The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that the mandatory beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is back in effect. Because reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations, FinCEN is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that the mandatory beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is back in effect. Because reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations, FinCEN is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.

FinCEN's announcement is based on the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division) to stay its prior nationwide injunction order against the reporting requirement (Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, DC Tex., 6:24-cv-00336, Feb. 17, 2025). This district court stayed its prior order, pending appeal, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent order to stay the nationwide injunction against the reporting requirement that had been ordered by a different federal district court in Texas (McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., SCt, No. 24A653, Jan. 23, 2025).

Given this latest district court decision, the regulations implementing the BOI reporting requirements of the CTA are no longer stayed.

Updated Reporting Deadlines

Subject to any applicable court orders, BOI reporting is now mandatory, but FinCEN is providing additional time for companies to report:

• For most reporting companies, the extended deadline to file an initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI report is now March 21, 2025. FinCEN expects to provide an update before that date of any further modification of the deadline, recognizing that reporting companies may need additional time to comply.
• Reporting companies that were previously given a reporting deadline later than March 21, 2025, must file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. For example, if a company’s reporting deadline is in April 2025 because it qualifies for certain disaster relief extensions, it should follow the April deadline, not the March deadline.

Plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, DC Ala., No. 5:22-cv-01448, are not required to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.

FinCEN Notice FIN-2025-CTA1

The IRS has issued Notice 2025-15, providing guidance on an alternative method for furnishing health coverage statements under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. This method allows insurers and applicable large employers (ALEs) to comply with their reporting obligations by posting an online notice rather than automatically furnishing statements to individuals.

The IRS has issued Notice 2025-15, providing guidance on an alternative method for furnishing health coverage statements under Code Secs. 6055 and 6056. This method allows insurers and applicable large employers (ALEs) to comply with their reporting obligations by posting an online notice rather than automatically furnishing statements to individuals.

Under Code Sec. 6055, entities providing minimum essential coverage must report coverage details to the IRS and furnish statements to responsible individuals. Similarly, Code Sec. 6056 requires ALEs, generally those with 50 or more full-time employees, to report health insurance information for those employees. The Paperwork Burden Reduction Act amended these sections to introduce an alternative furnishing method, effective for statements related to returns for calendar years after 2023.

Instead of automatically providing statements, reporting entities may post a clear and conspicuous notice on their websites, informing individuals that they may request a copy of their statement. The notice must be posted by the original furnishing deadline, including any automatic 30-day extension, and must remain accessible through October 15 of the following year. If a responsible individual or full-time employee requests a statement, the reporting entity must furnish it within 30 days of the request or by January 31 of the following year, whichever is later.

For statements related to the 2024 calendar year, the notice must be posted by March 3, 2025. Statements may be furnished electronically if permitted under Reg. § 1.6055-2 for minimum essential coverage providers and Reg. § 301.6056-2 for ALEs.

This alternative method applies regardless of whether the individual shared responsibility payment under Code Sec. 5000A is zero. The guidance clarifies that this method applies to statements required under both Code Sec. 6055 and Code Sec. 6056. Reg. § 1.6055-1(g)(4)(ii)(B) sets forth the requirements for the alternative manner of furnishing statements under Code Sec. 6055, while the same framework applies to Code Sec. 6056 with relevant terminology adjustments. Form 1095-B, used for reporting minimum essential coverage, and Form 1095-C, used by ALEs to report health insurance offers, may be provided under this alternative method.

Notice 2025-15

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2025 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2025.

The IRS has issued the luxury car depreciation limits for business vehicles placed in service in 2025 and the lease inclusion amounts for business vehicles first leased in 2025.

Luxury Passenger Car Depreciation Caps

The luxury car depreciation caps for a passenger car placed in service in 2025 limit annual depreciation deductions to:

• $12,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $20,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $19,600 for the second year
• $11,800 for the third year
• $7,060 for the fourth through sixth year

Depreciation Caps for SUVs, Trucks and Vans

The luxury car depreciation caps for a sport utility vehicle, truck, or van placed in service in 2025 are:

• $12,200 for the first year without bonus depreciation
• $20,200 for the first year with bonus depreciation
• $19,600 for the second year
• $11,800 for the third year
• $7,060 for the fourth through sixth year

Excess Depreciation on Luxury Vehicles

If depreciation exceeds the annual cap, the excess depreciation is deducted beginning in the year after the vehicle’s regular depreciation period ends.

The annual cap for this excess depreciation is:

• $7,060 for passenger cars and
• $7,060 for SUVS, trucks, and vans.

Lease Inclusion Amounts for Cars, SUVs, Trucks and Vans

If a vehicle is first leased in 2025, a taxpayer must add a lease inclusion amount to gross income in each year of the lease if its fair market value at the time of the lease is more than:

• $62,000 for a passenger car, or
• $62,000 for an SUV, truck or van.

The 2025 lease inclusion tables provide the lease inclusion amounts for each year of the lease.

The lease inclusion amount results in a permanent reduction in the taxpayer’s deduction for the lease payments.

Rev. Proc. 2025-16

The leadership of the Senate Finance Committee have issued a discussion draft of bipartisan legislative proposals to make administrative and procedural improvements to the Internal Revenue Service.

A limited liability company (LLC) classified as a TEFRA partnership could not claim a charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement because the easement deed failed to comply with the perpetuity requirements under Code Sec. 170(h)(5)(A) and Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court determined that the language of the deed did not satisfy statutory requirements, rendering the claimed deduction invalid.

A limited liability company (LLC) classified as a TEFRA partnership could not claim a charitable contribution deduction for a conservation easement because the easement deed failed to comply with the perpetuity requirements under Code Sec. 170(h)(5)(A) and Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6). The Tax Court determined that the language of the deed did not satisfy statutory requirements, rendering the claimed deduction invalid.

Easement Valuation

The taxpayer asserted that the highest and best use of the property was as a commercial mining site, supporting a valuation significantly higher than its purchase price. However, the Court concluded that the record did not support this assertion. The Court found that the proposed mining use was not financially feasible or maximally productive. The IRS’s expert relied on comparable sales data, while the taxpayer’s valuation method was based on a discounted cash-flow analysis, which the Court found speculative and not supported by market data.

Penalties

The taxpayer contended that the IRS did not comply with supervisory approval process under Code Sec. 6751(b) prior to imposing penalties. However, the Court found that the concerned IRS revenue agent duly obtained prior supervisory approval and the IRS satisfied the procedural requirements under Code Sec. 6751(b). Because the valuation of the easement reported on the taxpayer’s return exceeded 200 percent of the Court-determined value, the misstatement was deemed "gross" under Code Sec. 6662(h)(2)(A)(i). Accordingly, the Court upheld accuracy-related penalties under Code Sec. 6662 for gross valuation misstatement, substantial understatement, and negligence.

Green Valley Investors, LLC, TC Memo. 2025-15, Dec. 62,617(M)

The Tax Court ruled that IRS Appeals Officers and Team Managers were not "Officers of the United States." Therefore, they did not need to be appointed under the Appointments Clause.

The Tax Court ruled that IRS Appeals Officers and Team Managers were not "Officers of the United States." Therefore, they did not need to be appointed under the Appointments Clause.

The taxpayer filed income taxes for tax years 2012 (TY) through TY 2017, but he did not pay tax. During a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing, the taxpayer raised constitutional arguments that IRS Appeals and associated employees serve in violation of the Appointments Clause and the constitutional separation of powers.

No Significant Authority

The court noted that IRS Appeals officers do not wield significant authority. For instance, the officers do not have authority to examine witnesses, unlike Tax Court Special Trial Judges (STJs) and SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). The Appeals officers also lack the power to issue, serve, and enforce summonses through the IRS’s general power to examine books and witnesses.

The court found no reason to deviate from earlier judgments in Tucker v. Commissioner (Tucker I), 135 T.C. 114, Dec. 58,279); and Tucker v. Commissioner (Tucker II), CA-DC, 676 F.3d 1129, 2012-1 ustc ¶50,312). Both judgments emphasized the court’s observations in the current case. In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (per curiam), the Supreme Court similarly held that Federal Election Commission (FEC) commissioners were not appointed in accordance with the Appointments Clause, and thus none of them were permitted to exercise "significant authority."

The taxpayer lacked standing to challenge the appointment of the IRS Appeals Chief, and said officers under the Appointments Clause, and the removal of the Chief under the separation of powers doctrine.

IRC Chief of Appeals

The taxpayer failed to prove that the Chief’s tenure affected his hearing and prejudiced him in some way, under standards in United States v. Smith, 962 F.3d 755 (4th Cir. 2020) and United States v. Castillo, 772 F. App’x 11 (3d Cir. 2019). The Chief did not participate in the taxpayer's CDP hearing, and so the Chief did not injure the taxpayer. The taxpayer's injury was not fairly traceable to the appointment (or lack thereof) of the Chief, and the Chief was too distant from the case for any court order pointed to him to redress the taxpayer's harm.

C.C. Tooke III, 164 TC No. 2, Dec. 62,610

The IRS has responded to criticism from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the National Taxpayer Advocate, among others, that resolution of identity theft accounts takes too long by increasing its measures to flag suspicious tax returns, prevent issuance of fraudulent tax refunds, and to expedite identity theft case processing. As a result, the IRS's resolution time has experienced a moderate improvement from an average of 312 days, as TIGTA reported in September 2013, to an average of 278 days as reported in March 2015. (The 278-day average was based on a statistically valid sampling of 100 cases resolved between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012.) The IRS has recently stated that its resolution time dropped to 120 days for cases received in filing season 2013.

The IRS has responded to criticism from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration and the National Taxpayer Advocate, among others, that resolution of identity theft accounts takes too long by increasing its measures to flag suspicious tax returns, prevent issuance of fraudulent tax refunds, and to expedite identity theft case processing. As a result, the IRS's resolution time has experienced a moderate improvement from an average of 312 days, as TIGTA reported in September 2013, to an average of 278 days as reported in March 2015. (The 278-day average was based on a statistically valid sampling of 100 cases resolved between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012.) The IRS has recently stated that its resolution time dropped to 120 days for cases received in filing season 2013.

Even with a wait time of 120 days, taxpayers who find themselves victims of tax refund identity theft likely find the road to resolution a frustrating and time consuming process. This article seeks to explain the various pulleys and levers at play when communicating with the IRS about an identity theft case.

Initiating an ID theft case

A taxpayer may become aware that he or she is a victim of tax-related identity theft when the IRS rejects their tax return because someone has already filed a return using the taxpayer's name and/or social security number. A taxpayer may also receive correspondence directly from the IRS that informs them, prior to filing, that someone has filed a suspicious return under their information. In other cases, a taxpayer may have had his or her identity information compromised and wishes to alert the IRS as to the possibility that he or she may be targeted by an identity thief.

For all such cases, the IRS has created Form 14039, Identity Theft Affidavit. Taxpayers who are actual or potential victims of tax-related identity theft may complete and submit the Affidavit to ensure that the IRS flags the tax account for review of any suspicious activity. Taxpayers who have been victimized are asked to provide a short explanation of the problem and how they became aware of it.

The Identity Theft Affidavit may also be submitted by taxpayers that have not yet become victims of tax-related identity theft, but who have experienced the misuse of their personal identity information to obtain credit or who have lost a purse or wallet or had one stolen, who suspect they have been targeted by a phishing or phone scam, etc. The form asks these taxpayers to briefly describe the identity theft violation, the event of concern, and to include the relevant dates.

Once the Form 14039 has been completed and submitted, the taxpayer should expect to receive a Notice CP01S from the IRS by mail. The Notice CP01S simply acknowledges that the IRS has received the taxpayer's Identity Theft Affidavit and reminds the taxpayer to continue to file all federal tax returns.

IDVerify.irs.gov

The IRS has implemented a pre-screening procedure for suspicious tax returns. Rather than halt the refund process entirely, which can prevent a refund claimed on a legitimately filed return, the IRS has provided taxpayers with the opportunity to verify their identity.

Now when the IRS receives a suspicious return, it will send a Letter 5071C or Notice CP01B to the taxpayer requesting him or her to either visit idverify.irs.gov or call the toll-free number listed on the header of the letter (1-800-830-5084) within 30 days. When the taxpayer does this, the taxpayer will encounter a series of questions asking for personal information. If the taxpayer fails to respond to the verification request or responds and answers a question incorrectly the IRS will flag the return as fraudulent and follow the prescribed procedures for resolving identity theft cases.

Resolving the case

After a tax return has been flagged with the special identity theft processing code, the IRS will assign the case to a tax assistor. TIGTA reported that the IRS assigns each case priority based first on its age and then by case type—for example, with cases nearing the statute of limitations placed first, followed by cases claiming disaster relief, and then identity theft cases. However, TIGTA has reported that cases are frequently reassigned to multiple tax assistors, and there are often long lag times where no work is accomplished toward resolution. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson also noted in her recent "Identity Theft Case Review Report" on a statistical analysis of 409 identity theft cases closed in June 2014 that a significant number of cases experience a period of inactivity averaging 78 days.

After resolution

The IRS has also created the Identity Protection Personal Identification Number (IP PIN) project, which is meant to prevent taxpayers from being victimized by identity thieves a second time after the IRS has resolved their cases and closed them. The IP PIN is a unique six-digit code that taxpayers must entered on their tax return instead

The IRS assigns an IP PIN to a taxpayer by sending him or her a Notice CP01A. Generally this Notice is issued in December in preparation for the upcoming filing season. The taxpayer then enters it into the appropriate box of his or her federal tax return (i.e. Forms 1040, 1040A, 1040EZ or 1040 PR/SS). On paper returns, this box is located on the second page, near the signature line. When e-filing, the tax software or tax return preparer will indicate where the taxpayer should enter the IP PIN, social security number or taxpayer identification number (TIN) at time they file their tax return. The IP PIN is only good for one tax year.

Taxpayers who have been assigned an IP PIN, but who have lost or misplaced it cannot electronically file their tax returns until they have located it. Previously such taxpayers had no way to retrieve their IP PIN and had to file on paper. Beginning on January 14, 2015, however, taxpayers who had lost their IP PINs were able to retrieve them by accessing their online accounts and providing the IRS with specific personal information and answer a series of questions to verify identity.

Latest breach

The IRS announced on May 26th that 100,000 taxpayers became victims of a new identity theft scheme discovered in mid-May 2015. Identity theft criminals used stolen personal identification information to access the IRS's online "Get Transcript" application and illegally download these taxpayers' tax transcripts. The IRS is concerned that the criminals intend to use taxpayers' past-year return information to file false tax returns claiming tax items and refunds that look legitimate and that do not trigger the IRS's filters for finding suspicious returns. 

Within this latest breach of security, identity thieves had attempted to download a total of 200,000 transcripts, but had only been successful half of the time, according to an announcement by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. Because the IRS has yet to see how many taxpayers were actually victimized, the IRS may not provide IP PINs to all of these 200,000 taxpayers. However, the 100,000 taxpayers whose tax transcripts were downloaded will receive free credit monitoring services at the IRS's expense, Koskinen stated.