Newsletters

Contributions to Trump accounts will be treated as completed gifts that are not future interests in property and the gift tax annual exclusion amount will apply under a safe harbor for certain donors making contributions to Trump accounts created under Code Sec. 530A.

Contributions to Trump accounts will be treated as completed gifts that are not future interests in property and the gift tax annual exclusion amount will apply under a safe harbor for certain donors making contributions to Trump accounts created under Code Sec. 530A.

Pursuant to the rules of Code Sec. 530A, distributions from Trump accounts are limited during the growth period, which is the period ending on January 1 of the year in which the account beneficiary attains age 18. During the growth period, annual contributions are limited to $5,000 per year, as adjusted for inflation after 2027. Gifts of future interests in property are not eligible for the annual gift tax exclusion and must be reported on a federal gift tax return.

The safe harbor applies for a particular year if the following requirements of section 4.02 are met:

• The taxpayer is an individual;
• The only taxable gifts made by the taxpayer during the calendar year are cash contributions to one or more Trump accounts, each made before the calendar year in which the account beneficiary attains age 18;
• The taxpayer's total gifts during the calendar year to each individual who is an account beneficiary, including contributions to that individual beneficiary's Trump account, do not exceed the Code Sec. 2503(b) annual exclusion;
• Such contributions to Trump accounts during the calendar year do not generate for that year either a gift or generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax liability after application of the taxpayer's remaining applicable credit amount against the gift tax or remaining GST exemption; and
• Disregarding the Trump account contributions described in section 4.02(2) of the revenue procedure, a gift tax return is not required to be filed, and no gift tax return is otherwise filed for that calendar year by or on behalf of the taxpayer for any other purposes.

If these requirements are satisfied, each Trump account contribution made by the taxpayer during the calendar year will be treated as a completed gift to the account beneficiary that is not a future interest in property and to which the annual exclusion applies for purposes of gift and GST tax reporting. As a result, taxpayers within the scope of the safe harbor will not be required to file a gift tax return reporting the such contributions.

Rev. Proc. 2026-25

IR 2026-80

The IRS has issued final regulations identifying certain Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust (CRAT) transactions and substantially similar transactions as listed transactions subject to the reportable transaction disclosure rules. The regulations require participants and material advisors to disclose these transactions to the IRS while clarifying that charitable organizations whose only interest is as charitable remaindermen are not treated as participants or parties to prohibited tax shelter transactions. The regulations are effective July 9, 2026.

The IRS has issued final regulations identifying certain Charitable Remainder Annuity Trust (CRAT) transactions and substantially similar transactions as listed transactions subject to the reportable transaction disclosure rules. The regulations require participants and material advisors to disclose these transactions to the IRS while clarifying that charitable organizations whose only interest is as charitable remaindermen are not treated as participants or parties to prohibited tax shelter transactions. The regulations are effective July 9, 2026.

Under Code Secs. 6011 and 6707A, the IRS may identify transactions with tax avoidance potential as listed transactions. The final regulations add Reg. §1.6011-15, identifying transactions in which appreciated property is contributed to a purported CRAT, sold by the trust, and the sale proceeds are used to purchase an annuity, with the beneficiary improperly treating the annuity payments under Code Sec. 72 instead of applying the distribution ordering rules of Code Sec. 664(b).

Although participants and material advisors remain subject to the applicable disclosure requirements, organizations described in Code Sec. 170(c) that merely receive the charitable remainder interest are excluded from participant status and are not treated as parties to prohibited tax shelter transactions under Code Sec. 4965 solely because of that interest. The IRS finalized the regulations without substantive changes from the proposed regulations issued in 2024.

T.D. 10051

IR 2026-82

A portion of litigation settlement proceeds consisting of attorney’s fees and costs was includible in the gross income of two individuals (taxpayers). Said portion was not deductible under Code Sec. 62(a)(20). The Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) (P.L. 91-508) fee-shifting provisions were inapplicable in this case.

A portion of litigation settlement proceeds consisting of attorney’s fees and costs was includible in the gross income of two individuals (taxpayers). Said portion was not deductible under Code Sec. 62(a)(20). The Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (FCRA) (P.L. 91-508) fee-shifting provisions were inapplicable in this case.

Background

The taxpayers sued multiple credit reporting agencies under FCRA provisions. They eventually settled with each agency. In all relevant Forms 1099–MISC the settlement amounts were reflected without the attorney’s fees and costs.

Civil Rights Interpretation for FCRA Claims Denied

The taxpayers’ FCRA claims of unlawful discrimination did not fall under Code Sec. 62(e)(18)(i). Said claims were based on fair and accurate credit reporting and not consumer privacy. Particularly, the taxpayers’ concerns did not fall under “highly sensitive” and “intimate personal information” categories.

J.W. Eiler, 167 T.C. No. 3, Dec. 62,865

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that major life events can affect tax filing requirements, eligibility for tax benefits and the amount of tax withheld from paychecks. The agency explained that changes such as marriage, the birth or adoption of a child, divorce or the death of a loved one may require updates to tax information and a review of filing status.

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that major life events can affect tax filing requirements, eligibility for tax benefits and the amount of tax withheld from paychecks. The agency explained that changes such as marriage, the birth or adoption of a child, divorce or the death of a loved one may require updates to tax information and a review of filing status. A name change following marriage should be reported to the Social Security Administration so the updated name matches Social Security records. An address change should be reported to the IRS by filing Form 8822, Change of Address, and employers, financial institutions and the U.S. Postal Service should also be notified. Marriage may also require submission of a new Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Certificate, to ensure the correct amount of tax is withheld.

Additionally, the IRS noted that the birth or adoption of a child may make a taxpayer eligible for valuable tax benefits, including the Child Tax Credit, Adoption Credit and Child and Dependent Care Credit, if applicable requirements are satisfied. Divorce or the death of a spouse may also affect filing status, tax withholding and eligibility for certain tax benefits. The IRS encouraged prompt updates to tax records, careful evaluation of changes affecting tax obligations and use of available IRS resources to better understand the tax consequences of major life events. Early action can help avoid filing issues, support accurate tax reporting, maximize available tax benefits and improve preparation for the next tax filing season.

IRS Tax Tip 2026-55

The Internal Revenue Service received and processed less returns during 2026, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

The Internal Revenue Service received and processed less returns during 2026, according to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

In a recently released report, TIGTA stated that from March 1, 2025, through February 28, 2026, the IRS received 51.5 million tax returns, down from 52. 4 million in the previous year, though it did see a significant drop in paper returns received from 1.2 million in 2025 to 618,000 in 2026. Of the returns received in 2026, the agency processed 50.9 million returns, down from 51.8 million.

From the beginning of the 2026 tax filing season to the end of February 2026, TIGTA reported that the inventory backlog in key tax return processing programs increased from 1.9 million to 2.4 million. Additionally, nearly 75 percent of the amended return inventory is over-aged during the 2026 tax filing season.

“Generally, inventories increase during the filing season as the IRS balances efforts to answer phone calls and reduce inventories,” TIGTA stated in the report. “However, with the reduction in staff, increases in key inventories could become a concern.”

The number of refunds dipped to 36.5 million from 36.9 million, although there was a $360 increase in the average refund from $3,382 in 2025 to $3,742.

TIGTA also reported that the IRS did not meet its hiring goals for the 2026 tax filing season. The agency had been approved to hire 1,900 employees for submission processing (these workers process original and amended returns and resolve tax return errors) but only onboarded 800 individuals. Likewise, it was approved to hire 3,500 account management employees (handlers of taxpayer contacts through telephone and mail and process adjustments) but brought 2,300 on board.

Submission processing management said it would be onboarding new hires throughout the tax season, while account management leadership had no plans to hire new employees and would only be onboarding those who previously received offers but had delays in the hiring process.

In a positive from the 2026 season, TIGTA reported that the new and modified “e-file business rules associated with the child tax Credit, state and local tax deduction, and adoption credit are working as intended.”

Taxpayer Assistance Centers offered incorrect tax guidance during nearly half of unannounced visits by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration staff.

Taxpayer Assistance Centers offered incorrect tax guidance during nearly half of unannounced visits by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration staff.

According to a recent TIGTA report, during the 2025 tax filing season, the Treasury watchdog made 91 unannounced visits to TACs nationwide at various time (regular and extended hours), at the 61 visits where TIGTA staff did receive assistance, “TAC employees did not provide the correct tax law guidance during 28 of those visits (46 percent).”

TAC employees were presented with questions across one of the three areas – injured spouse, selling your main home, and American Opportunity Tax Credit. The report notes that for questions related to tax law topics, “TAC employees must use the Interactive Tax Law Assistant ITLA) tool to respond to taxpayers. The ITLA tool asks a series of questions, then generates accurate and complete responses based on the taxpayer’s situation. The tool is designed for TAC employees and is intended to improve operational performance in the areas of quality, efficiency, customers satisfaction, and employee satisfaction.”

TIGTA noted that during the 2025 filing season, “managers counseled several TAC employees for not using the ITLA tool during taxpayer interactions. During our site visits, we also observed that TAC employees did not always the ITLA tool to answer our tax law questions.”

Additionally, of those 91 visits, TIGTA “did not receive full assistance during 30 of our 91 visits due to incomplete or inaccurate responses to tax law questions, denial of entry by security or unexpected TAC closures.”

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.