No Result
View All Result
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLES
  • Login
Thursday, October 9, 2025
TheAdviserMagazine.com
  • Home
  • Financial Planning
    • Financial Planning
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Research
    • Business
    • Investing
    • Money
    • Economy
    • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Trading
  • 401k Plans
  • College
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Estate Plans
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Legal
  • Home
  • Financial Planning
    • Financial Planning
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Research
    • Business
    • Investing
    • Money
    • Economy
    • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Trading
  • 401k Plans
  • College
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Estate Plans
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Legal
No Result
View All Result
TheAdviserMagazine.com
No Result
View All Result
Home IRS & Taxes

A court challenge to IRS guidance

by TheAdviserMagazine
3 months ago
in IRS & Taxes
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
A court challenge to IRS guidance
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LInkedIn


Case: Stenson Tamaddon LLC v. IRS, No. CV-24-01123-PHX-SPL, 2025 WL 1725942 (D. Ariz. June 20, 2025)

On June 20, 2025, the US District Court for the District of Arizona denied a motion for summary judgment that was filed by Stenson Tamaddon LLC (StenTam). The tax advisory firm argued that IRS Notice 2021-20, which provided informal guidance on claiming the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), was invalid because it was a “legislative rule” that was not promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court ruled that while StenTam had standing to challenge the validity of the notice, the notice was an “interpretive rule” and its issuance as such did not violate the APA. The court also addressed StenTam’s arguments that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the notice and that it acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

Background on the Employee Retention Credit

The ERC was enacted in 2020 as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act to provide financial relief to businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress’s goal was to incentivize businesses experiencing significant disruptions because of COVID-19-related government orders or a substantial decline in gross receipts to retain employees on payroll and rehire displaced workers. The ERC is calculated as a percentage of qualified wages paid to employees during periods in 2020 and 2021.

Millions of employers have filed refund claims seeking ERC. Since the enactment of the CARES Act, the IRS has issued roughly $269 billion in ERC. However, more than 200,000 claims have been disallowed, reversed, or recaptured, and another 592,000 remain pending as of late April 2025. To the frustration of many, taxpayers whose claims have been processed in 2025 waited an average of more than 18 months before the IRS took action. According to a recent report from the Taxpayer Advocate Service, the IRS will need until at least the end of 2025 to process all remaining ERC claims. However, the IRS may still seek to recapture refunds relating to ERC claims well into the future.

IRS Notice 2021-20

A 102-page document presented in “question-and-answer” format, the IRS published Notice 2021-20 in March 2021 with the intention to “provide[ ] guidance on the [ERC] . . . .” In its suit, StenTam alleged that the notice “defined various terms in Section 3134 [providing for the ERC], identified factors or elements necessary to claim the credit, set minimum thresholds for recovery of ERC, and imposed new, related record-keeping requirements—all of which resulted in the ERC being restricted to a lesser number of businesses than originally contemplated by Congress.” The parties disputed whether the notice created substantive duties and restrictions that carry the force of law. Under the APA, agencies are generally required to follow notice and comment rulemaking procedures before issuing guidance that creates such duties or restrictions.

StenTam’s challenge to Notice 2021-20

StenTam is a tax services firm that advises clients claiming ERC. The firm contended that its business was harmed as a result of Notice 2021-20 and filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the notice be set aside.

StenTam argued that the notice was a “legislative rule” that the IRS issued without following notice and comment rulemaking procedures as required by the APA. In its motion, StenTam discussed three ways in which the notice imposed substantive duties or restrictions. First, the notice imposed limits on the types of businesses that qualify as “eligible employer[s].” Second, the notice narrowed the scope of governmental suspension orders whose issuance would create eligibility for a taxpayer to claim ERC. And third, the notice imposed recordkeeping requirements to claim and prove eligibility for the credit.

Eligible employers. Section 3134 requires that an eligible employer operate a “trade or business.” The notice excludes household employers from this definition because, according to the IRS, they do not operate a “trade or business” as the statute requires. StenTam argued that this requirement was a substantive provision that rendered the notice legislative (as opposed to interpretive) in nature.

Governmental suspension orders. Section 3134 provides that an employer is eligible for the ERC only if its business operations were “fully or partially suspended . . . due to orders from an appropriate governmental authority.” The notice stated that a business had suffered a partial suspension of operations if the disruption resulting from a COVID-19 governmental order affected “more than a nominal portion” of its operations. The notice introduced a safe harbor whereby businesses could meet the partial suspension test if the order caused a 10% reduction in either gross receipts or employee service hours. The notice defines “orders from an appropriate governmental authority” to mean orders from the federal government or a state or local government with jurisdiction over an employer’s operations. StenTam argued that the IRS’s selection of a 10% threshold for the “partially suspended” safe harbor and its attempt to define “orders from an appropriate governmental authority” were inconsistent with Congress’s intent and in any event imposed the sorts of restrictions on ERC claims that required the IRS to have first engaged in notice and comment rulemaking procedures (which it did not).

Recordkeeping requirements. StenTam also argued that the notice imposed additional recordkeeping requirements on businesses claiming ERC and that these supposed requirements lacked basis in the legislation that was enacted.

Opportunities for employers and their tax advisers

While the case generally affirmed the IRS’s position, the court left several paths open to businesses whose interests are hampered by the notice. First, the court noted that, because the notice is an interpretive rule, it does not have a binding effect on taxpayers. Thus, if a taxpayer were to litigate its claim for ERC, the notice’s provisions do not have precedential effect when the IRS argues against allowance of a claim.

Second, the court characterized the notice’s “nominal portion” standard as flexible. In its interpretation of that standard, the notice introduced the 10% safe harbor. Although the court upheld the safe harbor, the court emphasized that a taxpayer may still qualify for ERC even if it did not meet the 10% threshold, and that the IRS’s determination of eligibility in a given case depends on an analysis of the prevailing facts and circumstances. The court also noted that if the IRS were to consistently disallow taxpayers’ claims that did not meet the safe harbor, future taxpayers (or their advisers) might be successful in arguing that the IRS is effectively treating the safe harbor as a binding rule instead of an interpretive one.

Third, the court noted that the case was “a close call” because of the difficulty of distinguishing between legislative and interpretive rules. It also acknowledged that the IRS’s administrative management of the ERC had effected a “financial toll” on taxpayers. Such commentary by the court may be helpful for StenTam’s potential arguments on appeal. It may also create an opening for courts outside of the District of Arizona to reach different conclusions about the validity of the notice and/or its individual provisions.

Practice point: Congress enacted tax-based relief, including enacting the ERC, to mitigate the worst financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The IRS quickly issued guidance to clarify the program’s rules. But as the court’s opinion in StenTam suggests, certain applications of this guidance may be inconsistent with other laws that serve to protect taxpayers. Consequently, taxpayers still seeking ERC, as well as those whose claims have been disallowed or are subject to recapture, and the firms advising them should be prepared to litigate their individual claims and/or challenge agency guidance that does not comport with the statute and Congress’s goals of providing relief to COVID-19-affected businesses.

Carolyn Daly, a former summer associate in the Washington, DC, office, also contributed to this blog post.



Source link

Tags: challengecourtguidanceIRS
ShareTweetShare
Previous Post

Inflation expectations drift back down to pre-tariff levels, New York Fed survey shows

Next Post

Optima Tax Relief Celebrates 14 Years of Service: A Legacy of Taxpayer Advocacy and Impact

Related Posts

edit post
How Top Firms Onboard Clients in Half the Time

How Top Firms Onboard Clients in Half the Time

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 8, 2025
0

Speakers: Onboarding is one of the biggest time drains in most firms...but it doesn't have to be. In this session,...

edit post
IRS Operations During the 2025 Government Shutdown

IRS Operations During the 2025 Government Shutdown

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 8, 2025
0

If you filed an extension for your 2024 taxes, you might be worried about how the recent federal government shutdown...

edit post
A practical roadmap for indirect tax leaders

A practical roadmap for indirect tax leaders

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 8, 2025
0

Indirect tax has never been more consequential or more complex. Real-time reporting, e-invoicing mandates, and the expansion of digital business...

edit post
IRS roundup: September 19 – October 1, 2025

IRS roundup: September 19 – October 1, 2025

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 8, 2025
0

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for September 19, 2025 –...

edit post
Dr. Miguel Correia: Future of EU Tax Mix

Dr. Miguel Correia: Future of EU Tax Mix

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 8, 2025
0

In September of 2024, I had the opportunity to interview Professor of TaxA tax is a mandatory payment or charge...

edit post
You Can’t Raise What You Didn’t Know: The Variance Doctrine – Houston Tax Attorneys

You Can’t Raise What You Didn’t Know: The Variance Doctrine – Houston Tax Attorneys

by TheAdviserMagazine
October 7, 2025
0

Our income tax system uses a self-reporting process. Taxpayers, in most cases, voluntarily file income tax returns. The IRS can...

Next Post
edit post
Optima Tax Relief Celebrates 14 Years of Service: A Legacy of Taxpayer Advocacy and Impact

Optima Tax Relief Celebrates 14 Years of Service: A Legacy of Taxpayer Advocacy and Impact

edit post
Coffee Break: Armed Madhouse – The Stab in the Back

Coffee Break: Armed Madhouse - The Stab in the Back

  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
edit post
What Happens If a Spouse Dies Without a Will in North Carolina?

What Happens If a Spouse Dies Without a Will in North Carolina?

September 14, 2025
edit post
Pennsylvania House of Representatives Rejects Update to Child Custody Laws

Pennsylvania House of Representatives Rejects Update to Child Custody Laws

October 7, 2025
edit post
Does a Will Need to Be Notarized in North Carolina?

Does a Will Need to Be Notarized in North Carolina?

September 8, 2025
edit post
DACA recipients no longer eligible for Marketplace health insurance and subsidies

DACA recipients no longer eligible for Marketplace health insurance and subsidies

September 11, 2025
edit post
Tips to Apply for Mental Health SSDI Without Therapy

Tips to Apply for Mental Health SSDI Without Therapy

September 19, 2025
edit post
What to Do When a Loved One Dies in North Carolina

What to Do When a Loved One Dies in North Carolina

October 8, 2025
edit post
Levi Strauss signals 6% organic net revenue growth for 2025 while raising EPS outlook (NYSE:LEVI)

Levi Strauss signals 6% organic net revenue growth for 2025 while raising EPS outlook (NYSE:LEVI)

0
edit post
A practical roadmap for indirect tax leaders

A practical roadmap for indirect tax leaders

0
edit post
The Debt Ceiling: A Nation Divided and Indebted Cannot Stand

The Debt Ceiling: A Nation Divided and Indebted Cannot Stand

0
edit post
Small Personal Loans: How to Get a ,000 Loan or Less

Small Personal Loans: How to Get a $1,000 Loan or Less

0
edit post
Google Autocomplete: How a Few Words Shape Entire Reputations

Google Autocomplete: How a Few Words Shape Entire Reputations

0
edit post
8 S&P 500 Bargains Showing Early Signs of Explosive Rebounds

8 S&P 500 Bargains Showing Early Signs of Explosive Rebounds

0
edit post
Levi Strauss signals 6% organic net revenue growth for 2025 while raising EPS outlook (NYSE:LEVI)

Levi Strauss signals 6% organic net revenue growth for 2025 while raising EPS outlook (NYSE:LEVI)

October 9, 2025
edit post
New York AG Letitia James charged in mortgage fraud investigation

New York AG Letitia James charged in mortgage fraud investigation

October 9, 2025
edit post
How RIAs use LinkedIn and other social media

How RIAs use LinkedIn and other social media

October 9, 2025
edit post
Biogen – BIIB: Leqembi erhält Zulassungen in China & Australien!

Biogen – BIIB: Leqembi erhält Zulassungen in China & Australien!

October 9, 2025
edit post
Luxembourg sets precedent with first eurozone Bitcoin allocation in national fund

Luxembourg sets precedent with first eurozone Bitcoin allocation in national fund

October 9, 2025
edit post
I Pay ,800 for Daycare on a ,200 Salary—but Still Save 0 Monthly

I Pay $1,800 for Daycare on a $4,200 Salary—but Still Save $570 Monthly

October 9, 2025
The Adviser Magazine

The first and only national digital and print magazine that connects individuals, families, and businesses to Fee-Only financial advisers, accountants, attorneys and college guidance counselors.

CATEGORIES

  • 401k Plans
  • Business
  • College
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Economy
  • Estate Plans
  • Financial Planning
  • Investing
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Legal
  • Market Analysis
  • Markets
  • Medicare
  • Money
  • Personal Finance
  • Social Security
  • Startups
  • Stock Market
  • Trading

LATEST UPDATES

  • Levi Strauss signals 6% organic net revenue growth for 2025 while raising EPS outlook (NYSE:LEVI)
  • New York AG Letitia James charged in mortgage fraud investigation
  • How RIAs use LinkedIn and other social media
  • Our Great Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use, Legal Notices & Disclosures
  • Contact us
  • About Us

© Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved
See articles for original source and related links to external sites.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Financial Planning
    • Financial Planning
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Research
    • Business
    • Investing
    • Money
    • Economy
    • Markets
    • Stocks
    • Trading
  • 401k Plans
  • College
  • IRS & Taxes
  • Estate Plans
  • Social Security
  • Medicare
  • Legal

© Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved
See articles for original source and related links to external sites.