Will the path be clear?
The panel began by discussing Executive Order (EO) 14219, Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Deregulatory Initiative, which directs federal agencies to review and, where necessary, repeal regulations deemed inconsistent with ten recent landmark Supreme Court cases, including Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). Attendees, frustrated by the lack of guidance, questioned whether agencies have taken any proactive measures to identify such inconsistent regulations, or if any direction was given to help such inconsistent regulations be identified. The “single, best meaning,” they were told.
Panelists emphasized that agencies are directed to repeal any regulations that conflict with the single, best meaning of the statute authorizing.
What does this entail?
Officials, understandably, did not have much to relay. Under their individual capacities they did not speak on behalf of federal agencies, nor could they relay their progress in complying with EO 14219.
A path, at last?
In light of new guidance, panelists urged practitioners to review the updated IRS ERC FAQs, specifically, Q2 and Q3 under the “Income tax and ERC” section, which discusses reducing wage expenses on business tax returns. Attending practitioners questioned whether any guidance is expected to be issued for tax years prior to 2021. Panelists acknowledged that this is an ongoing concern, and although there is no further information at this time, there may be hope. IRS officials have received substantial inquiries regarding such matters which indicate public concern may drive potential remedies.
The path has efficiency! Beware!
Panelists also reminded attending practitioners that starting September 30, 2025, the government will stop issuing paper checks for all disbursements, including tax refunds. Potential concerns were raised for low-income taxpayers, incarcerated taxpayers, and taxpayers without a current residence. Although panelists expressed these concerns themselves, they encouraged practitioners to prepare for such changes in advance and review the limited exceptions that will be available for those who lack access to electronic payment methods and individuals in specific emergency situations. Will this include the incarcerated, homeless? Practically, it is unclear, but the room would hope.
One of the most notable topics of the morning for tax practitioners and administrators generally was the Taxpayer Assistance and Service Act. The legislation includes 68 provisions across 10 categories and is aimed at improving tax administration. Some of the most notable changes include the extension of the mailbox rule to electronic submissions, which will allow a more equitable treatment of paper and electronic submissions. Additional changes include expanded access to Appeals, the Tax Court jurisdiction will now hear refund suits, deficiency procedures for certain penalties, and even additional paid return preparer oversight.
Panelists briefly discussed the reorganization and reduction of the federal workforce, specifically the IRS and Treasury. The room mourned the prominent officials who have left, while acknowledging the lasting impressions and contributions many have made. Panelists acknowledged that the IRS has initiated a second deferred resignation program, in addition to voluntary separation and early retirement programs. The rehiring of all probationary employees has been halted, and the Modernization and Civil Rights offices have been closed. However, panelists did indicate that the Civil Rights duties have been taken over by the Attorney General.
Panelists concluded the session examining a few prominent cases including, Commissioner v. Zuch, No. 24-416 (S. Ct. 2025)(addressing whether a taxpayer’s challenge to an IRS proposed levy under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 becomes moot if the IRS satisfies the liability through offsets before the Tax Court's review); Hubbard v. Commissioner, 132 F.4th 437 (6th Cir. 2025) (holding that the IRS's seizure of a criminally forfeited IRA did not constitute a taxable distribution to the taxpayer, as the government became the owner of the account through specific asset forfeiture, making the IRS—not the taxpayer—the "payee or distributee" under IRC § 408(d)(1)); and Pierce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-29 (addressing the valuation of closely held business interests for gift tax purposes, where the Tax Court accepted the taxpayer's discounted cash flow analysis, applied a 26.2% tax-affecting rate using the Delaware Chancery method, and allowed 5% lack-of-control and 25% marketability discounts, while rejecting the IRS's expert report for lack of independent analysis).
Despite the volatile nature of the tax industry currently, administrative practitioners are navigating cohesively, which provides hope that stability will soon come.
