NEW YORK—The Internal Revenue Service needs to find ways to better communicate how it is handling technology modernization and transformation, including in areas such as the use of artificial intelligence in its processes, agency Office of Internal Consulting Chief Joseph Zeigler said.

NEW YORK—The Internal Revenue Service needs to find ways to better communicate how it is handling technology modernization and transformation, including in areas such as the use of artificial intelligence in its processes, agency Office of Internal Consulting Chief Joseph Zeigler said.

Speaking during a plenary session August 18, 2026, at the IRS Nationwide Tax Forum, Zeigler said it is his “hope that the IRS is going to a better job of telling this story” about how the agency is using technology to help improve its operations and make lives easier for taxpayers and the tax professionals who assist them.

As an example, Zeigler specifically highlighted some of the work the agency is doing with AI.

“When we talk about AI, AI is not meant to replace bodies or people and computers doing the work and there is no human input,” he said. Rather it is about how the IRS “can give our employees tools and resources [and] technology to make them better, more efficient” and improve the quality of their work. “All of those things is what I believe that AI and technology were meant for.”

He continued: “It’s taking our world-class employees and putting them on steroids, giving them the ability to come to the right answer sooner.”

And at the end is the ultimate goal of making the taxpayer experience that much better and more in line with what they expect from their customer interactions with the private sector.

“If we can come to an answer that right the first time, and we can come to it quick, and we can report it to the taxpayer [and say] here’s what’s going on,” he said. “All those things are at our fingertips.”

The IRS issued guidance in the form of sample forms and proposed rollover procedures to simplify, standardize, and expedite the completion of direct rollovers to or from a retirement plan. The guidance is designed to comply with Section 324 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328). Use of the sample forms and proposed rollover procedures is optional.

The IRS issued guidance in the form of sample forms and proposed rollover procedures to simplify, standardize, and expedite the completion of direct rollovers to or from a retirement plan. The guidance is designed to comply with Section 324 of the SECURE 2.0 Act (P.L. 117-328). Use of the sample forms and proposed rollover procedures is optional.

The IRS indicates that these sample forms are not inftended to be used for rollovers and transfers between IRAs. According to reports made by the Government Accountability Office and the IRS's conversations with IRA stakeholders, IRA-to-IRA transfers are already completed through an electronic transfer system that is considered uniform and efficient.

The guidance includes:

• (1) a proposed rollover procedure;
• (2) the participant's rollover request form;
• (3) the receiving plan's request to the distributing plan;
• (4) the distributing plan's rollover certification; and
• (5) the receiving plan's rollover acceptance.

The IRS is considering additional guidance to facilitate rollovers. Guidance under consideration includes: (1) eliminating the safe harbor that allows plans to send paper checks to participants to complete a direct rollover; (2) requiring administrators and trustees to complete rollovers via electronic transfers or paper checks sent directly to the receiving plan; and (3) providing for new safe harbors based on the use of sample forms.

Notice 2026-49

IR 2026-91

The IRS and Treasury have announced their intension to propose regulations relevant to Code Sec. 6433 and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-328). For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Code Sec. 6433 allows certain low- and moderate-income individual taxpayers who have made qualified retirement savings contributions to receive matching contributions of up to $1,000 as saver’s match contributions.

The IRS and Treasury have announced their intension to propose regulations relevant to Code Sec. 6433 and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-328). For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Code Sec. 6433 allows certain low- and moderate-income individual taxpayers who have made qualified retirement savings contributions to receive matching contributions of up to $1,000 as saver’s match contributions.

Background

On April 30, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order to (1) increase public awareness of saver’s match contributions; (2) facilitate participation in eligible retirement savings vehicles; and (3) establish a website that informs about high-quality, low-cost IRAs and taxpayers without an employer-sponsored retirement plan. These taxpayers include independent contractors.

Saver’s Match Contributions vs Saver’s Credit

For tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, Saver’s Match contributions would replace the Saver’s Credit under Code Sec. 25B. This would apply to elective contributions, qualifying retirement plans and IRAs.

However, the Saver’s Credit would continue to be available after December 31, 2026, with respect to contributions made to ABLE accounts under Code Sec. 529A. Saver’s match contributions would be claimed on a new (unpublished) Form 8880-A, Saver’s Match for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions.

Eligibility

Individual taxpayers who make qualified retirement savings contributions could be eligible for a Saver's Match contribution based on those contributions. The contributions to a new or already-existing IRA after the end of a tax year could be made until the tax filing deadline. The contributions should be designated as being made for the prior tax year.

Tax Status

An eligible individual taxpayer’s saver’s match contribution directly paid by the Treasury to a retirement plan is generally treated as an elective deferral made by the individual taxpayer. The contribution is not taken into account for any elective deferral and catch-up limitations that apply to Code Secs. 401(k), 403(b), or governmental 457(b) plans.

Comments Requested

The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on the issues addressed on or before October 5, 2026. Comments can be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.

Notice 2026-48

IR 2026-89

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued initial guidance on the employer credit under Code Sec. 45S for premiums paid on family and medical leave insurance as provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Beginning in 2026, an employer may elect to determine the credit based on premiums paid or incurred during the tax year with respect to an insurance policy that provide such leave instead of based on wages paid to a qualifying employee during paid family and medical leave. The Treasury intends to issue proposed regulations that include this guidance.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued initial guidance on the employer credit under Code Sec. 45S for premiums paid on family and medical leave insurance as provided by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21). Beginning in 2026, an employer may elect to determine the credit based on premiums paid or incurred during the tax year with respect to an insurance policy that provide such leave instead of based on wages paid to a qualifying employee during paid family and medical leave. The Treasury intends to issue proposed regulations that include this guidance.

Premium Method for Credit

The credit may be claimed under the premium method beginning in 2026 only to the extent the insurance premium funds a benefit that would be creditable under the wage method. Thus, the premium must be for insurance coverage with respect to leave that is:

• paid family and medical leave as defined under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or required by state local law or paid for by a state or local government,
• payable to an individual who is a qualifying employee of the employer at the time the premium is paid or incurred, and
• provides a benefit that would constitute wages to the employee.

In the case of a premium paid or incurred for an insurance policy that provides both creditable coverage and noncreditable coverage, the employer must allocate the premium between the creditable coverage and the noncreditable coverage using any reasonable method. For example, a blended premium would be a premium for coverage that provides both qualifying paid family and medical leave and other types of leave, or coverage for qualifying employees and nonqualifying employees.

An employer may calculate the tax credit using both the wage method with respect to certain leave and the premium method with respect to other leave. However, an employer may not use the wage method to claim a credit for wages paid to the extent that the employer claims a credit using the premium method for creditable coverage that funds such benefits (or vice versa).

Notice 2026-28

IR 2026-86

The IRS updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) for qualified overtime compensation. The FAQs update guidance on (1) the qualified overtime compensation deduction; (2) coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and Form 1099-NEC requirements; and more.

The IRS updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) for qualified overtime compensation. The FAQs update guidance on (1) the qualified overtime compensation deduction; (2) coverage and exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (3) Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and Form 1099-NEC requirements; and more.

Qualified Overtime Compensation Deduction

The deduction is up to $12,500 of qualified overtime compensation earned for the year per individual tax return. It is $25,000 for joint return. The deduction is reduced if a taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for the tax year exceeds $150,000, and $300,000 for joint filers.

Coverage and Exemptions Under FLSA

The IRS noted that overtime under the FLSA must be paid to individual taxpayers who are (1) covered by the FLSA; and (2) not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement. Ineligible taxpayers would not receive qualified overtime compensation regardless of other laws or circumstances. Employees who are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement include teachers, academic administration personnel, employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments and more.

Employee-owners of businesses are not FLSA overtime-eligible employees. An employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity interest in the enterprise in which they are employed is ineligible.

Reporting Requirements

Starting in tax year 2026, payors and employers are required to separately report qualified overtime compensation on a Form 1099-MISC, Form 1099-NEC or Form W-2. Independent contractors would only report qualified overtime compensation on a Form 1099- MISC or Form 1099-NEC.

FS-2026-13

IR 2026-88

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the original public meaning of "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a partner who plays no significant role in managing or running a business. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310). The Fifth Circuit also withdrew its prior opinion in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. (this was the prior name of the limited liability limited partnership in this litigation).

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the original public meaning of "limited partner" in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) is a partner who plays no significant role in managing or running a business. The court rejected the "passive investor" rule followed by the IRS and the Tax Court in Soroban Capital Partners LP (Dec. 62,310). The Fifth Circuit also withdrew its prior opinion in Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P. (this was the prior name of the limited liability limited partnership in this litigation).

Background

A limited liability limited partnership operated a business consulting firm, and was owned by several limited partners and one general partner. For the tax years at issue, the limited partnership allocated all of its ordinary business income to its limited partners. Based on the limited partnership tax exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13), the limited partnership excluded the limited partners’ distributive shares of partnership income or loss from its calculation of net earnings from self-employment during those years, and reported zero net earnings from self-employment.

The IRS adjusted the limited partnership's net earnings from self-employment, and determined that the distributive share exception in Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply because none of the limited partnership’s limited partners counted as "limited partners" for purposes of the statutory exception. The Tax Court upheld the adjustments, stating it was bound by Soroban.

Limited Partners and Self Employment Tax

Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) excludes from a partnership's calculation of net earnings from self-employment the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments in Code Sec. 707(c) to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of remuneration for those services.

In Soroban, the Tax Court determined that Congress had enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) to exclude earnings from a mere investment, and intended for the phrase "limited partners, as such" to refer to passive investors. Thus, the Tax Court there held that the limited partner exception of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) did not apply to a partner who is limited in name only, and that determining whether a partner is a limited partner in name only required an inquiry into the limited partner's functions and roles.

No Significant Role in Management

The Fifth Circuit stated that the backdrop against which Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) in 1977 suggested that some participation is allowed, so long as the partners do not exercise control over the business, and that the plain text of the statute points towards this conclusion. The court observed that all relevant sources suggested that when the statute was enacted, the ordinary public meaning of"limited partner" included a partner who did not play a significant role in managing or running the business.

The Fifth Circuit rejected the Tax Court’s Soroban decision, which held that that the term "limited partner" could refer only to passive investors. The court stated that the Tax Court had selected a rule that was divorced from statutory text and that appeared to prohibit even the most minor involvement in corporate affairs. In the Fifth Circuit's view, it would have been understood at the time Congress enacted Code Sec. 1402(a)(13) that a limited partner could not manage the partnership, but perhaps could participate in certain nonmanagerial aspects of the business.

The court also stated that the Soroban decision could not be squared with decades of IRS-approved guidance insisting that what mattered was limited liability alone. The court characterized the IRS's position to be that it could change the meaning of "limited partner" from "limited liability alone" to the "passive investor" standard with no action from Congress to amend the text of Code Sec. 1402(a)(13). Even assuming that the IRS could unilaterally effectuate such changes through tax instructions, the court stated that the IRS's instructions must comport with the original public meaning of the text enacted by Congress.

Withdrawing Sirius Solutions, L.L.L.P., CA-5, 2026-1 ustc ¶50,109, and vacating and remanding an unreported Tax Court opinion.

K Alain, L.L.L.P., CA-5

The IRS has issued final regulations that clarify when backup withholding applies to payments made in settlement of third party network transactions. The final rules reflect amendments to Code Secs. 6050W and 3406 made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21), and apply to payments made in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024.

The IRS has issued final regulations that clarify when backup withholding applies to payments made in settlement of third party network transactions. The final rules reflect amendments to Code Secs. 6050W and 3406 made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) (P.L. 119-21), and apply to payments made in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024.

Under the de minimis payment rule of Code Sec. 6050W(e) for information reporting purposes, a third party settlement organization (TPSO) must report payments made in settlement of third party network transactions to a payee only if the payments exceed $20,000 and 200 transactions in a calendar year. The final regulations align the backup withholding obligations under Code Sec. 3406 with this reporting threshold.

A payment will be considered a reportable payment subject to backup withholding only if both the $20,000 and 200 transaction thresholds are exceeded during the calendar year. The amount subject to backup withholding includes the entire amount of the transaction that causes either threshold to be breached, whichever occurs later, and the amount of any subsequent transactions made to the payee during the same calendar year. Further, if the TPSO made payments in settlement of third party network transactions to the payee in the previous calendar year that were reportable payments under the backup withholding rules, the de minimis exception to backup withholding would not to payments made to that payee in the current calendar year.

Participating Payees

In the preamble to the Treasury Decision, the Treasury Department and the IRS used the opportunity to clarify that de minimis TPSO reporting and the backup withholding thresholds apply with respect to each participating payee, as defined by Code Sec. 6050W(d)(1).

T.D. 10053

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a final rule that permanently removes the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. The final rule adopts, with limited changes, an interim final rule issued on March 26, 2025, that narrowed the BOI reporting requirements.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has issued a final rule that permanently removes the requirement that U.S. companies and U.S. persons must report beneficial ownership information (BOI) to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act. The final rule adopts, with limited changes, an interim final rule issued on March 26, 2025, that narrowed the BOI reporting requirements.

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was enacted in 2021 as part of the broader Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020. Its reporting requirement had been characterized as an important step in the fight against money laundering, financing of terrorism, proliferation financing, serious tax fraud, human and drug trafficking, counterfeiting, piracy, securities fraud, financial fraud, and acts of foreign corruption.

In late 2024 and early 2025, however, several federal district courts preliminarily enjoined FinCEN from implementing and enforcing the reporting rule. The Treasury Department announced in March 2025 that it was suspending enforcement of the CTA and its reporting requirements against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, and their beneficial owners, and issued the interim final rule.

BOI Reporting Exemptions

The final rule:

• adopts exemptions that make the rollback of beneficial ownership reporting by U.S. companies permanent,
• exempts foreign pooled investment vehicles registered in the United States from reporting the BOI of a U.S person in control of the investment vehicle, and
• confirms that FinCEN will delete information about any individual that it reasonably believes is a U.S. person (for example, information that is linked to a U.S. passport or U.S. driver's license).

The final rule also makes substantive changes that expand on the relief in the interim final rule, by:

• exempting foreign companies from the requirement to report U.S. person “company applicants” (i.e., the individuals who helped those foreign companies register to do business in the United States), and
• exempting U.S. persons who have applied for FinCEN Identifiers (FinCEN IDs) from having to update or correct the information they provided to FinCEN when they applied.

Foreign entities that are reporting companies are still required under the final rule to report BOI for foreign individuals.

FinCEN has also issued answers to frequently asked questions on the final rule.

FinCEN Final Rule RIN-1506-AB67

Eleventh-hour votes in Congress in December renewed a package of tax extenders for 2014, created new savings accounts for individuals with disabilities, cut the IRS’ budget, and more. At the same time, the votes helped to set the stage for the 114th Congress that convenes this month. Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate and have indicated that taxes are one of the top items on their agenda for 2015.

Eleventh-hour votes in Congress in December renewed a package of tax extenders for 2014, created new savings accounts for individuals with disabilities, cut the IRS’ budget, and more. At the same time, the votes helped to set the stage for the 114th Congress that convenes this month. Republicans have majorities in the House and Senate and have indicated that taxes are one of the top items on their agenda for 2015.

Extenders

The Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, signed into law by President Obama in December extends more than 50 individual, business and energy tax incentives retroactively to January 1, 2014. As a result, taxpayers can claim these incentives on their 2014 returns filed in 2015. The Act includes all of the popular incentives for individuals, such as the state and local sales tax deduction and higher education tuition deduction, as well as many business incentives, including the research tax credit, bonus depreciation and enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing. A handful of extenders were not renewed, mostly targeted to energy efficiency. If you have any questions about the renewal of the extenders for 2014, please contact our office.

ABLE Act

As part of the extenders package, Congress approved the Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 2014. The Act establishes ABLE accounts for individuals with disabilities. Funds in ABLE accounts may be used for qualified expenses of persons with disabilities. To fund these accounts, the Act:

• Adjusts for inflation some civil tax penalties
• Authorizes the IRS to certify qualifying professional employer organizations
• Excludes dividends from controlled foreign corporations from the definition of personal holding company income
• Increases the IRS’ levy authority on payments to Medicare providers
• Raises the Inland Waterways Trust Fund financing rate

IRS budget

The IRS goes into the 2015 filing season with a reduced budget. The omnibus spending agreement, signed into law by President Obama on December 16, cuts the IRS’ fiscal year (FY) 2015 budget by some $345 million. The omnibus spending agreement also instructs the IRS to improve its response times in helping victims of identity theft and reduce refund fraud. In response to the budget cuts, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said the agency will freeze hiring and take other steps to reduce expenses. Koskinen also cautioned that revenue collection and tax enforcement could be impaired by the budget cuts as the agency will have to make do with less. Taxpayer audits were singled out by Koskinen as one area where cutbacks could have a negative effect.

Affordable Care Act

Congress also clarified the status of so-called expatriate health plans under the Affordable Care Act. These plans cover very specific groups of people, including participants in a group health plan who are aliens residing outside the United States and U.S. nationals about whom there is a good faith expectation of being abroad, in connection with his or her employment, for at least 180 days in a 12-month period.

The omnibus spending agreement exempts expatriate health plans, employer sponsors of these plans, and insurance issuers providing coverage under these plans from the health care coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, the omnibus spending agreement treats these plans as providing minimum essential coverage for purposes of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.

Multi-employer pension plans

The extenders package and the omnibus spending agreement amend the rules governing multi-employer pension plans. The provisions, supporters argued, are intended to shore-up many struggling plans. Opponents countered that the changes weaken protections for beneficiaries. The amendments to the multi-employer pension rules are very technical. Please contact our office for more details

114th Congress

The Tax Increase Prevention Act did not extend the extenders beyond 2014. As of January 1, 2015, they all expired again. During 2014, proposals to extend the incentives for two years or make them permanent were floated in Congress. The GOP-controlled House vote to make permanent bonus depreciation, enhanced Code Sec. 179 expensing and some charitable giving breaks, but these bills were not taken up by the Democratic-controlled Senate. This could change in the 114th Congress. The new leaders of the tax-writing committees, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, have both indicated their interest in addressing the extenders as part of comprehensive tax reform.

Any movement toward comprehensive tax reform will require cooperation between the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress. In December, President Obama said that he would be willing to work with Republicans on corporate tax reform but any decrease in the corporate tax rate would need to be paid for by revenue raisers elsewhere. The President also said that he wants to preserve and make permanent some temporary enhancements to individual tax breaks, such as the earned income credit. New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., also said in December that he could work with the White House.

Please contact our office if you have any questions about the 2014 year-end legislation or the new Congress.

2014 was a notable year for tax developments on a number of fronts. Selecting the "top ten" tax developments for 2014 necessarily requires judgment calls based upon uniqueness, taxpayers affected, and forward-looking impact on 2015 and beyond. The following "top ten" list of 2014 tax developments is such a prioritization. Nevertheless, other 2014 developments may prove more significant to any particular client, depending upon circumstances. Please feel free to contact this office for a more customized look at the impact of 2014 developments upon your unique tax situation.

2014 was a notable year for tax developments on a number of fronts. Selecting the "top ten" tax developments for 2014 necessarily requires judgment calls based upon uniqueness, taxpayers affected, and forward-looking impact on 2015 and beyond. The following "top ten" list of 2014 tax developments is such a prioritization. Nevertheless, other 2014 developments may prove more significant to any particular client, depending upon circumstances. Please feel free to contact this office for a more customized look at the impact of 2014 developments upon your unique tax situation.

Passage of the Extenders Package

2014 was not a year for major tax legislation in Congress. In fact, Congress even failed to pass its usual two-year Extenders package, instead settling on a one-year retroactive extension to January 1, 2014. As one Senator put it, "This tax bill doesn't have the shelf life of a carton of eggs," referring to the fact that the 50-plus extenders provisions, signed by the President on December 19, 2014, expired again on January 1, 2015. Instead, it has been left to the 114^th Congress to debate the extension of these tax breaks in 2015 and beyond, and for taxpayers to guess what expenses in 2015 will again be entitled to a tax break. 

Affordable Care Act

In many ways, 2014 was a transition year for the Affordable Care Act. One of the most far-reaching requirements, the individual shared responsibility provision, took effect on January 1, 2014. Another key provision, the employer shared responsibility, was delayed (in 2013) to 2015. However, employer reporting under Code Sec. 6605 was not delayed. The IRS also issued guidance on the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit and other provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court announced it would review a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding IRS regulations on the Code Sec. 36B premium assistance tax credit, a critical component to making the Affordable Care Act viable nationwide.

International Compliance

The IRS and Treasury increased their focus on requirements that U.S. taxpayers report foreign income and assets. The government took the final steps to implement the requirements for U.S. taxpayers and foreign financial institutions to report foreign assets under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The government also tweaked its programs to induce U.S. taxpayers to report undisclosed income and assets from prior past years. At the same time, the IRS and the Department of Justice went to court to seek civil and criminal penalties, including jail time, against willful tax evaders.

Repair Regulations

In 2014, the IRS finished issuing the necessary guidance on the treatment of costs for tangible property under the sweeping so-called “repair” regulations, which impact most businesses. The most important development was the issuance of final regulations on the treatment of dispositions of tangible property under MACRS and under Code Sec. 168, including the identification of assets, the treatment of dispositions, and the computation of gain and loss, particularly in the context of general asset accounts (TD 9689). The IRS also issued several revenue procedures that granted automatic consent for taxpayers to change to the accounting methods allowed by the final regulations (including Rev. Proc. 2014-16 & 54).

IRS Operations

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen predicted a complex and challenging filing season due to cuts in the Service’s funding. Koskinen highlighted the Service’s having to do more with less because of reduced funding. In addition, the IRS is funded at $10.9 billion for FY 2015, which is $1.5 billion below the amount requested by the White House. The FY 2015 budget reduction "undercuts our ability to enforce the Tax Code," Koskinen said. "We will do everything we can to protect the integrity of the filing season." More budget cuts could cause "the wheels to start to fall off," he noted.

Net Investment Income (NII) Tax

Many higher-income individuals were surprised to learn the full impact of the net investment income (NII) tax on their overall tax liability only during the 2014 filing season when their 2013 returns were filed. Starting in 2013, taxpayers with qualifying income have been liable for the 3.8 percent net investment income (NII) tax. The threshold amounts for the NII tax are: $250,000 in the case of joint returns or a surviving spouse, $125,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing a separate return, and $200,000 in any other case. Recent run ups in the financial markets, and the fact that the NII thresholds are not adjusted for inflation, have increased the need to implement strategies that can avoid or minimize the NII tax. Issues persist that reduce certainty surrounding NII tax liability, in particular determining how a taxpayer "materially participates" in an activity to the extent it is exempt from the NII tax.

Retirement Planning

A number of changes have been made during 2014 affecting IRAs and other qualified plans which, cumulatively, rise to the level of a “top tax development” for 2014:

• Notice 2014-54 now permits a distribution from a 401(k), 403(b) or 457(b) account to have the taxable and non-taxable portions of the distribution directed to separate accounts.  
• TD 9673 now permits IRA holders and defined contribution plan participants to obtain a “longevity” annuity to help insure that they will not outlive their required minimum distributions (RMDs).
• Notice 2014-66 now permits 401(k) plans to offer deferred annuities through target date funds (TDFs).
• Bobrow, TC Memo. 2014-21, held that, in contrast to the IRS guidance in Publication 590, a taxpayer is limited to one 60-day rollover per year for all IRA accounts under the tax code rather than one 60-day rollover per year for each IRA account. The IRS in Announcement 2014-32 stated that the new interpretation of the rollover rules would be applied to rollover distributions received on or after January 1, 2015.
• Clark v. Rameker, a 2014 Supreme Court decision, found that inherited IRA accounts were not retirement assets and therefore not subject to creditor protection under the Bankruptcy Code.

Identity Theft

Although clearly not confined to the area of federal tax, identity theft has been a major issue for both the IRS and taxpayers. In 2014, the IRS put new filters in place and took other measures to curb tax-related identity theft. The agency also worked with software developers, financial institutions and the prepaid debit card industry to combat identity theft. "We rejected 5.7 million suspicious returns last year that may have been tied to identity theft," IRS Commissioner Koskinen said. Nevertheless, few believe that the IRS has yet turned the tide.

Same-sex Marriage

After the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor, the IRS issued guidance in 2013 adopting a place of celebration approach to recognizing same-sex marriage. The IRS followed-up with additional guidance in 2014 that required employers to take note of Windsor with regard to workplace tax benefits. Notably, the IRS focused on what changes needed to be made to retirement plan benefits in light of Windsor.

Tax Reform

Although 2014 was clearly not the year for tax reform (despite some 2013 forecasts that it would be), the foundations for serious tax reform discussions were laid in 2013 and 2014, when Congressional hearings and studies took place. Looking ahead to 2015 and beyond, there is optimism that Congress will complete some form of tax reform in 2015 or 2016.

The major difference of opinion, however, surrounds whether or not the reform would only address corporate tax provisions or also include individual provisions. Corporate reform has been pushed into the spotlight lately both by the controversy surrounding corporate inversions in changing foreign headquarters and by the general concern that American international business competitiveness is lessened by high U.S. corporate tax rates. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., on the other hand has called for tackling comprehensive tax reform on both the business and individual side. His Tax Reform Bill of 2014 (HR 1) would make the Code "more effective and efficient," according to Camp, by getting rid of narrowly targeted provisions to lower tax rates across the board. "This will enable small and large businesses alike to expand operations, hire new workers, and increase benefits and take-home pay," he said.