Insights from IRS LB&I’s 2020 Focus Guide
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.11.20
Based on LB&I’s 2020 focus guide, companies should expect to see more pass-through audits, an increased role of data analytics, and enhancements to the Large Corporate Compliance program. On February 7, 2020, the IRS Large Business and International Division released its focus guide, which briefly outlays its priorities for the upcoming year.
Partnership Audits
One of LB&I’s five major program priorities is the “successful implementation of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA).” However, LB&I’s plans for partnership audits extend beyond implementing the BBA. In addition to implementing the new large partnership audit procedures, LB&I says that it has “many ongoing efforts” to increase the volume of audits for pass-through entities and that IRS employees should expect to see more work in this area.
Data Analytics
Throughout the focus guide, LB&I reiterates its commitment to using data analytics. LB&I says it will use data analytics to identify more productive work for employees, it will continue efforts to obtain more useful data from taxpayers, and it will enhance the Large Corporate Compliance Program (formerly Coordinated Industry Case program) using data analytics.
Other Priorities
LB&I also reports that it will continue to integrate the Tax Cuts and Job Act, monitor the impact of the Compliance Assurance Process recalibration, and maintain efforts to improve the Campaign Compliance Program.
LB&I says it will also focus on key cross-functional compliance issues, including virtual currency, syndicated conservation easements, and micro-captive insurance.
Staffing
The 2020 focus guide highlights LB&I’s recent hiring and its efforts to maximize staffing. This is the first time since 2010 that LB&I has reported a significant increase in hiring. The guide reports that in the last year LB&I hired 30 revenue agents, 67 tax law specialists, and 24 engineers. LB&I hopes to continue the hiring trend.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.15.26
Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow
In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 04.14.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.14.26
FedRAMP Solicits Public Comment on Overhaul to Incident Communications Procedures
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.14.26
