Photo of Elizabeth Julia Smith

On May 12, 2020, the IRS released proposed regulations (REG-104591) affecting the deductibility of payments made to governments in settlement of alleged violations of law. The proposed regulations interpret Sections 162(f) and 6050X of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), as amended and introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), respectively.

Tax controversy group co-founder and tax partner Kat Gregor, tax controversy counsel Elizabeth Smith, tax controversy associate Isabelle Farrar and associate Andrew Yarrows recently co-authored an article that appeared in Bloomberg Tax. The article outlines some practical considerations for taxpayers and their advisers in light of federal and state taxing authorities’ enforcement-related responses to COVID-19.

The IRS launched a compliance campaign targeting issues arising out of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) on May 1, 2020. The Large Business & International Division (“LB&I”) has released a number of issue-based compliance campaigns in recent years, including one targeting the so-called repatriation tax enacted under the TCJA in Internal Revenue

In a recent Law360 article, tax controversy counsel Elizabeth Smith, health care partner Jennifer Romig, health care associate Whitney Wadman and tax and benefits law clerk Jenna Grove examine how digital health companies can diagnose sales tax rules.

As digital health technologies and sales tax regimes evolve, digital health companies must evaluate their sales tax

On January 17, 2020, a federal district court in Washington ordered Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) to produce many documents to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) that Microsoft asserted were privileged. Microsoft had argued that most of the documents were protected by protected by the work product doctrine and the federally authorized tax practitioner privilege set forth

On December 19, 2019, in a split decision in Texas v. United States, the Fifth Circuit held that the Individual Mandate (“Mandate”) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) became unconstitutional when Congress zeroed out the penalty, but vacated the district court’s decision that the ACA itself was unconstitutional without the Mandate.