Everyone who retires from a school district or university not covering employees for Social Security (SS) is subject to GPO. Under a new law - effective July 1, 2004 - if you retire from a school district or university that covers employees for SS and have worked there the last five years you are not subject to GPO. Why is this a big deal? The GPO is a calculation that reduces your SS benefit by two-thirds of your TRS benefit. In many cases the GPO will reduce your SS benefit to zero!

Retirees of TRS are also subject to Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) if the years at a TRS and SS covered institution are less than 30. WEP is a method to calculate SS benefits without giving a larger benefit to low income workers. Current SS benefits are increased for workers that are considered "low income" -- to eliminate higher benefits paid to those who may have maintained summer or part-time jobs to get the minimum 40 quarters for SS the WEP was enacted.

Retirees who worked their entire careers at a charter school or worker at a school having both TRS and SS AND worked 30 years are not subject to either GPO or WEP.

Spousal and survivor benefits are also covered by the GPO and in many cases reduce the SS benefit to zero.

These rules are rather complicated and if you have questions, give us a call. The Association of Texas Professional Educators has a good website that explains the rules and calculations in greater detail (http://www.atpe.org).

A quick note about Medicare coverage. Anyone with at least 30 quarters of service is eligible to be covered at age 65. Those with less than 40 quarters, or not eligible to receive SS benefits, must pay monthly premiums to receive coverage.

--Paul Ask, CPA

We think that QHDHPs will be growing in availability as time goes on with more insurance companies providing this product. We also think more employers will switch to these as they look for ways to reduce their insurance costs. One trend that was quoted in a seminar we attended was that "higher risk to insure people" have been the first to embrace these products. That makes it unclear if initially the cost of insurance will be competitive on these products, but as they grow in popularity the pool should grow and the costs decrease.

-- Paul Ask, CPA

Not everyone is eligible for a Roth IRA - you must have earned income - sweat of the brow - and the availability is phased out for those with income above $95,000 for single and $150,000 for married filing jointly. Beginning in 2005 the maximum contribution limit is $4,000 with an extra $500 for those 50 years of age and above.

-- Paul Ask, CPA

1 - An FLP is a limited partnership like any other limited partnership -- except only family members are owners.

2 - Income tax treatment is no different from any other limited partnership.

3 - If you set out to use it to save estate and gift tax - you will lose your case.

That being said, a FLP is still a good vehicle to use for other valid reasons. The main reasons to use a FLP are for multiple ownership with central control and to keep an asset(s) together for management. Assets could include real estate (farm land, apartments, commercial buildings, raw land, etc) or investments (stocks, bonds, etc.) Sometimes because of a diverse family situation such as farmers and city dwellers, the owners may have differing views and individually owned land may cause a farm to be sold. In order to prevent this, a parent may put the land in a FLP to preserve the family farm. You may have a large investment portfolio and to prevent it from being split-up thereby losing the economies of scale and lower investment management fees, it can put into a FLP. The FLP will generally have language that forbids owners from mortgaging their portion, selling or transferring their portion or otherwise threatening the FLP as a unit. The FLP should have mandatory income distributions to give all owners a true economic interest.

So why is it that a FLP is "sold" as an estate tax savings device? The answer --the asset has been impeded. The whole reason to set this up is to make it difficult to split apart -- to carry the wishes of those setting it up to another generation. First the ones setting it up are giving up total control over the assets and spreading the control to other family members who have differing opinions. You cannot take it back! Second the one receiving an ownership interest does not have full say so over the use of the asset. These two factors need to be considered carefully before creating a FLP.

An attorney familiar with a FLP needs to be used for the set up. The reasons for setting up an FLP need to be carefully considered and then the reasons need to be carefully documented. If gifting is intended, a qualified appraiser must be used to value any gifts. This may be each year depending upon the frequency of the gift. Lastly, the FLP should be reviewed no less than annually and preferable quarterly for asset management and applicable law changes.

See how simple that is! If you have questions, please fee free to call or email the office.

-- Paul Ask, CPA

The IRS has issued final regulations modifying reporting obligations for partnerships involved in Code Sec. 751(a) exchanges of partnership interests. The regulations remove the requirement that partnerships furnish transferors with certain information relating to unrealized receivables and inventory items by January 31 following the exchange year. The regulations are effective for returns filed for tax years ending on or after May 20, 2026.

The IRS has issued final regulations modifying reporting obligations for partnerships involved in Code Sec. 751(a) exchanges of partnership interests. The regulations remove the requirement that partnerships furnish transferors with certain information relating to unrealized receivables and inventory items by January 31 following the exchange year. The regulations are effective for returns filed for tax years ending on or after May 20, 2026.

Under Code Sec. 6050K, partnerships must file Form 8308, Report of a Sale or Exchange of Certain Partnership Interests, for transfers involving Code Sec. 751(a) property. The IRS and Treasury Department received comments that many partnerships could not determine the information required for Part IV of Form 8308 by the January 31 furnishing deadline. As a result, the final regulations remove Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(2) and revise Reg. §1.6050K-1(c)(1) to permit partnerships to furnish Form 8308 completed in accordance with the form instructions.

Although partnerships are no longer required to furnish Part IV information to transferors and transferees by January 31, they must still file a completed Form 8308, including Part IV, with Form 1065. The IRS finalized the regulations without substantive changes from the proposed regulations issued in 2025.

T.D. 10048

The IRS has issued guidance on qualified long-term care distributions from qualified retirement plans. The guidance affects providers of certified long-term care insurance (issuers), plan administrators, and individual participants receiving qualified long-term care distributions. The IRS also extended the general deadline for amending a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions to December 31, 2027.

The IRS has issued guidance on qualified long-term care distributions from qualified retirement plans. The guidance affects providers of certified long-term care insurance (issuers), plan administrators, and individual participants receiving qualified long-term care distributions. The IRS also extended the general deadline for amending a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions to December 31, 2027.

Background

The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0 Act), permitted defined contribution plans to make qualified long-term care distributions, effective for distributions made after December 29, 2025. The 10 percent additional tax on early distributions would not apply to distributions under Code Sec. 401(a)(39). However, a qualified long-term care distribution would be included in the taxpayer’s gross income.

Disclosure Requirements

The guidance addresses content requirements and procedures for submitting an Issuer Disclosure to the IRS. There is no general deadline for submitting an Issuer Disclosure. However, an issuer must submit an Issuer Disclosure to the IRS before the issuer can file a long-term care premium statement with a defined contribution plan.

Distribution Requirements

Under the guidance, the plan administrator is permitted to rely on the issuer’s statement and the information provided on the long-term care premium statement in making a qualified long-term care distribution. It is optional for a plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions, but the exception to the 10% additional tax only applies if the plan permits qualified long-term care distributions, even if the employee uses a distribution to pay for long-term care insurance. Unlike other permitted distributions, a qualified long-term care distribution would not be eligible for an extended 3-year repayment to a retirement plan.

Reporting Requirements

The payment of a qualified long-term care distribution to an employee must be reported by the payor on Form 1099-R, Distributions from Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc.

Further, issuers must make a return to the IRS using Form 1099-LPS, Long-Term Care Premiums Paid Statement. The issuer will report the long-term care premiums paid for the calendar year. The Form 1099-LPS must be filed with the IRS no later than February 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year the long-term care premium statement was filed with the plan.

Deadline Extension

The guidance extends the deadline for a plan sponsor of a defined contribution plan that is not a governmental plan, a section 403(b) plan maintained by a public school, or an applicable collectively bargained plan, to amend its plan to permit qualified long-term care distributions from December 31, 2026, to December 31, 2027. The deadlines to amend defined contribution plans that are applicable collectively bargained plans or governmental plans remain as provided in Notice 2024-02. Thus, Notice 2024-2, I.R.B. 2024-2, 316, is modified in part.

Notice 2026-33

The IRS finalized regulations treating income derived by individual members of an Indian tribe from fishing rights-related activities as compensation for purposes of limitations on benefits and contributions under a qualified retirement plan. These regulations are effective for plan years beginning on or after May 4, 2026, and affect participants, beneficiaries, sponsors, and administrators of Tribal plans.

The IRS finalized regulations treating income derived by individual members of an Indian tribe from fishing rights-related activities as compensation for purposes of limitations on benefits and contributions under a qualified retirement plan. These regulations are effective for plan years beginning on or after May 4, 2026, and affect participants, beneficiaries, sponsors, and administrators of Tribal plans.

Fishing rights-related income is exempt from federal income tax and employment tax under Code Sec. 7873. However, proposed reliance regulations would allow contributions to be made to qualified retirement plans based on fishing rights-related income. Also, plans that accept contributions of fishing rights-related income may still use safe harbor definitions of compensation. The IRS finalized this rule as proposed without material modification.

Although the final rule is somewhat limited in scope, the IRS addressed additional issues in the preamble. The IRS clarified that plan contributions attributable to a Tribal employee's fishing rights-related activiity is treated as investment in the contract under Code Sec. 72 . Thus, distributions of the amount contributed would generally be tax-free (subject to basis recovery rules) and distributions attributable to earnings would be taxable. The IRS also indicated that plans that permit designated Roth contributions may allow contributions attributable to fishing rights-related activity to be made on a Roth basis.

T.D. 10046

The IRS has introduced a streamlined option allowing taxpayers to extend the time to challenge disallowed Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims, reducing the need for immediate refund litigation. The measure applies to taxpayers who received Letter 105-C or 106-C, are awaiting review by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and have six months or less remaining in the statutory two-year period.

The IRS has introduced a streamlined option allowing taxpayers to extend the time to challenge disallowed Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims, reducing the need for immediate refund litigation. The measure applies to taxpayers who received Letter 105-C or 106-C, are awaiting review by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals and have six months or less remaining in the statutory two-year period.

Taxpayers generally have two years from the disallowance notice to resolve the claim or file a refund suit, but an administrative appeal does not suspend this deadline. Once the period expires, the IRS cannot issue a refund even if the taxpayer later prevails. To address this, eligible taxpayers may execute Form 907, Agreement to Extend the Time to Bring Suit, provided it is signed by both parties before the limitation period ends.

The IRS now permits submission of Form 907 through its Document Upload Tool, with qualifying requests reviewed and confirmed in writing. While the IRS is issuing notices to eligible taxpayers, others meeting the criteria may also apply. The agency indicated that the initiative is intended to preserve taxpayer rights and facilitate administrative resolution of ERC disputes.

The IRS has established a significant issue ruling program for cerain corporate transactions (Rev. Proc. 2026-21). This program would not diminish the availability of letter rulings under existing programs. This procedure modifies and amplifies the ruling procedures provided in Rev. Proc. 2026-1, I.R.B. 2026-1, 1, and Rev. Proc. 2026-3, I.R.B. 2026-1, 143.

The IRS has established a significant issue ruling program for cerain corporate transactions (Rev. Proc. 2026-21). This program would not diminish the availability of letter rulings under existing programs. This procedure modifies and amplifies the ruling procedures provided in Rev. Proc. 2026-1, I.R.B. 2026-1, 1, and Rev. Proc. 2026-3, I.R.B. 2026-1, 143.

The significant issue ruling program allows taxpayers to request rulings on one or more issues that:

• are solely under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate);
• are significant issues, as defined in section 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 2026-21; and
• involve the tax consequences or characterization of a transaction (or part of a transaction) that is described in Code Sec. 332, 351, 355, 368, or 1036.

Significant Issue Ruling Program

Taxpayers may request, and the IRS may issue, a ruling on part of an integrated transaction described in the above provisions, or a ruling on a particular legal issue under a section of the Code or regulations with respect to a transaction (or part thereof) rather than a ruling that addresses all aspects of that section (or any other section) with respect to the transaction (or part thereof).

In addition, the IRS may rule on the tax consequences resulting from integrated transactions described in the above provisions to the extent that a significant issue is presented under related Code sections that address such tax consequences.

A significant issue generally is a germane and specific issue of law, provided that a ruling on the issue would not be a comfort ruling or the conclusion in such a ruling otherwise would not be essentially free from doubt.

The requests for ruling must contain (1) narrative description of the transaction that puts the significant issue in context; (2) statement identifying the issue; (3) analysis of the solvability of issue; and more.

Effect on Other Documents

Rev. Proc. 2026-1 and Rev. Proc. 2026-3 are modified and amplified.

Effective Date

The significant issue ruling program applies to all letter ruling requests described in section 4.01 of Rev. Proc. 2026-21 postmarked or, if not mailed, received by the IRS after May 5, 2026.

Rev. Proc. 2026-21

Other References:

• Code Sec. 332
• CCH Reference - FED ¶16,052.188

Other References:

• Code Sec. 351
• CCH Reference - FED ¶16,405.48

Other References:

• Code Sec. 355
• CCH Reference - FED ¶16,466.923

Other References:

• Code Sec. 368
• CCH Reference - FED ¶16,753.53

Other References:

• Code Sec. 1036
• CCH Reference - FED ¶29,702.11

The IRS has announced a new time-limited settlement opportunity for eligible taxpayers involved in conservation easement and historic preservation easement disputes with the IRS. The program aims to resolve cases faster and on terms that are generally more favorable than recent Tax Court decisions.

The IRS has announced a new time-limited settlement opportunity for eligible taxpayers involved in conservation easement and historic preservation easement disputes with the IRS. The program aims to resolve cases faster and on terms that are generally more favorable than recent Tax Court decisions. Since 2020, the IRS has settled 405 cases through earlier initiatives, although taxpayers still had to pay penalties and were allowed only limited deductions for certain out-of-pocket costs. More than 1,100 conservation easement cases currently remain pending before the IRS and the Tax Court. Under the new initiative, many eligible partnerships will not have to make an upfront payment to participate. In addition, taxpayers whose earlier settlement offers expired or were rejected may now have another chance to resolve their cases, while some partnerships that were not previously eligible may also qualify. IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said Congress created the conservation easement deduction to encourage legitimate preservation efforts rather than tax shelters based on inflated property values.

The IRS said partnerships that accept the offer during the initial 90-day period generally will not be allowed a charitable contribution deduction, but they may qualify for a limited deduction tied to certain out-of-pocket expenses. Those partnerships generally would face a 10 percent gross valuation misstatement penalty, while partnerships settling during an additional 45-day period generally would face a 20 percent penalty. Interest also will continue to accrue as required by law. At the same time, the IRS noted that courts have repeatedly reduced claimed deductions and upheld significant penalties in conservation easement disputes. Certain cases, such as those already tried or currently under appeal, will not qualify for the initiative. The IRS added that eligibility will depend on the status and specific facts of each case.

Following a 2026 tax filing season that was consistent with the 2025 season, the American Institute of CPAs offered legislators a series of recommendations to help improve filing season in the future.

Following a 2026 tax filing season that was consistent with the 2025 season, the American Institute of CPAs offered legislators a series of recommendations to help improve filing season in the future.

“Based on limited and anecdotal information, many practitioners noted that the IRS appeared to operating consistently compared with the prior year’s service,” AICPA said in a recent letter to the Senate Finance Committee’s top leadership following a hearing on the 2026 tax filing season, adding that data currently available shows “tax return processing remained relatively consistent, though the quality of telephone services appeared to vary depending on the hotline.”

AICPA did observe that while Internal Revenue Service modernization efforts have allowed for consistent customer service levels compared to recent prior years, “IRS customer service has not returned to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels according to IRS data and the AICPA’s most recent annual membership survey.”

With that, the industry organization offered recommendations in the areas of governance and oversight, taxpayer services, and dedicated practitioner services.

In the area of IRS governance and oversight, AICPA recommended the following:

• Requiring a Government Accountability Office review to determine whether a private sector board with sufficient authority to hold the IRS accountable and oversee implementation of key recommendations from advisory groups;
• Re-establish the annual joint hearing review to focus on strategic and business plans, taxpayer service and compliance, technology and modernization, and the filing season; and
• The Joint Committee on Taxation should provide a bi-annual report on the overall state of the Federal tax system.

In the area of taxpayer service, the following recommendations were offered:

• Hire more qualified and experienced professionals from the private sector, adequately train all agency employees, skillfully manage IRS resources, and ensure organizational alignment between Congress, the executive branch, and the IRS;
• Congress should determine what the appropriate level of service is and then ensure that the appropriate resources are allocated to achieve that level;
• Continue to improve the technology infrastructure modernization; and
• Effectively utilize customer satisfaction surveys to assess IRS performance, improve the taxpayer experience, and effectuate modernization efforts or process improvement.

AICPA pushed for the passage of the Taxpayer Assistance and Services Act, which it states “would significantly improve IRS services, reinforce fairness and transparency in our tax system, and reduce tax administrative burdens on taxpayers and practitioners, including many critical tax provisions for which AICPA has previously advocated.”

In the area of dedicated practitioner services, AICPA recommended:

• Create consolidated dedicated “executive-level” practitioner services comparable to private sector services that are implemented and adapted based on practitioner feedback solicited periodically; and
• Continue to expand the functionality of a robust and enhanced tax professional account as part of the IRS’s online portal with account access to all of a practitioner’s client information, allowing for IRS to communicate directly with authorized practitioners, enable a centralized login system, and prioritize the protection and privacy of user identities and data;
• Provide practitioners with a robust practitioner priority hotline with high-skilled employees capable of resolving complex technical and procedural issues; and
• Assign customer service representatives to each geographic area to address unusual or complex issues that practitioners were unable to resolve through the priority hotlines.

The letter to the Senate Finance Committee leadership and other AICPA 2026 tax policy and advocacy comment letter can be found here.