implementing the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (P.L. 116-260). The regulations provide new disclosure and administration requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers related to surprise billing protections. Although the final rules are generally effective August 3, 2026, several provisions have delayed applicability dates.

The final rules require plans and issuers to use claim adjustment reason codes (CARCs) and remittance advice remark codes (RARCs), as specified in guidance, when providing any paper or electronic remittance advice to an entity that does not have a contractual relationship with the plan or issuer. These disclosures must be included along with the initial payment or notice of denial of payment for certain items and services subject to the surprise billing protections in the No Surprises Act.

The regulations also make several procedural updates to the federal IDR process. These include refinements to the open negotiation period, the formal initiation of the IDR process, and the dispute eligibility review procedures. Further, the rules address the payment and collection of administrative fees as well as certified IDR entity fees.

The agencies also finalized the definition of bundled payment arrangements, amended requirements related to batched items and services, and amended the rules for extensions of timeframes due to extenuating circumstances. Additionally, the regulation finalizes provisions that require plans and issuers to register in the federal IDR portal.

T.D. 10049

The IRS has published the inflation adjustment factor and reference prices for determining the credit for renewable electricity production for calendar year 2026 sales of kilowatt hours of electricity produced in the U.S. or a U.S. possession from qualified energy resources.

The IRS has published the inflation adjustment factor and reference prices for determining the credit for renewable electricity production for calendar year 2026 sales of kilowatt hours of electricity produced in the U.S. or a U.S. possession from qualified energy resources.

The inflation adjustment factor for qualified energy resources is 2.0570. The reference price for facilities producing electricity from wind is 3.17 cents per kilowatt hour. The reference prices for facilities producing electricity from closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, solar energy, municipal solid waste, qualified hydropower production and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy have not been determined for calendar year 2026.

Phaseout Limits

For electricity sold during the calendar year 2026, the renewable electricity production credit is not subject to a phaseout under Code Sec. 45(b)(1) for electricity produced from wind. This is because the 2026 reference price for electricity produced from wind, 3.17 cents per kilowatt hour, does not exceed 8 cents multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor (2.0570). The phase-out of the credit also does not apply to electricity sold in 2026 and produced from closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, solar energy, municipal solid waste, qualified hydropower production and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.

Credit Amount Adjustments

The credit for renewable electricity production for calendar year 2026 under Code Sec. 45(a) is 3.1 cents per kilowatt hour on the sale of electricity produced from the qualified energy resources of wind, closed-loop biomass and geothermal energy. The credit is 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour on the sale of electricity produced in open-loop biomass facilities, landfill gas facilities, trash facilities, qualified hydropower facilities and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy facilities.

Notice 2026-37

The IRS updated guidance relating to the energy community provisions in:

• Code Sec. 45 production tax credit for electricity produced from certain resources;
• — the resource-neutral Code Sec. 45Y clean electricity production credit that largely replaces the Code Sec. 45 credit for property placed in service after 2024;
• — the Code Sec. 48 business energy investment credit for investments in property that produces electricity from certain resources; and
• — the resource-neutral Code Sec. 48E clean energy investment credit that largely replaces the Code Sec. 48 credit for property placed in service after 2024.

The IRS updated guidance relating to the energy community provisions in:

• — the Code Sec. 45 production tax credit for electricity produced from certain resources;
• — the resource-neutral Code Sec. 45Y clean electricity production credit that largely replaces the Code Sec. 45 credit for property placed in service after 2024;
• — the Code Sec. 48 business energy investment credit for investments in property that produces electricity from certain resources; and
• — the resource-neutral Code Sec. 48E clean energy investment credit that largely replaces the Code Sec. 48 credit for property placed in service after 2024.

Annual Statistical Area Category and Coal Closure Category Update

Notice 2026-39 publishes information taxpayers may use to determine whether they meet certain requirements under the Statistical Area Category or the Coal Closure Category for purposes of qualifying for energy community bonus credit amounts or rates.

• (1) Appendix 1 lists counties and county-equivalents that qualify as energy communities because they meet the Fossil Fuel Employment threshold and the unemployment rate requirement for calendar year 2025.
• (2) Appendix 2 lists newly identified census tracts with either a coal mine closure or a coal-fired electric generating unit retirement, and census tracts directly adjoining those tracts.
• (3) Appendix 3 lists census tracts that newly qualify as coal closure census tracts because of location-data corrections issued since the publication of Notice 2025-31.

Notice 2026-39

The Treasury Department and the IRS have announced plans to issue proposed regulations under Code Sec. 4960 expanding the definition of a covered employee for purposes of the excise tax on excessive compensation paid by applicable tax-exempt organizations (ATEOs). The guidance follows amendments made by section 70416 of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act and applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.

The Treasury Department and the IRS have announced plans to issue proposed regulations under Code Sec. 4960 expanding the definition of a covered employee for purposes of the excise tax on excessive compensation paid by applicable tax-exempt organizations (ATEOs). The guidance follows amendments made by section 70416 of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act and applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.

Before the legislative change, a covered employee generally was one of an ATEO’s five highest-compensated employees for the tax year at issue or an individual who previously held that status. The amended law broadens the definition to include any employee of an ATEO and certain former employees for taxable years beginning after 2025. However, individuals who were not covered employees under the pre-2026 rules will not become covered employees solely because they worked for an ATEO before 2026.

The forthcoming regulations are expected to eliminate references to the five highest-compensated employees standard and make conforming changes. The agencies intend to retain exceptions similar to the current limited-hours and non-exempt funds exceptions, but discontinue the limited-services exception because its rationale no longer applies. Until proposed regulations are issued, ATEOs may rely on Notice 2026-36. The Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments on the proposed rules by August 4, 2026.

Notice 2026-36

IR 2026-73

The IRS has issued the 2025 Data Book detailing the agency’s activities during fiscal year 2025. The report provided an overview of the agency’s operations to meet statutory responsibilities. The revenue collected by the Service exceeded $5.3 trillion.

The IRS has issued the 2025 Data Book detailing the agency’s activities during fiscal year 2025. The report provided an overview of the agency’s operations to meet statutory responsibilities. The revenue collected by the Service exceeded $5.3 trillion.

“Fiscal Year 2025 was a pivotal year, as we began the process of implementing tax relief for hardworking Americans enacted as part of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (WFTC),” said IRS CEO Frank J. Bisignano. “The numbers in the Data Book tell the story of an organization that serves as a key partner in the administration’s mission,” he added. The CEO also highlighted efforts to transform the IRS into a digital-first agency. These efforts would reduce paper processing through the “zero paper” initiative.

During the 2026 filing season, around 45 percent of individual tax returns claimed one or more of the new tax benefits from the WFTC. The average refund on a return claiming one of these deductions was over $3,200, as of May 27.

Further, online tools, including the IRS Online Account were upgraded to expand access and add new features. Expanded technology and advanced analytics would allow the Service to identify high-risk areas of non-compliance and tax fraud. Finally, more information can be found here.

IR 2026-74

The IRS announced the release of a new calculator to determine interest rates for large, multi-year construction and manufacturing projects. The calculator is named Percentage-of-Completion Method (PCM) Look-Back Interest Calculator and is MS Excel based. It supports calculations for Form 8697, Interest Computation Under the Look-Back Method for Completed Long-Term Contracts. However, it does not address all fact patterns or complexities associated with look-back interest calculations.

The IRS announced the release of a new calculator to determine interest rates for large, multi-year construction and manufacturing projects. The calculator is named Percentage-of-Completion Method (PCM) Look-Back Interest Calculator and is MS Excel based. It supports calculations for Form 8697, Interest Computation Under the Look-Back Method for Completed Long-Term Contracts. However, it does not address all fact patterns or complexities associated with look-back interest calculations.

“The IRS is focused on improving and enhancing how we serve taxpayers,” said IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano. “We are transforming the IRS into a digital-first agency that provides the best possible experience for taxpayers, and tools like this calculator are an important step in that effort,” he added.

The look-back interest is determined using a three-step process:

• Hypothetically reallocating income to prior tax year based on actual revenues and costs;
• Computing hypothetical tax overpayments or underpayments of tax; and
• Calculating interest on tax underpayments or overpayments.

Taxpayers and tax practitioners may submit feedback about the calculator, by emailing Stakeholder Liaison and including "Look-Back Interest Workbook Feedback" in the subject line. More information can be found here.

IR 2026-70

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11 was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed revenue procedure, Notice 2019-7, was issued concurrently to provide a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: What is your general overview of the revised, final regulations for the Section 199A Qualified Business Income (QBI) or "pass-through" deduction?

Tom West: I think it is admirable that Treasury and IRS were able to publish these final regulations so quickly and address so many of the comments and questions that the proposed regulations generated. I think they realized how important this particular package was to so many taxpayers for the 2018 filing season and, while questions obviously remain, having these rules out in time to inform decisions for this year’s tax returns is helpful. In particular, the liberalized aggregation rules and the additional examples regarding certain specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) are the most consequential in my mind.

Wolters Kluwer: What should taxpayers and practitioners keep in mind in consideration of relying on either the proposed or final regulations for the 2018 tax year?

Tom West: I have to imagine that when choosing between the two, for most taxpayers the final regulations will ultimately provide the better result. The ability to aggregate at the entity level, which was only provided in the final regulations, may be a key consideration for those taxpayers with more complicated or tiered structures. That said, I do think taxpayers need to be careful in their aggregation modeling because you are going to be stuck with your aggregation once you’ve filed. It may be that some taxpayers wait on getting locked into a particular aggregation and continue to study the new rules—and even wait on additional guidance that may be coming. However, it may be important to note that the final regulations provide that if an individual fails to aggregate, the individual may not aggregate trades or businesses on an amended return—other than for the 2018 tax year.

Wolters Kluwer: How is the removal of the proposed 80 percent rule regarding specified service trades or businesses (SSTBs) from the final regulations likely to impact certain taxpayers?

Tom West: First of all, I think the removal of this rule is a demonstration of two important dynamics. One, the critical importance of the engagement of taxpayers in the comment process, and, two, the government’s willingness to listen and adapt in their rule-making. I don’t know if there are particular industries or taxpayers who will be impacted, but I do know that the change is a very logical and appropriate one, and logic doesn’t always prevail in these processes, so I’m happy to give the regulators credit when it does.

Wolters Kluwer: Which industries may have been helped or hindered by the final regulations with respect to SSTB rules?

Tom West: I’m not sure specific industries were helped, but the biggest positive in terms of the SSTB final rules is the carryover from the proposed regulations of the treatment of the skill or reputation provision. Had Treasury and the IRS gone in a different direction, there was a risk of that provision swallowing the rest of the 199A regime—not to mention how much more subjective the already sometimes difficult SSTB determinations would have become.

Wolters Kluwer: Are there any lingering, unanswered questions among taxpayers or practitioners that particularly stand out when determining what constitutes SSTB income?

Tom West: I think many taxpayers who have both SSTB and non-SSTB activities were hoping for more clarity, either in rules or examples, on how to acceptably segregate business lines or on when (or if) certain activities are inextricably tied together. There are also still lingering questions regarding when a trade or business is an SSTB—particularly in the field of health.

Wolters Kluwer: Were there any surprises in the final regulations?

Tom West: I don’t know if I’m surprised, knowing the concerns that led them to the decisions they made, but the fact that Treasury and IRS held the line on some of the SSTB-related rules is notable. I’m thinking specifically of the so-called "cliff" effect of the de minimis rule and the fact that owners of certain kinds of SSTB businesses, e.g., sports teams, are not allowed to benefit from the Section 199A deduction.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

Republicans’ 2017 overhaul of the tax code created a new 20-percent deduction of qualified business income (QBI), subject to certain limitations, for pass-through entities (sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies, or S corporations). The controversial QBI deduction—also called the "pass-through" deduction—has remained an ongoing topic of debate among lawmakers, tax policy experts, and stakeholders.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) ( P.L. 115-97), enacted at the end of 2017, created the new Section 199A QBI deduction for noncorporate taxpayers, effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. However, under current law the QBI deduction will sunset after 2025. In addition to the QBI deduction’s impermanence, its complexity and ambiguous statutory language have created many questions for taxpayers and practitioners.

The IRS first released much-anticipated proposed regulations for the new QBI deduction, REG-107892-18, on August 8, 2018. The proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2018. The IRS released the final regulations and notice of additional proposed rulemaking on January 18, 2019, followed by a revised version of the final regulations on February 1, 2019. Additionally, Rev. Proc. 2019-11, I.R.B. 2019-9, 742, was issued concurrently to provide further guidance on the definition of wages. Also, a proposed Revenue Procedure, Notice 2019-7, I.R.B. 2019-9, 740, was issued, concurrently providing a safe harbor under which certain rental real estate enterprises may be treated as a trade or business for purposes of Section 199A.

Wolters Kluwer recently interviewed Tom West, a principal in the passthroughs group of the Washington National Tax practice of KPMG LLP, about the Section 199A QBI deduction regulations. Notably, West formerly served as tax legislative counsel at the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. This article represents the views of the author only and does not necessarily represent the views or professional advice of KPMG LLP.

Wolters Kluwer: Neither the proposed nor final regulations for Section 199A give guidance as to when rental real estate activity constitutes a Section 162 trade or business. How might the application of the safe harbor provided for in IRS Notice 2019-7 offer taxpayers clarity? And how might failure to qualify for the safe harbor impact the determination of whether the rental activity is a trade or business under Section 199A?

Tom West: The safe harbor is helpful but it appears to be intended for relatively smaller taxpayers who may have had questions about their activities rising to the level of a trade or business. I don’t think falling outside of the safe harbor is dispositive—especially in light of the recent policy statement from Treasury regarding sub-regulatory guidance.

Wolters Kluwer: Can you speak to the some of the complexity that may be involved in tax planning with respect to achieving the right balance between adequate W-2 wages and QBI?

Tom West: Other than for small taxpayers, there is only a benefit under Section 199A if the limitations are met. It does not do any good to have QBI but then have insufficient W-2 wages and qualified property to meet the limitations. So when taxpayers are evaluating what constitutes a qualified trade or business (or whether to aggregate qualified trades or businesses) they will need to determine the amount of W-2 wages with respect to each QTB. Aligning the W-2 wages with the QTB will be important—but the salary expense will also result in a reduction in the amount of QBI and therefore the amount of any Section 199A benefit—so modeling becomes critical. Consideration should also be given to any collateral consequences—for instance the impact of the alignment on allocation and apportionment for state taxes.

Wolters Kluwer: According to a March 18, 2019, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report, Reference Number: 2019-44-022, IRS management indicated that the timeline related to the issuance of Section 199A guidance did not provide enough time for the IRS to develop a QBI deduction tax form. Although the IRS did create a worksheet, do you have a prediction on what key elements may be included on the new form once released?

Tom West: I do think that worksheets could be developed that would facilitate the reporting of Section 199A information—particularly through tiered structures—so as to ease the reporting burden and enhance compliance.

Wolters Kluwer: The IRS has estimated that nearly 23.7 million taxpayers may be eligible to claim the Section 199A deduction and that more than 22.2 million (94 percent) of those eligible taxpayers will not require a complex calculation for the deduction. What notable differences do you expect there are between "complex" and the majority of calculations?

Tom West: For taxpayers under the Section 199A income thresholds ($157.5K single, $315K joint), the deduction is very easy to calculate and claim. Those taxpayers don’t need to worry about being in an SSTB, how much wages they paid, or the basis of their property. Once those taxpayers hit those income thresholds though, even in the phase-out range, things very quickly get complex—and that’s as a consequence of the statute; it is not something that the regulators can change.

Wolters Kluwer: Do you anticipate the IRS will issue further guidance on the Section 199A deduction?

Tom West: I do. As I said at the top, I think part of the government’s motivation in finalizing these regulations so quickly was providing guidance to taxpayers ahead of the tax-filing season. And while for the majority of taxpayers who are below the 199A cap there is probably now sufficient guidance, I think there are still a lot of questions for those with more complex situations. Given the number of taxpayers who are eligible for this deduction, and the importance of Section 199A as the big benefit to non-corporate businesses in what the Administration views as a signature legislative achievement, I have to believe that the government will be responsive to taxpayers’ requests for additional help on this provision. However, given that the provision is due to sunset, it will be important that any guidance is forthcoming in fairly short order to be of any usefulness to taxpayers.

Wolters Kluwer: At this time, do you have any recommendations for taxpayers and practitioners moving forward?

Tom West: As people are going through their tax filings this year, I’d keep a list of issues, questions, and areas where additional guidance would be helpful. It often happens that problems with new legislation or regulations don’t reveal themselves until taxpayers have to put pencil to paper and track their real-world numbers through returns. We’ll all have that experience this year and, with those lists of issues and questions in hand, there may be an opportunity to approach the IRS and Treasury in the hopes of getting resolution going forward. Keeping that list could also help identify areas for tax planning and perhaps ease the complexity of filing for 2019.