The Internal Revenue Service is looking toward automated solutions to cover the recent workforce reductions implemented by the Trump Administration, Department of the Treasury Secretary Bessent told a House Appropriations subcommittee.

The Internal Revenue Service is looking toward automated solutions to cover the recent workforce reductions implemented by the Trump Administration, Department of the Treasury Secretary Bessent told a House Appropriations subcommittee.

During a May 6, 2025, oversight hearing of the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, Bessent framed the current employment level at the IRS as “bloated” and is using the workforce reduction as a means to partially justify the smaller budget the agency is looking for.

“We are just taking the IRS back to where it was before the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] bill substantially bloated the personnel and the infrastructure,” he testified before the committee, adding that “a large number of employees” took the option for early retirement.

When pressed about how this could impact revenue collection activities, Bessent noted that the agency will be looking to use AI to help automate the process and maintain collection activities.

“I believe, through smarter IT, through this AI boom, that we can use that to enhance collections,” he said. “And I would expect that collections would continue to be very robust as they were this year.”

He also suggested that those hired from the supplemental funding from the IRA to enhance enforcement has not been effective as he pushed for more reliance on AI and other information technology resources.

There “is nothing that shows historically that by bringing in unseasoned collections agents … results in more collections or high-end collections,” Bessent said. “It would be like sending in a junior high school student to try to a college-level class.”

Another area he highlighted where automation will cover workforce reductions is in the processing of paper returns and other correspondence.

“Last year, the IRS spent approximately $450 million on paper processing, with nearly 6,500 full-time staff dedicated to the task,” he said. “Through policy changes and automation, Treasury aims to reduce this expense to under $20 million by the end of President Trump’s second term.”

Bessent’s testimony before the committee comes in the wake of a May 2, 2025, report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration that highlighted an 11-percent reduction in the IRS workforce as of February 2025. Of those who were separated from federal employment, 31 percent of revenue agents were separated, while 5 percent of information technology management are no longer with the agency.

When questioned about what the IRS will do to ensure an equitable distribution of enforcement action, Bessent stated that the agency is “reviewing the process of who is audited at the IRS. There’s a great deal of politicization of that, so we are trying to stop that, and we are also going to look at distribution of who is audited and why they are audited.”

Bessent also reiterated during the hearing his support of making the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent.

By Gregory Twachtman, Washington News Editor

A taxpayer's passport may be denied or revoked for seriously deliquent tax debt only if the taxpayer's tax liability is legally enforceable. In a decision of first impression, the Tax Court held that its scope of review of the existence of seriously delinquent tax debt is de novo and the court may hear new evidence at trial in addition to the evidence in the IRS's administrative record.

A taxpayer's passport may be denied or revoked for seriously deliquent tax debt only if the taxpayer's tax liability is legally enforceable. In a decision of first impression, the Tax Court held that its scope of review of the existence of seriously delinquent tax debt is de novo and the court may hear new evidence at trial in addition to the evidence in the IRS's administrative record.

The IRS certified the taxpayer's tax liabilities as "seriously delinquent" in 2022. For a tax liability to be considered seriously delinquent, it must be legally enforceable under Code Sec. 7345(b).

The taxpayer's tax liabilities related to tax years 2005 through 2008 and were assessed between 2007 and 2010. The standard collection period for tax liabilities is ten years after assessment, meaning that the taxpayer's liabilities were uncollectible before 2022, unless an exception to the statute of limitations applied. The IRS asserted that the taxpayer's tax liabilities were reduced to judgment in a district court case in 2014, extending the collections period for 20 years from the date of the district court default judgment. The taxpayer maintained that he was never served in the district court case and the judgment in that suit was void.

The Tax Court held that its review of the IRS's certification of the taxpayer's tax debt is de novo, allowing for new evidence beyond the administrative record. A genuine issue of material fact existed whether the taxpayer was served in the district court suit. If not, his tax debts were not legally enforceable as of the 2022 certification, and the Tax Court would find the IRS's certification erroneous. The Tax Court therefore denied the IRS's motion for summary judgment and ordered a trial.

A. Garcia Jr., 164 TC No. 8, Dec. 62,658

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that disaster preparation season is kicking off soon with National Wildfire Awareness Month in May and National Hurricane Preparedness Week between May 4 and 10. Disasters impact individuals and businesses, making year-round preparation crucial. 

The IRS has reminded taxpayers that disaster preparation season is kicking off soon with National Wildfire Awareness Month in May and National Hurricane Preparedness Week between May 4 and 10. Disasters impact individuals and businesses, making year-round preparation crucial. In 2025, FEMA declared 12 major disasters across nine states due to storms, floods, and wildfires. Following are tips from the IRS to taxpayers to help ensure record protection:

• Store original documents like tax returns and birth certificates in a waterproof container;
• keep copies in a separate location or with someone trustworthy. Use flash drives for portable digital backups; and
• use a phone or other devices to record valuable items through photos or videos. This aids insurance or tax claims. IRS Publications 584 and 584-B help list personal or business property.

Further, reconstructing records after a disaster may be necessary for tax purposes, insurance or federal aid. Employers should ensure payroll providers have fiduciary bonds to protect against defaults, as disasters can affect timely federal tax deposits.

IR-2025-55

A decedent's estate was not allowed to deduct payments to his stepchildren as claims against the estate.

A decedent's estate was not allowed to deduct payments to his stepchildren as claims against the estate.

A prenuptial agreement between the decedent and his surviving spouse provided for, among other things, $3 million paid to the spouse's adult children in exchange for the spouse relinquishing other rights. Because the decedent did not amend his will to include the terms provided for in the agreement, the stepchildren sued the estate for payment. The tax court concluded that the payments to the stepchildren were not deductible claims against the estate because they were not "contracted bona fide" or "for an adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth" (R. Spizzirri Est., Dec. 62,171(M), TC Memo 2023-25).

The bona fide requirement prohibits the deduction of transfers that are testamentary in nature. The stepchildren were lineal descendants of the decedent's spouse and were considered family members. The payments were not contracted bona fide because the agreement did not occur in the ordinary course of business and was not free from donative intent. The decedent agreed to the payments to reduce the risk of a costly divorce. In addition, the decedent regularly gave money to at least one of his stepchildren during his life, which indicated his donative intent. The payments were related to the spouse's expectation of inheritance because they were contracted in exchange for her giving up her rights as a surviving spouse. As a results, the payments were not contracted bona fide under Reg. §20.2053-1(b)(2)(ii) and were not deductible as claims against the estate.

R.D. Spizzirri Est., CA-11

The IRS issued interim final regulations on user fees for the issuance of IRS Letter 627, also referred to as an estate tax closing letter. The text of the interim final regulations also serves as the text of proposed regulations.These regulations reduce the amount of the user fee imposed to $56.

The IRS issued interim final regulations on user fees for the issuance of IRS Letter 627, also referred to as an estate tax closing letter. The text of the interim final regulations also serves as the text of proposed regulations.These regulations reduce the amount of the user fee imposed to $56.

Background

In 2021, the Treasury and Service established a $67 user fee for issuing said estate tax closing letter. This figure was based on a 2019 cost model.

In 2023, the IRS conducted a biennial review on the same issue and determined the cost to be $56. The IRS calculates the overhead rate annually based on cost elements underlying the statement of net cost included in the IRS Annual Financial Statements, which are audited by the Government Accountability Office.

Current Rate

For this fee review, the fiscal year (FY) 2023 overhead rate, based on FY 2022 costs, 62.50 percent was used. The IRS determined that processing requests for estate tax closing letters required 9,250 staff hours annually. The average salary and benefits for both IR paybands conducting quality assurance reviews was multiplied by that IR payband’s percentage of processing time to arrive at the $95,460 total cost per FTE.

The Service stated that the $56 fee was not substantial enough to have a significant economic impact on any entities. This guidance does not include any federal mandate that may result in expenditures by state, local, or tribal governments, or by the private sector in excess of that threshold.

T.D. 10031

NPRM REG-107459-24

The Tax Court appropriately dismissed an individual's challenge to his seriously delinquent tax debt certification. The taxpayer argued that his passport was restricted because of that certification. However, the certification had been reversed months before the taxpayer filed this petition. Further, the State Department had not taken any action on the basis of the certification before the taxpayer filed his petition.

The Tax Court appropriately dismissed an individual's challenge to his seriously delinquent tax debt certification. The taxpayer argued that his passport was restricted because of that certification. However, the certification had been reversed months before the taxpayer filed this petition. Further, the State Department had not taken any action on the basis of the certification before the taxpayer filed his petition.

Additionally, the Tax Court correctly dismissed the taxpayer’s challenge to the notices of deficiency as untimely. The taxpayer filed his petition after the 90-day limitation under Code Sec. 6213(a) had passed. Finally, the taxpayer was liable for penalty under Code Sec. 6673(a)(1). The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the taxpayer presented classic tax protester rhetoric and submitted frivolous filings primarily for purposes of delay.

Affirming, per curiam, an unreported Tax Court opinion.

Z.H. Shaikh, CA-3

The IRS has issued final regulations that require taxpayers to reduce the amount any charitable contribution deduction by the amount of any state and local tax (SALT) credit they receive or expect to receive in return. The rules are aimed at preventing taxpayers from getting around the SALT deduction limits. A safe harbor has also been provided to certain individuals to treat any disallowed charitable contribution deduction under this rule as a deductible payment of taxes under Code Sec. 164. The final regulations and the safe harbor apply to charitable contribution payments made after August 27, 2018.

The IRS has issued final regulations that require taxpayers to reduce the amount any charitable contribution deduction by the amount of any state and local tax (SALT) credit they receive or expect to receive in return. The rules are aimed at preventing taxpayers from getting around the SALT deduction limits. A safe harbor has also been provided to certain individuals to treat any disallowed charitable contribution deduction under this rule as a deductible payment of taxes under Code Sec. 164. The final regulations and the safe harbor apply to charitable contribution payments made after August 27, 2018.

SALT Limit

An individual’s itemized deduction of SALT taxes is limited to $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separately) for tax years beginning after 2017. Some states and local governments have adopted laws that allowed individuals to receive a state tax credit for contributions to certain charitable funds. These laws are aimed at getting around the SALT deduction limit by creating a charitable deduction for federal income tax purposes. Regardless of state and local law, however, federal law controls when determining charitable deductions for federal income tax purposes.

Return Benefit

The final regulations generally adopt the rule in proposal regulations ( NPRM REG-112176-18) that the receipt of a SALT credit for a charitable contribution is the receipt of a return benefit (quid pro quo benefit). If a taxpayer makes a payment or transfers property to Code Sec. 170(c) entity, he or she must reduce any charitable contribution deduction for federal income tax purposes if he or she receives or expects to receive a SALT credit in return. A taxpayer is generally is not required to reduce the charitable deduction on account of its receipt of state or local tax deductions. However, the taxpayer must reduce its charitable deduction if it receives or expects to receive state or local tax deductions in excess of the taxpayer’s payment or the fair market value of property transferred.

De Minimis Exception

The final regulations retain the de minimis exception that a taxpayer’s charitable deduction is not reduced if the SALT credits received as a return benefit do not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s charitable payment. The 15-percent exception applies only if the sum of the taxpayer SALT credit received or excepted to receive does not exceed 15 percent of the taxpayer’s payment or of the fair market value of the property transferred.

Safe Harbor

The IRS has also issued Notice 2019-12 providing a safe harbor for certain individuals if any portion of a charitable contribution deduction disallowed due to the receipt of a SALT credit. Under the safe harbor, any disallowed portion of the charitable deduction may be treated as the payment of SALT taxes for the purposes of deducting taxes under Code Sec. 164.

Eligible taxpayers can use the safe harbor to determine their SALT deduction on their tax-year 2018 return. Those who have already filed may be able to claim a greater SALT deduction by filing an amended return if they have not already claimed the $10,000 maximum amount ($5,000 if married filing separately).

Final rules allow employers to use health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) to reimburse employees for the purchase individual insurance coverage, including coverage on an Affordable Care Act Exchange. The rules also allow "excepted benefit HRAs," which would not have to be integrated with any coverage. The rules generally apply for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2020.

Final rules allow employers to use health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) to reimburse employees for the purchase individual insurance coverage, including coverage on an Affordable Care Act Exchange. The rules also allow "excepted benefit HRAs," which would not have to be integrated with any coverage. The rules generally apply for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2020.

HRA Use Expanded

The final rules expand the use of HRAs by:

• allowing integration of an HRA with individual health insurance coverage and thereby satisfy the Affordable Care Act’s annual dollar limit and preventive care cost sharing requirements;

• creating "excepted benefit HRAs" limited in amount and to the types of coverage for which premiums may be reimbursed;

• providing new premium tax credit eligibility rules for individuals who are offered an HRA integrated with individual health insurance coverage;

• clarifying that individual health insurance coverage, the premiums of which are reimbursed by an HRA or qualified small employer HRA (QSEHRA), does not become part of an ERISA plan when certain conditions are met; and

• adding new special enrollment for the individual market for individuals who gain access to HRAs integrated with individual health insurance coverage or who are provided a QSEHRA.

The final regulations add conditions on individual coverage HRAs intended to prevent a negative impact on the individual market.

Integration With Individual Coverage

Almost any employer can satisfy Affordable Care Act reimbursement requirements by having employees buy their own individual coverage. An employers may integrate an HRA with individual health coverage only if:

• participants and dependents are actually enrolled in individual health insurance coverage (though not coverage that consists solely of excepted benefits) for each month they are covered by the HRA;

• coverage is offered to a class of employees to whom a traditional group health plan is not offered;

• coverage is offered on the same terms in amount and conditions to all employees within each class (though certain variations based on age are allowed);

• an opt out option is provided for individuals who prefer Affordable Care Act Exchange coverage, but would not be eligible for the premium tax credit if enrolled in an employer health plan such as an HRA; and

• substantiation and notice requirements are met.

To guard against adverse selection, the final rules add a minimum class size requirement that will apply to certain classes of employees in certain instances. Classes of employees may include full-time employees; part-time employees; seasonal employees; employees who are included in a unit of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement in which the plan sponsor participates; employees who have not satisfied a waiting period for coverage; employees who have not attained age 25 prior to the beginning of the plan year; nonresident aliens with no U.S.-based income; employees whose primary site of employment is in the same rating area; and groups combining any of these classes of employee.

Excepted Benefit HRAs

An employer that wants to offer an HRA that is not integrated with non-HRA group coverage, Medicare, TRICARE, or individual health insurance coverage may do so as an excepted benefit. As excepted benefits, these HRAs would not be subject to the employer group plan rules, including the market reforms under the Affordable Care Act. An excepted benefit HRA:

• must not be an integral part of the plan;

• must provide benefits that are limited in amount ($1,800 per year, adjusted for inflation after 2020);

• cannot provide reimbursement for premiums for certain health insurance coverage; and

• must be made available under the same terms to all similarly situated individuals.