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 … Zuch raises due process concerns when collection action is withdrawn.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

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.