Insights

On November 12, 2025, the Tax Court issued a reviewed opinion in Patel v. Commissioner holding in favor of the IRS that the taxpayers’ transaction lacked economic substance, and therefore the taxpayers were liable for penalties under the codified economic substance doctrine at the increased penalty rate, as well as accuracy-related penalties. The Court previously held in a separate opinion that the taxpayers’ purported captive transactions did not constitute insurance because they failed to distribute risk, and in the alternative, that the micro-captives did not act as an insurer commonly would. 

In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the civil penalties issued by the SEC against individuals for committing securities fraud were unconstitutional because they were levied without a jury trial.[1]

On October 1, 2025, the IRS Independent Office of Appeals launched a two-year pilot program to make Post Appeals Mediation (PAM) more attractive and accessible to taxpayers. See IRS Announcement 2025-10. The new PAM pilot program offers taxpayers the opportunity to be assigned to a new Appeals team, which is otherwise unconnected to the underlying case, who will represent the original Appeals team in the mediation session. The assignment of the new Appeals team does not begin a new appeals process but rather is intended to help facilitate an expedited and impartial look at the underlying case with the goal of further exploring all potential paths to resolution prior to litigation.

On October 1, 2025, the Eighth Circuit decided 3M Co. v. Commissioner in the taxpayer’s favor, based on its application of Loper Bright. The question presented in the case was whether the IRS had the authority to reallocate royalty income to a U.S. parent company that its foreign subsidiary was prohibited from paying under foreign law. The court held that the best interpretation of the governing statute did not permit the IRS’s reallocation.

On August 19, 2025, the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (“Senate Finance Committee”) sent Paul Atkins, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) a letter calling on the SEC to investigate White River Energy Corp (“White River”). In the letter, the Senate Finance Committee confirmed a criminal investigation into White River related to the sale of so-called “tribal tax credits” that according to both Congress and the IRS, do not exist. The letter further states that White River allegedly earned millions of dollars selling these credits and has not been forthcoming with investors regarding the existence of the criminal investigation. According to the Senate Finance Committee, White River has failed to file financial disclosure documents with the SEC since March 15, 2024, missing six consecutive reporting periods. The letter instructs White River to disclose the existence of the DOJ criminal tax investigation, and calls on the SEC to take action if White River fails to do so.

On July 23, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued interim guidance for Large Business & International Division (“LB&I”) audit procedure. The IRS announced three major changes: (1) the Acknowledgement of Facts Information Document Request (“AOF IDR”) will be eliminated; (2) Accelerated Issue Resolution (“AIR”) applies to Large Corporate Compliance (“LCC”) cases; and (3) the IRS must conduct additional review before denying a taxpayer’s request to participate in the Fast Track Settlement (“FTS”). These changes reflect the IRS’s continued push to make its examinations “more efficient and current.”

In April 2025, the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) formalized a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) enabling Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to create a system of information sharing between the agencies. Under the MOU, the IRS can share tax return information for non-tax criminal investigation purposes. More specifically, the MOU permits ICE to request sensitive tax information from the IRS for purposes of pursuing immigration related cases and deportations. Given the Trump administration’s focus on undocumented workers, the implications of the MOU likely will go even further as sharing this information will result in tax enforcement against employers of deported individuals.

On July 4th, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (the “Act”), which included a phaseout of incentives for solar and wind generation projects. Projects must either begin construction within one year or be placed in service by 2027 to qualify for the Section 45Y Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit or the Section 48E Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit. The House’s version of the legislation required a more accelerated phaseout than the Act and only allowed projects that began construction within 60 days of enactment of the bill to be eligible for the tax credits.  In discussions last week with House conservatives who favored the faster phaseout of solar and wind tax credits, which was not adopted in the Act, President Trump promised strict enforcement of the rules, including the beginning of construction requirements, for solar and wind projects to qualify for energy tax credits.

On May 20, 2025, former Missouri congressman, Billy Long, appeared before the Senate Finance Committee for his confirmation hearing as President Donald Trump’s nominee for IRS Commissioner.  Senators questioned Long about his role in promoting questionable tax credits, including Employee Retention Tax Credits (“ERTC”) after leaving the House of Representatives in 2023.  Long also disclosed receiving financial compensation from these entities for his work promoting ERTC.  Given Long’s support for ERTC, there is speculation that the IRS could ease enforcement activity directed towards these credits.

On May 13, the House Ways and Means Committee passed “The One, Big Beautiful Bill.” This bill includes several provisions that, if enacted, will be important to businesses claiming research and development incentives:

In a significant decision for generic drug manufacturers, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed that litigation expenses incurred in defending Hatch-Waxman patent lawsuits are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The ruling in Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. v. United States, No. 23-1320 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2025), resolves a key tax dispute, allowing tax deductions for these expenses in the year they are incurred rather than capitalizing them over time. This outcome provides clarity and potential tax benefits for qualifying businesses navigating the interplay of patent litigation and FDA drug approvals.

On October 24, 2024, Crowell & Moring LLP hosted its 38th Annual Managing Tax Audits and Appeals Seminar. The seminar featured several prominent IRS speakers and lively discussion among clients, including conversations about the following hot topics:

Tax partner and co-chair Starling Marshall and tax partner Carina Federico discuss where they predict tax disputes may arise with the IRS related to the IRA clean energy provisions. 

Last week, the IRS announced plans to begin a campaign to audit personal use of business aircraft. The audits will focus on whether large corporations, partnerships and high-and ultra-high net worth aircraft owners have properly reported their business and personal aircraft usage for tax purposes, with a particular focus on ensuring that owners are only taking deductions to which they are entitled. Given the value of an aircraft, the amount of a deduction for aircraft related expenditures on a given taxpayer’s return can be in the tens of millions of dollars, and with more than 10,000 corporate jets operating in the U.S., IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel recognized that much is at stake with this campaign.  The audit campaign is expected to focus initially on multinational and domestic corporations and complex partnerships but is expected to expand from there.

In 2021, two Circuit Court of Appeals, held diametric positions regarding penalties for taxpayers who non-willfully failed to file a Report of Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR): The Ninth Circuit concluded that the penalty was $10,000 per untimely filed FBAR, while the Fifth Circuit concluded that the penalty was $10,000 per account on each untimely filed FBAR. On February 28, 2023, the Supreme Court resolved this conflict, ruling that the penalty is calculated on a per-form basis, rather than a per-account basis.

On February 15th, Daniel Werfel, the nominee for IRS Commissioner, testified before the Senate Finance Committee during his nomination hearing. As expected, Werfel faced tough questioning about how he would oversee the use of $80 billion in new funding coming to the IRS over the next decade. The Inflation Reduction Act, which passed late last year, appropriated the additional funding for the IRS to increase compliance and provide better customer service to taxpayers. 

On January 9, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in In re Grand Jury. In this case, the Court is asked to decide the appropriate test for determining whether documents that include legal advice, but also discuss other non-privileged issues, are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The question before the Court is whether a “dual purpose” communication is privileged only if its “primary purpose” was obtaining legal advice, or if the privilege extends to documents that have only a “significant purpose” of obtaining legal advice. While the case arose in a criminal context and relates to tax advice, the Court’s decision could have broad implications across the legal profession. The case has drawn an enormous amount of attention, as evidenced by the thirteen amici briefs filed in the case.