Newsletters

The Internal Revenue Service is looking toward automated solutions to cover the recent workforce reductions implemented by the Trump Administration, Department of the Treasury Secretary Bessent told a House Appropriations subcommittee.

The Internal Revenue Service is looking toward automated solutions to cover the recent workforce reductions implemented by the Trump Administration, Department of the Treasury Secretary Bessent told a House Appropriations subcommittee.

During a May 6, 2025, oversight hearing of the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, Bessent framed the current employment level at the IRS as “bloated” and is using the workforce reduction as a means to partially justify the smaller budget the agency is looking for.

“We are just taking the IRS back to where it was before the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] bill substantially bloated the personnel and the infrastructure,” he testified before the committee, adding that “a large number of employees” took the option for early retirement.

When pressed about how this could impact revenue collection activities, Bessent noted that the agency will be looking to use AI to help automate the process and maintain collection activities.

“I believe, through smarter IT, through this AI boom, that we can use that to enhance collections,” he said. “And I would expect that collections would continue to be very robust as they were this year.”

He also suggested that those hired from the supplemental funding from the IRA to enhance enforcement has not been effective as he pushed for more reliance on AI and other information technology resources.

There “is nothing that shows historically that by bringing in unseasoned collections agents … results in more collections or high-end collections,” Bessent said. “It would be like sending in a junior high school student to try to a college-level class.”

Another area he highlighted where automation will cover workforce reductions is in the processing of paper returns and other correspondence.

“Last year, the IRS spent approximately $450 million on paper processing, with nearly 6,500 full-time staff dedicated to the task,” he said. “Through policy changes and automation, Treasury aims to reduce this expense to under $20 million by the end of President Trump’s second term.”

Bessent’s testimony before the committee comes in the wake of a May 2, 2025, report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that highlighted an 11-percent reduction in the IRS workforce as of February 2025. Of those who were separated from federal employment, 31 percent of revenue agents were separated, while 5 percent of information technology management are no longer with the agency.

When questioned about what the IRS will do to ensure an equitable distribution of enforcement action, Bessent stated that the agency is “reviewing the process of who is audited at the IRS. There’s a great deal of politicization of that, so we are trying to stop that, and we are also going to look at distribution of who is audited and why they are audited.”

Bessent also reiterated during the hearing his support of making the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

A taxpayer's passport may be denied or revoked for seriously deliquent tax debt only if the taxpayer's tax liability is legally enforceable. In a decision of first impression, the Tax Court held that its scope of review of the existence of seriously delinquent tax debt is de novo and the court may hear new evidence at trial in addition to the evidence in the IRS's administrative record.

A taxpayer's passport may be denied or revoked for seriously deliquent tax debt only if the taxpayer's tax liability is legally enforceable. In a decision of first impression, the Tax Court held that its scope of review of the existence of seriously delinquent tax debt is de novo and the court may hear new evidence at trial in addition to the evidence in the IRS's administrative record.

The IRS certified the taxpayer's tax liabilities as "seriously delinquent" in 2022. For a tax liability to be considered seriously delinquent, it must be legally enforceable under Code Sec. 7345(b).

The taxpayer's tax liabilities related to tax years 2005 through 2008 and were assessed between 2007 and 2010. The standard collection period for tax liabilities is ten years after assessment, meaning that the taxpayer's liabilities were uncollectible before 2022, unless an exception to the statute of limitations applied. The IRS asserted that the taxpayer's tax liabilities were reduced to judgment in a district court case in 2014, extending the collections period for 20 years from the date of the district court default judgment. The taxpayer maintained that he was never served in the district court case and the judgment in that suit was void.

The Tax Court held that its review of the IRS's certification of the taxpayer's tax debt is de novo, allowing for new evidence beyond the administrative record. A genuine issue of material fact existed whether the taxpayer was served in the district court suit. If not, his tax debts were not legally enforceable as of the 2022 certification, and the Tax Court would find the IRS's certification erroneous. The Tax Court therefore denied the IRS's motion for summary judgment and ordered a trial.

A. Garcia Jr., 164 TC No. 8, Dec. 62,658

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that disaster preparation season is kicking off soon with National Wildfire Awareness Month in May and National Hurricane Preparedness Week between May 4 and 10. Disasters impact individuals and businesses, making year-round preparation crucial. 

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that disaster preparation season is kicking off soon with National Wildfire Awareness Month in May and National Hurricane Preparedness Week between May 4 and 10. Disasters impact individuals and businesses, making year-round preparation crucial. In 2025, FEMA declared 12 major disasters across nine states due to storms, floods, and wildfires. Following are tips from the IRS to taxpayers to help ensure record protection:

• Store original documents like tax returns and birth certificates in a waterproof container;
• keep copies in a separate location or with someone trustworthy. Use flash drives for portable digital backups; and
• use a phone or other devices to record valuable items through photos or videos. This aids insurance or tax claims. IRS Publications 584 and 584-B help list personal or business property.

Further, reconstructing records after a disaster may be necessary for tax purposes, insurance or federal aid. Employers should ensure payroll providers have fiduciary bonds to protect against defaults, as disasters can affect timely federal tax deposits.

IR-2025-55

A decedent's estate was not allowed to deduct payments to his stepchildren as claims against the estate.

A decedent's estate was not allowed to deduct payments to his stepchildren as claims against the estate.

A prenuptial agreement between the decedent and his surviving spouse provided for, among other things, $3 million paid to the spouse's adult children in exchange for the spouse relinquishing other rights. Because the decedent did not amend his will to include the terms provided for in the agreement, the stepchildren sued the estate for payment. The tax court concluded that the payments to the stepchildren were not deductible claims against the estate because they were not "contracted bona fide" or "for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth" (R. Spizzirri Est., Dec. 62,171(M), TC Memo 2023-25).

The bona fide requirement prohibits the deduction of transfers that are testamentary in nature. The stepchildren were lineal descendants of the decedent's spouse and were considered family members. The payments were not contracted bona fide because the agreement did not occur in the ordinary course of business and was not free from donative intent. The decedent agreed to the payments to reduce the risk of a costly divorce. In addition, the decedent regularly gave money to at least one of his stepchildren during his life, which indicated his donative intent. The payments were related to the spouse's expectation of inheritance because they were contracted in exchange for her giving up her rights as a surviving spouse. As a results, the payments were not contracted bona fide under Reg. §20.2053-1(b)(2)(ii) and were not deductible as claims against the estate.

R.D. Spizzirri Est., CA-11

The IRS issued interim final regulations on user fees for the issuance of IRS Letter 627, also referred to as an estate tax closing letter. The text of the interim final regulations also serves as the text of proposed regulations.These regulations reduce the amount of the user fee imposed to $56.

The IRS issued interim final regulations on user fees for the issuance of IRS Letter 627, also referred to as an estate tax closing letter. The text of the interim final regulations also serves as the text of proposed regulations.These regulations reduce the amount of the user fee imposed to $56.

Background

In 2021, the Treasury and Service established a $67 user fee for issuing said estate tax closing letter. This figure was based on a 2019 cost model.

In 2023, the IRS conducted a biennial review on the same issue and determined the cost to be $56. The IRS calculates the overhead rate annually based on cost elements underlying the statement of net cost included in the IRS Annual Financial Statements, which are audited by the Government Accountability Office.

Current Rate

For this fee review, the fiscal year (FY) 2023 overhead rate, based on FY 2022 costs, 62.50 percent was used. The IRS determined that processing requests for estate tax closing letters required 9,250 staff hours annually. The average salary and benefits for both IR paybands conducting quality assurance reviews was multiplied by that IR payband’s percentage of processing time to arrive at the $95,460 total cost per FTE.

The Service stated that the $56 fee was not substantial enough to have a significant economic impact on any entities. This guidance does not include any federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.

T.D. 10031

NPRM REG-107459-24

The Tax Court appropriately dismissed an individual's challenge to his seriously delinquent tax debt certification. The taxpayer argued that his passport was restricted because of that certification. However, the certification had been reversed months before the taxpayer filed this petition. Further, the State Department had not taken any action on the basis of the certification before the taxpayer filed his petition.

The Tax Court appropriately dismissed an individual's challenge to his seriously delinquent tax debt certification. The taxpayer argued that his passport was restricted because of that certification. However, the certification had been reversed months before the taxpayer filed this petition. Further, the State Department had not taken any action on the basis of the certification before the taxpayer filed his petition.

Additionally, the Tax Court correctly dismissed the taxpayer’s challenge to the notices of deficiency as untimely. The taxpayer filed his petition after the 90-day limitation under Code Sec. 6213(a) had passed. Finally, the taxpayer was liable for penalty under Code Sec. 6673(a)(1). The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the taxpayer presented classic tax protester rhetoric and submitted frivolous filings primarily for purposes of delay.

Affirming, per curiam, an unreported Tax Court opinion.

Z.H. Shaikh, CA-3

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.