Anyone who has moved retirement money out of an old employer’s plan knows how frustrating it can be. Every administrator has their own forms. Timelines are all over the place. Paper checks show up weeks later with vague instructions. The whole thing should have been fixed a long time ago.

The IRS is finally doing something about it. Notice 2026-49 puts out four sample forms and a five-step procedure meant to bring some consistency to direct rollovers. Plans do not have to use them, and there is no safe harbor, but you can see where this is going.

The Problem Worth Solving

When you leave a job, you have to figure out what to do with your 401(k). You can cash it out and take the tax hit. You can leave it sitting there. Or you can roll it into a new employer’s plan or an IRA.

A direct rollover is usually the way to go. The money travels straight from the old plan to the new one without ever hitting your bank account, which keeps things clean and avoids the 60-day deadline you face if you take possession yourself.

The trouble is that every plan does things differently. A 2024 GAO study found that roughly one in three people doing rollovers ended up with a paper check in hand that they were supposed to forward themselves. Checks get lost. They sit on the counter for weeks. And the whole time, that money is not invested anywhere.

How the New System Works

Here is what Treasury is proposing. You fill out Form 1 and give it to the plan or IRA that will be receiving your money. That form lets the receiving plan reach out to your old plan and handle the transfer on your behalf. The two plans swap Forms 2 through 4 to make sure everything is in order. If something goes sideways, the receiving plan has to tell you.

The IRS wants this done electronically whenever possible. When electronic is not an option, the old plan should write a check payable to the receiving plan for your benefit and mail it directly there. No more sending checks to participants and hoping they take it from there.

Tax Rules Stay the Same

None of this changes how rollovers are taxed. Eligible distributions that complete a proper rollover still stay out of income. You still cannot roll over a required minimum distribution. Pre-tax money stays pre-tax. Roth stays Roth. This is about the plumbing, not the tax code.

IRA-to-IRA transfers are not covered here. Those already go through the ACATS electronic system, so Treasury left them alone.

No Safe Harbor Yet

Plans can use these forms, change them, or ignore them completely. Right now, there is no reward for following along.

That could change. Treasury says it is thinking about offering safe harbors down the road. A receiving plan that uses the standard forms might eventually be allowed to assume the rollover is valid unless something looks off. That would give administrators a real incentive to adopt the new process.

Conclusion and What Comes Next

The IRS has hinted at bigger changes. Future guidance might require electronic transfers across the board, kill off the practice of mailing checks to participants, and get rid of some of the procedural friction that slows things down.

For now, the sample forms are sitting in the appendix of Notice 2026-49. They are there if you want them. If you have ever spent weeks tracking down a check that went to the wrong address or trying to explain one plan’s process to another plan’s administrator, you understand what Treasury is trying to fix. They want rollovers to be faster, simpler, and harder to mess up. This is a start.

Rolling Over Your 401(k) Just Got Less Painful – Here’s What the IRS Changed

October 1, 2026  ·  Blog, Tax and Financial News

⏱ 4 min read

Anyone who has moved retirement money out of an old employer’s plan knows how frustrating it can be. Every administrator has their own forms. Timelines are all over the place. Paper checks show up weeks later with vague instructions. The whole thing should have been fixed a long time ago.

The IRS is finally doing something about it. Notice 2026-49 puts out four sample forms and a five-step procedure meant to bring some consistency to direct rollovers. Plans do not have to use them, and there is no safe harbor, but you can see where this is going.

The Problem Worth Solving

When you leave a job, you have to figure out what to do with your 401(k). You can cash it out and take the tax hit. You can leave it sitting there. Or you can roll it into a new employer’s plan or an IRA.

A direct rollover is usually the way to go. The money travels straight from the old plan to the new one without ever hitting your bank account, which keeps things clean and avoids the 60-day deadline you face if you take possession yourself.

The trouble is that every plan does things differently. A 2024 GAO study found that roughly one in three people doing rollovers ended up with a paper check in hand that they were supposed to forward themselves. Checks get lost. They sit on the counter for weeks. And the whole time, that money is not invested anywhere.

How the New System Works

Here is what Treasury is proposing. You fill out Form 1 and give it to the plan or IRA that will be receiving your money. That form lets the receiving plan reach out to your old plan and handle the transfer on your behalf. The two plans swap Forms 2 through 4 to make sure everything is in order. If something goes sideways, the receiving plan has to tell you.

The IRS wants this done electronically whenever possible. When electronic is not an option, the old plan should write a check payable to the receiving plan for your benefit and mail it directly there. No more sending checks to participants and hoping they take it from there.

Tax Rules Stay the Same

None of this changes how rollovers are taxed. Eligible distributions that complete a proper rollover still stay out of income. You still cannot roll over a required minimum distribution. Pre-tax money stays pre-tax. Roth stays Roth. This is about the plumbing, not the tax code.

IRA-to-IRA transfers are not covered here. Those already go through the ACATS electronic system, so Treasury left them alone.

No Safe Harbor Yet

Plans can use these forms, change them, or ignore them completely. Right now, there is no reward for following along.

That could change. Treasury says it is thinking about offering safe harbors down the road. A receiving plan that uses the standard forms might eventually be allowed to assume the rollover is valid unless something looks off. That would give administrators a real incentive to adopt the new process.

Conclusion and What Comes Next

The IRS has hinted at bigger changes. Future guidance might require electronic transfers across the board, kill off the practice of mailing checks to participants, and get rid of some of the procedural friction that slows things down.

For now, the sample forms are sitting in the appendix of Notice 2026-49. They are there if you want them. If you have ever spent weeks tracking down a check that went to the wrong address or trying to explain one plan’s process to another plan’s administrator, you understand what Treasury is trying to fix. They want rollovers to be faster, simpler, and harder to mess up. This is a start.

---

Disclaimer 

These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.

For the first time since 2022, the IRS is changing standard mileage rates in the middle of the tax year. If you track business, medical or moving miles, this matters. Starting July 1, 2026, the numbers go up, and your recordkeeping needs to get more precise.

What Changed and Why

The IRS bumped the business mileage rate from 72.5 cents to 76 cents per mile for travel on or after July 1, 2026. Medical and moving rates rose from 20.5 cents to 23.5 cents. The charitable rate stays put at 14 cents, where it has been stuck since 1998.

The trigger was fuel prices. When the IRS set the original 2026 rates back in December, gas was averaging about $2.89 per gallon nationally. By mid-July 2026, AAA reported the average had climbed to roughly $3.87, an increase of 34 percent. Much of that spike traces back to the war in Iran and uncertainty around oil production and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The last time the IRS made a midyear adjustment was 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine and gas prices surged past $5 per gallon in some markets.

Two Sets of Rates for One Year

This creates a split year for mileage calculations. Miles driven from January 1 through June 30 use the original rates. Miles driven on or after July 1 use the revised rates. If you drove 4,000 medical miles before July and another 4,000 after, you would calculate them separately: $820 for the first half at 20.5 cents, $940 for the second half at 23.5 cents.

The same logic applies to employer reimbursements. The new rates kick in only when both the expense and the reimbursement occur on or after July 1. Employers running accountable plans should review their policies to make sure they are applying the correct rate based on when the travel happened and when the payment goes out.

Why the Rates Differ by Category

The business rate is higher because it accounts for both fixed and variable costs of operating a vehicle: depreciation, insurance, maintenance, tires, gas and oil. Medical and moving rates cover only variable costs, which is why they sit lower.

The charitable rate is a different animal entirely. Congress set it by statute, and it has not budged in nearly three decades. Adjusted for inflation, 14 cents from 1998 would be closer to 29 cents today.

Who Can Actually Use These Rates

Here is where it gets narrower than many taxpayers expect. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the deduction for unreimbursed employee business expenses starting in 2018, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made that change permanent. Most employees cannot write off business mileage whether their employer reimburses them or not.

Moving expense deductions are similarly limited. Only active duty military members moving under orders for a permanent change of station qualify, along with certain intelligence community members under rules effective for 2026.

Charitable mileage requires itemizing, which means it only helps if your total deductions exceed the standard deduction of $16,100 for single filers or $32,200 for married couples filing jointly. Many taxpayers skip it.

Self-employed individuals and business owners get the most benefit from the business rate since they can still deduct qualifying mileage on Schedule C.

Recordkeeping Just Got Harder

Normally, tracking mileage means logging dates, destinations, miles driven, and business purpose. This year, you also need to note which side of July 1 the expense falls on. A mileage app can help, but a notebook or spreadsheet works, too.

If you use a vehicle exclusively for business, beginning and end-of-year odometer readings establish total mileage. Photos can serve as backup. If you mix business and personal use, your records need to clearly separate the two.

Conclusion

Gas prices forced the IRS’s hand, and now 2026 has two mileage rate regimes. The math is not complicated, but the documentation requirements are tighter than usual. Know when your miles were driven, keep clean records and make sure your employer’s reimbursement policies reflect the July 1 cutoff. The details matter this year more than most.

IRS Raises Mileage Rates Midyear: What You Need to Know

August 1, 2026  ·  Blog, Tax and Financial News

⏱ 4 min read

For the first time since 2022, the IRS is changing standard mileage rates in the middle of the tax year. If you track business, medical or moving miles, this matters. Starting July 1, 2026, the numbers go up, and your recordkeeping needs to get more precise.

What Changed and Why

The IRS bumped the business mileage rate from 72.5 cents to 76 cents per mile for travel on or after July 1, 2026. Medical and moving rates rose from 20.5 cents to 23.5 cents. The charitable rate stays put at 14 cents, where it has been stuck since 1998.

The trigger was fuel prices. When the IRS set the original 2026 rates back in December, gas was averaging about $2.89 per gallon nationally. By mid-July 2026, AAA reported the average had climbed to roughly $3.87, an increase of 34 percent. Much of that spike traces back to the war in Iran and uncertainty around oil production and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

The last time the IRS made a midyear adjustment was 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine and gas prices surged past $5 per gallon in some markets.

Two Sets of Rates for One Year

This creates a split year for mileage calculations. Miles driven from January 1 through June 30 use the original rates. Miles driven on or after July 1 use the revised rates. If you drove 4,000 medical miles before July and another 4,000 after, you would calculate them separately: $820 for the first half at 20.5 cents, $940 for the second half at 23.5 cents.

The same logic applies to employer reimbursements. The new rates kick in only when both the expense and the reimbursement occur on or after July 1. Employers running accountable plans should review their policies to make sure they are applying the correct rate based on when the travel happened and when the payment goes out.

Why the Rates Differ by Category

The business rate is higher because it accounts for both fixed and variable costs of operating a vehicle: depreciation, insurance, maintenance, tires, gas and oil. Medical and moving rates cover only variable costs, which is why they sit lower.

The charitable rate is a different animal entirely. Congress set it by statute, and it has not budged in nearly three decades. Adjusted for inflation, 14 cents from 1998 would be closer to 29 cents today.

Who Can Actually Use These Rates

Here is where it gets narrower than many taxpayers expect. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the deduction for unreimbursed employee business expenses starting in 2018, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made that change permanent. Most employees cannot write off business mileage whether their employer reimburses them or not.

Moving expense deductions are similarly limited. Only active duty military members moving under orders for a permanent change of station qualify, along with certain intelligence community members under rules effective for 2026.

Charitable mileage requires itemizing, which means it only helps if your total deductions exceed the standard deduction of $16,100 for single filers or $32,200 for married couples filing jointly. Many taxpayers skip it.

Self-employed individuals and business owners get the most benefit from the business rate since they can still deduct qualifying mileage on Schedule C.

Recordkeeping Just Got Harder

Normally, tracking mileage means logging dates, destinations, miles driven, and business purpose. This year, you also need to note which side of July 1 the expense falls on. A mileage app can help, but a notebook or spreadsheet works, too.

If you use a vehicle exclusively for business, beginning and end-of-year odometer readings establish total mileage. Photos can serve as backup. If you mix business and personal use, your records need to clearly separate the two.

Conclusion

Gas prices forced the IRS’s hand, and now 2026 has two mileage rate regimes. The math is not complicated, but the documentation requirements are tighter than usual. Know when your miles were driven, keep clean records and make sure your employer’s reimbursement policies reflect the July 1 cutoff. The details matter this year more than most.

---

Disclaimer 

These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.

A county in Michigan was owed about $2,200 in back taxes. To collect it, the government took a home worth close to $200,000, auctioned it for a fraction of that, and called the matter settled. The family is now putting a simple question to the Supreme Court: when the state sells your house over a small debt, does it owe you the real worth of what it took or only whatever the auction happened to fetch?

The Rule that is Already on the Books

Three years ago, the court drew a clear line. Geraldine Tyler, then in her 90s, had let a $2,311 levy on a Minneapolis condo balloon to about $15,000 once penalties and interest stacked up. Hennepin County took the unit, found a buyer at $40,000, and held onto all of it. By any fair reckoning, the $25,000 above her debt was Tyler’s money – even though the county walked away with it. Minnesota law blessed that, as did 11 other states and the District of Columbia, plus nine more states under narrower terms.

A unanimous court ended the practice. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a government can sell property to satisfy a tax debt but cannot help itself to more than the debt is worth. Leftover equity belongs to the owner, and a state cannot dodge that by defining the property interest away.

The Question Tyler Left Hanging

Tyler was tidy because the surplus was undeniable. Subtract a debt near $15,000 from a $40,000 sale, and the leftover is beyond dispute. The justices never had to confront the messier case where the sale price itself is artificially low. If a forced auction brings in far less than a home would fetch on the open market, is that depressed number really the measure of what the owner lost?

That is the gap, and tax auctions are where it opens. Unlike an ordinary listing, these sales draw a thin crowd of investors and speculators, and the government has little reason to chase top dollar. A county could therefore obey Tyler to the letter, hand back every cent of the auction surplus, and still watch most of a family’s equity vanish.

How the Pung Family Got Here

Three-and-a-half decades ago, Timothy Scott Pung paid $125,000 for a roughly 3,000-square-foot house in Isabella County, and for years it carried Michigan’s Principal Residence Exemption. Scott died in 2004, and his wife in 2008. Their son Marc stayed on, assuming the exemption rolled forward without any new filing. The assessor saw it otherwise and stripped the break retroactively. Marc fought back, and a state tax tribunal agreed no further paperwork had ever been required.

The assessor would not let it go. Over a shortfall of $2,241.93, on a place the county itself pegged at $194,400, the family was thrown out, and the home went under the hammer for $76,000. Nobody disputes that the estate is owed the surplus. The quarrel is how to measure it. Isabella County treats the surplus as the hammer price minus the debt, leaving about $74,000. The estate says the yardstick should be the home’s true market value minus the debt, pushing the number toward $194,400. The spread tops $100,000.

Bigger Than One House

The stakes reach far past Michigan. Minnesota alone moved more than 4,300 properties through these sales between 2014 and 2020. Across the 1,200-plus that were family homes, the typical owner lost some 92 percent of the equity above the debt, averaging around $207,000 against bills averaging just $17,000. In the nation’s capital, a veteran with dementia lost a $200,000 home over $133.88.

There is a second front, too. The estate contends the foreclosure worked as an excessive fine barred by the Eighth Amendment, a theory the lower court waved off as ordinary tax collection but one that Justices Gorsuch and Jackson have flagged for review.

Argument wrapped on Feb. 25 with a ruling likely any day now. The court has already said the government cannot keep more than it is owed. Now it must decide whether that shield covers only the cash left after the gavel, or the equity that vanished before.

Supreme Court Will Decide What Homeowners Are Owed When Tax Sale Erases Equity

July 1, 2026  ·  Blog, Tax and Financial News

⏱ 4 min read

A county in Michigan was owed about $2,200 in back taxes. To collect it, the government took a home worth close to $200,000, auctioned it for a fraction of that, and called the matter settled. The family is now putting a simple question to the Supreme Court: when the state sells your house over a small debt, does it owe you the real worth of what it took or only whatever the auction happened to fetch?

The Rule that is Already on the Books

Three years ago, the court drew a clear line. Geraldine Tyler, then in her 90s, had let a $2,311 levy on a Minneapolis condo balloon to about $15,000 once penalties and interest stacked up. Hennepin County took the unit, found a buyer at $40,000, and held onto all of it. By any fair reckoning, the $25,000 above her debt was Tyler’s money – even though the county walked away with it. Minnesota law blessed that, as did 11 other states and the District of Columbia, plus nine more states under narrower terms.

A unanimous court ended the practice. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that a government can sell property to satisfy a tax debt but cannot help itself to more than the debt is worth. Leftover equity belongs to the owner, and a state cannot dodge that by defining the property interest away.

The Question Tyler Left Hanging

Tyler was tidy because the surplus was undeniable. Subtract a debt near $15,000 from a $40,000 sale, and the leftover is beyond dispute. The justices never had to confront the messier case where the sale price itself is artificially low. If a forced auction brings in far less than a home would fetch on the open market, is that depressed number really the measure of what the owner lost?

That is the gap, and tax auctions are where it opens. Unlike an ordinary listing, these sales draw a thin crowd of investors and speculators, and the government has little reason to chase top dollar. A county could therefore obey Tyler to the letter, hand back every cent of the auction surplus, and still watch most of a family’s equity vanish.

How the Pung Family Got Here

Three-and-a-half decades ago, Timothy Scott Pung paid $125,000 for a roughly 3,000-square-foot house in Isabella County, and for years it carried Michigan’s Principal Residence Exemption. Scott died in 2004, and his wife in 2008. Their son Marc stayed on, assuming the exemption rolled forward without any new filing. The assessor saw it otherwise and stripped the break retroactively. Marc fought back, and a state tax tribunal agreed no further paperwork had ever been required.

The assessor would not let it go. Over a shortfall of $2,241.93, on a place the county itself pegged at $194,400, the family was thrown out, and the home went under the hammer for $76,000. Nobody disputes that the estate is owed the surplus. The quarrel is how to measure it. Isabella County treats the surplus as the hammer price minus the debt, leaving about $74,000. The estate says the yardstick should be the home’s true market value minus the debt, pushing the number toward $194,400. The spread tops $100,000.

Bigger Than One House

The stakes reach far past Michigan. Minnesota alone moved more than 4,300 properties through these sales between 2014 and 2020. Across the 1,200-plus that were family homes, the typical owner lost some 92 percent of the equity above the debt, averaging around $207,000 against bills averaging just $17,000. In the nation’s capital, a veteran with dementia lost a $200,000 home over $133.88.

There is a second front, too. The estate contends the foreclosure worked as an excessive fine barred by the Eighth Amendment, a theory the lower court waved off as ordinary tax collection but one that Justices Gorsuch and Jackson have flagged for review.

Argument wrapped on Feb. 25 with a ruling likely any day now. The court has already said the government cannot keep more than it is owed. Now it must decide whether that shield covers only the cash left after the gavel, or the equity that vanished before.

---

Disclaimer 

These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.

Here’s something that flew under the radar for most people: a court decision from late last year could put money back in your pocket if you got hit with IRS penalties during COVID. But you need to act fast! For some taxpayers, the deadline to file a claim is July 10.

What This Case Is Actually About

Remember when COVID was declared a federal disaster? That designation wasn’t just symbolic. It triggered real protections under the tax code, specifically Section 7508A, which lets the IRS push back deadlines and waive penalties when taxpayers are caught up in a disaster. We’re talking about failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties here, and those fees can add up to almost 50 percent of what you already owe, which is brutal!

The Kwong v. United States decision came down from the Court of Federal Claims in November 2025, and it changed the game. The court said the nationwide COVID emergency created a mandatory postponement running from Jan. 20, 2020, through July 10, 2023. Everything that came due in that window should have been bumped to July 11, 2023. In other words, a lot of people may have been penalized when they shouldn’t have been.

This Got Real on April 30

The case had been percolating quietly until the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) made some noise about it on April 30. That’s when things got interesting. According to the NTA, tens of millions of taxpayers could be eligible for refunds. Not just on the penalties themselves, but on the interest that piled up on top of those penalties.

The NTA isn’t being shy about this either. The office has pushed hard for the IRS to apply relief broadly instead of making people jump through hoops. They want systemic fixes, not case-by-case battles. And they’ve asked Congress to make sure procedural red tape doesn’t rob people of money they are owed.

There’s another wrinkle worth knowing about. Some refunds issued during 2020 through 2023 may have shortchanged taxpayers on interest because the IRS treated their returns as late. If Kwong holds up, you might be able to claim that missing interest, too.

Expats Had It Especially Rough

If you were living overseas when the pandemic hit, you know the chaos was next level. Borders slammed shut with no warning. People got stranded in countries they were just passing through. Others couldn’t get back to the places they’d been living for years.

Good luck reaching your accountant when consulates are closed, mail isn’t moving, and you’re dealing with a 12-hour time zone difference. Some folks couldn’t access their bank accounts. Others couldn’t get basic documents. And plenty of people were simply stuck, unable to go anywhere, when their filing deadlines rolled around.

Slapping penalties on taxpayers who were dealing with all of that? It misses the point entirely. The disaster relief rules exist for exactly these situations. The NTA has been clear: fair treatment means recognizing what people were actually going through.

You Need to File a Protective Claim

Here’s the practical part. If you want to preserve your right to get this money back, you have to file something called a protective claim. Think of it as a placeholder that keeps your options open while the legal dust settles.

For many people, the deadline is July 10, 2026, though it depends on the tax year involved. Don’t wait until the last minute to figure this out.

The good news is the paperwork isn’t complicated. You can use IRS Form 843 or just file an amended return. You need to list the tax years you’re claiming and note that your refund depends on how the Kwong case plays out. You don’t have to calculate the exact dollar amount right now. The whole point is just to get yourself on record before time runs out.

A Few Limitations to Know About

This relief is specifically about federal income taxes under the Internal Revenue Code. If you’re worried about Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) penalties, that’s a different animal. FBARs fall under the Bank Secrecy Act, so Kwong doesn’t automatically help there. That said, you might still have a reasonable cause argument based on the same COVID disruptions.

State taxes? Every state did its own thing. Most offered some pandemic extensions, but those programs were separate and usually more limited than what we’re talking about here.

Conclusion

If there’s any chance this applies to you, file that protective claim now. Especially if you were overseas during the pandemic years. Once that deadline passes, the door closes for good.

The IRS Could Owe You Money Thanks to a Pandemic-Era Court Ruling

June 1, 2026  ·  Blog, Tax and Financial News

⏱ 4 min read

Here’s something that flew under the radar for most people: a court decision from late last year could put money back in your pocket if you got hit with IRS penalties during COVID. But you need to act fast! For some taxpayers, the deadline to file a claim is July 10.

What This Case Is Actually About

Remember when COVID was declared a federal disaster? That designation wasn’t just symbolic. It triggered real protections under the tax code, specifically Section 7508A, which lets the IRS push back deadlines and waive penalties when taxpayers are caught up in a disaster. We’re talking about failure-to-file and failure-to-pay penalties here, and those fees can add up to almost 50 percent of what you already owe, which is brutal!

The Kwong v. United States decision came down from the Court of Federal Claims in November 2025, and it changed the game. The court said the nationwide COVID emergency created a mandatory postponement running from Jan. 20, 2020, through July 10, 2023. Everything that came due in that window should have been bumped to July 11, 2023. In other words, a lot of people may have been penalized when they shouldn’t have been.

This Got Real on April 30

The case had been percolating quietly until the National Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) made some noise about it on April 30. That’s when things got interesting. According to the NTA, tens of millions of taxpayers could be eligible for refunds. Not just on the penalties themselves, but on the interest that piled up on top of those penalties.

The NTA isn’t being shy about this either. The office has pushed hard for the IRS to apply relief broadly instead of making people jump through hoops. They want systemic fixes, not case-by-case battles. And they’ve asked Congress to make sure procedural red tape doesn’t rob people of money they are owed.

There’s another wrinkle worth knowing about. Some refunds issued during 2020 through 2023 may have shortchanged taxpayers on interest because the IRS treated their returns as late. If Kwong holds up, you might be able to claim that missing interest, too.

Expats Had It Especially Rough

If you were living overseas when the pandemic hit, you know the chaos was next level. Borders slammed shut with no warning. People got stranded in countries they were just passing through. Others couldn’t get back to the places they’d been living for years.

Good luck reaching your accountant when consulates are closed, mail isn’t moving, and you’re dealing with a 12-hour time zone difference. Some folks couldn’t access their bank accounts. Others couldn’t get basic documents. And plenty of people were simply stuck, unable to go anywhere, when their filing deadlines rolled around.

Slapping penalties on taxpayers who were dealing with all of that? It misses the point entirely. The disaster relief rules exist for exactly these situations. The NTA has been clear: fair treatment means recognizing what people were actually going through.

You Need to File a Protective Claim

Here’s the practical part. If you want to preserve your right to get this money back, you have to file something called a protective claim. Think of it as a placeholder that keeps your options open while the legal dust settles.

For many people, the deadline is July 10, 2026, though it depends on the tax year involved. Don’t wait until the last minute to figure this out.

The good news is the paperwork isn’t complicated. You can use IRS Form 843 or just file an amended return. You need to list the tax years you’re claiming and note that your refund depends on how the Kwong case plays out. You don’t have to calculate the exact dollar amount right now. The whole point is just to get yourself on record before time runs out.

A Few Limitations to Know About

This relief is specifically about federal income taxes under the Internal Revenue Code. If you’re worried about Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) penalties, that’s a different animal. FBARs fall under the Bank Secrecy Act, so Kwong doesn’t automatically help there. That said, you might still have a reasonable cause argument based on the same COVID disruptions.

State taxes? Every state did its own thing. Most offered some pandemic extensions, but those programs were separate and usually more limited than what we’re talking about here.

Conclusion

If there’s any chance this applies to you, file that protective claim now. Especially if you were overseas during the pandemic years. Once that deadline passes, the door closes for good.

---

Disclaimer 

These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.

Artificial intelligence is driving an unprecedented surge in data center construction. Developers, private equity sponsors and their tax advisors are navigating a complicated web of questions that touch everything from ownership structure to site selection to power sourcing. Get the early decisions wrong and the tax consequences can follow a project for years.

Why REITs Have Become the Structure of Choice

Private equity has increasingly turned to real estate investment trusts when backing data center projects. Structure a REIT correctly, and you sidestep corporate-level taxation entirely. Foreign investors get an even better deal. Sovereign wealth funds and foreign pension funds can participate without any obligation to file U.S. tax returns. Data centers, with their heavy real estate footprint, slot into the REIT framework more naturally than many other asset classes.

That said, the fit is not seamless. Related party rent rules create traps for the unwary. Public pension funds and sovereign wealth funds need to confirm they do not hold stakes in both a data center REIT and its tenant. Another wrinkle involves equipment. Data centers demand significant upfront investment in personal property that may not count as qualifying REIT assets. The tax code requires that 75 percent of a REIT’s total asset value consist of real estate, cash, and government securities at each quarter’s close. Developers often must segregate personal property until the REIT builds up enough good assets to clear that hurdle.

The Power and Water Challenge

Reliable power and water access have become one of the toughest operational problems in the industry. Demand is so intense that many developers are generating their own electricity on-site. The tax treatment of these co-located power facilities depends heavily on the energy source and delivery method. Get it wrong, and the generation asset may not qualify for REIT treatment.

Solar photovoltaic systems sit on relatively solid ground under existing guidance. Nuclear and natural gas, which many see as the next wave of data center power, do not. Current rules leave significant uncertainty around whether these sources can work within a REIT structure.

Legislative and Executive Developments

The IRS priority guidance plan for 2025 and 2026 contains no projects aimed squarely at data centers. Regulation section 1.856-10(g), finalized in 2016, includes an example analyzing customized electrical and telecommunications systems in a data center context, but practitioners continue pushing for clearer rules on alternative energy.

Congress may offer relief on the waterfront. In April 2025, Representative Darin LaHood of Illinois proposed a new section 48F that would provide a 30 percent credit for qualifying water reuse projects, including on-site recycling systems at data centers. With U.S. data centers projected to consume 33 billion gallons of water by 2028, the bill attracted 21 cosponsors and bipartisan support.

The White House has made its priorities clear as well. The Trump administration’s July 2025 AI action plan established a goal of achieving global dominance in artificial intelligence, with infrastructure as one of three pillars. An executive order, issued July 23, 2025, focused specifically on reducing federal regulatory obstacles to data center construction.

Conclusion and OBBBA Incentives Worth Watching

Several provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act benefit data center projects, even though lawmakers did not design them with that sector in mind. The return of 100 percent bonus depreciation under section 168(k) matters enormously for an industry requiring massive capital outlays.

Rural Opportunity Zones sweeten the economics further. Investments in qualified rural opportunity funds now qualify for a 30 percent basis step-up after five years, triple the 10 percent available in standard zones. A special rule targeting improvements to existing structures in rural areas cuts the substantial improvement threshold to 50 percent of adjusted basis, compared to more than 100 percent for non-rural funds.

Developers and investors evaluating new projects will find that entity structure, site selection, and the shifting regulatory environment all interact in ways that directly affect the bottom line. Getting the tax picture right from the start remains essential.

Tax Considerations for Data Center Projects in the Age of AI

May 1, 2026  ·  Blog, Tax and Financial News

⏱ 4 min read

Artificial intelligence is driving an unprecedented surge in data center construction. Developers, private equity sponsors and their tax advisors are navigating a complicated web of questions that touch everything from ownership structure to site selection to power sourcing. Get the early decisions wrong and the tax consequences can follow a project for years.

Why REITs Have Become the Structure of Choice

Private equity has increasingly turned to real estate investment trusts when backing data center projects. Structure a REIT correctly, and you sidestep corporate-level taxation entirely. Foreign investors get an even better deal. Sovereign wealth funds and foreign pension funds can participate without any obligation to file U.S. tax returns. Data centers, with their heavy real estate footprint, slot into the REIT framework more naturally than many other asset classes.

That said, the fit is not seamless. Related party rent rules create traps for the unwary. Public pension funds and sovereign wealth funds need to confirm they do not hold stakes in both a data center REIT and its tenant. Another wrinkle involves equipment. Data centers demand significant upfront investment in personal property that may not count as qualifying REIT assets. The tax code requires that 75 percent of a REIT’s total asset value consist of real estate, cash, and government securities at each quarter’s close. Developers often must segregate personal property until the REIT builds up enough good assets to clear that hurdle.

The Power and Water Challenge

Reliable power and water access have become one of the toughest operational problems in the industry. Demand is so intense that many developers are generating their own electricity on-site. The tax treatment of these co-located power facilities depends heavily on the energy source and delivery method. Get it wrong, and the generation asset may not qualify for REIT treatment.

Solar photovoltaic systems sit on relatively solid ground under existing guidance. Nuclear and natural gas, which many see as the next wave of data center power, do not. Current rules leave significant uncertainty around whether these sources can work within a REIT structure.

Legislative and Executive Developments

The IRS priority guidance plan for 2025 and 2026 contains no projects aimed squarely at data centers. Regulation section 1.856-10(g), finalized in 2016, includes an example analyzing customized electrical and telecommunications systems in a data center context, but practitioners continue pushing for clearer rules on alternative energy.

Congress may offer relief on the waterfront. In April 2025, Representative Darin LaHood of Illinois proposed a new section 48F that would provide a 30 percent credit for qualifying water reuse projects, including on-site recycling systems at data centers. With U.S. data centers projected to consume 33 billion gallons of water by 2028, the bill attracted 21 cosponsors and bipartisan support.

The White House has made its priorities clear as well. The Trump administration’s July 2025 AI action plan established a goal of achieving global dominance in artificial intelligence, with infrastructure as one of three pillars. An executive order, issued July 23, 2025, focused specifically on reducing federal regulatory obstacles to data center construction.

Conclusion and OBBBA Incentives Worth Watching

Several provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act benefit data center projects, even though lawmakers did not design them with that sector in mind. The return of 100 percent bonus depreciation under section 168(k) matters enormously for an industry requiring massive capital outlays.

Rural Opportunity Zones sweeten the economics further. Investments in qualified rural opportunity funds now qualify for a 30 percent basis step-up after five years, triple the 10 percent available in standard zones. A special rule targeting improvements to existing structures in rural areas cuts the substantial improvement threshold to 50 percent of adjusted basis, compared to more than 100 percent for non-rural funds.

Developers and investors evaluating new projects will find that entity structure, site selection, and the shifting regulatory environment all interact in ways that directly affect the bottom line. Getting the tax picture right from the start remains essential.

---

Disclaimer 

These articles provide general information on tax, accounting, and financial topics for small businesses and individuals. They are educational in nature and are not specific legal, accounting, financial, tax, or other professional advice, and should not be relied upon as such. This content was prepared by Service2Client and may have been reviewed or edited by the website owner for accuracy and compliance. Look for a trust mark below for verification details. No representation is made that any approach described will achieve a particular result, and no regulatory or professional body has reviewed or endorsed this content. Because each situation is different, readers should consult a qualified professional about their specific circumstances before acting. Images accompanying these articles are protected by copyright and may not be copied or reused.