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

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.