Podcasts about bloomberg tax

The Republican-led Senate Finance Committee unveiled its portion of the mammoth tax-and-spending legislation that's quickly moving through Congress, and there's a lot to unpack. The Senate bill has dozens of differences from the House version. It makes several business breaks permanent, softens the excise tax on university endowments, and phases out more slowly cuts to clean energy credits, while smoothing edges on the so-called "revenge tax." But there are many similarities in the approaches the two bills take—both have tax breaks on income such as tips and overtime sought by President Donald Trump, and seek to extend much of the 2017 GOP tax law. Things are moving quickly as the Senate aims to pass its version out of its chamber before the July 4 break. In this week's episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax reporter Chris Cioffi speaks with host David Schultz on what's in the bill, what's left out, and where Congress goes from here. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Recent layoff announcements at Big Four accounting, tax, and consulting firms come as the industry faces economic uncertainty and a shrinking talent pool. The accounting profession is at a crossroads as a new class of students graduate. While recent data shows heightened interest in both undergraduate and master's degree programs, the industry faces possible disruptions like workforce reductions and emerging artificial intelligence tools. Deloitte LLP announced in April it would lay off government consulting employees as the Trump administration slashed federal contracts. The firm said in a statement the personnel actions were based on its public-sector clients' "evolving needs," among other factors. PwC LLP plans to cut roughly 1,500 jobs, many in its tax and assurance practices, the firm said last month, after two years of historically low levels of turnover. The firm plans to slow down its campus recruiting and will offer fewer internships for next year. But PwC announced this week it plans to reorganize its US advisory business, doubling the number of divisions from four to eight. The move "is being approached from a position of strength," according to a statement from PwC US advisory leader Tyson Cornell. Peter Demerjian is the director of the school of accountancy at Georgia State University. Namaan Mian is the chief operating officer at Management Consulted, a professional training and coaching organization. Demerjian and Mian spoke with Bloomberg Tax reporter Jorja Siemons about the recent layoffs, the industry's embrace of AI, and potential impacts on the industry's next generation. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The “revenge” tax provision that's in the giant tax bill working its way through Congress has a lot of people worried. Known as Section 899, the provision would impose stiff, retaliatory tax rates on companies and people from countries that the US deems to be imposing "unfair" and "discriminatory" taxes against US companies. It was included in the version of the bill House Republicans narrowly passed last month, and now gets Senate attention. The aim of Section 899 is to push those countries into changing their policies, but many observers fear the move would lead to lower foreign investment in the US, costing American jobs and cutting into economic growth. That's not the only reason for concern. Financial markets are worried about the retaliatory tax's potential impact on the value of US assets. Some observers think Section 899 would damage the US's longstanding reputation as a stable, reliable place for global companies to do business and for global investors to put their money, On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Michael Rapoport explains the retaliatory-tax proposal and discusses its prospects for becoming law. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

House Republicans are moving quickly to get a massive tax-and-spending package across the finish line before week's end even as they negotiate with party factions over outstanding concerns. Some Republicans are demanding deeper cuts to social programs like Medicaid to curb deficits as part of the deal and to reduce the package's cost to extend the 2017 tax overhaul. And yet the bill increases the debt limit by $4 trillion and adds billions in spending. Cut out of the process, Democrats oppose the proposal, and even some Republicans have objected to its size and scope. Regardless of where lawmakers fall on the political spectrum, they all seem to agree on one data source: What the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has to say about the package and what it will do to the national deficit, which now stands at over $36 trillion. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax reporter Chris Cioffi talks with Maya MacGuineas, longtime president of the nonprofit public policy group, and digs into why the growing debt can be problematic for future economic growth. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The IRS right now isn't the same agency it was at the start of this year. That's because about 20% of IRS workers have signaled they want to leave or have been fired. The ripple effects of this exodus could go far, not just for the IRS itself, but for businesses and individual taxpayers trying to file their returns. Roughly half of the 30 people at the top of the IRS organizational chart have left, many because of Trump administration decisions that stretch boundaries of the law. Those departures in particular erode an important layer of defense to the IRS's most important missions: taxpayer data security and a fair tax system, former and current agency officials said. Most recently, two executives brought on to help the IRS build up its enforcement and reporting of digital assets left and were replaced by longtime IRS official Trish Turner. The leadership departures, combined with the broader cuts across different levels of the agency, make it harder for the IRS to collect revenue for the government and provide help to taxpayers. The IRS plans to lean more heavily on technology to make up for the lost workers. In this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax reporters Erin Slowey and Erin Schilling discuss who's replacing executives who have left, the impacts of the high turnover, and what happens when workers who want to leave can't. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1960On May 6, 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1960 into law, marking a cautious but critical step forward in the long legal battle over voting rights in America. The Act was designed to address the persistent and systemic barriers that prevented African Americans, particularly in the South, from registering to vote—barriers that had proven stubbornly resilient despite the Civil Rights Act of 1957.The 1960 law authorized federal inspection of local voter registration rolls, giving the Department of Justice a tool to challenge discriminatory practices on the ground. It also criminalized interference with court orders regarding school desegregation and established penalties for anyone found obstructing an individual's attempt to register to vote. These measures were modest by today's standards but politically bold in an era where states' rights rhetoric often served as a smokescreen for maintaining Jim Crow.Though limited in scope and enforcement power, the Act signaled growing federal willingness to intervene in what had long been considered local matters. It provided legal infrastructure that civil rights lawyers would use as levers in federal court battles over the next half-decade. More importantly, it laid the legislative foundation for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—two landmark laws that would reshape American democracy.By signing the Act, Eisenhower reaffirmed the federal government's role in protecting constitutional rights, even if the law fell short of what civil rights advocates demanded. It represented progress not through sweeping change, but through incremental legal gains—a strategy that would define much of the civil rights movement's legal approach during the 1960s.In retrospect, May 6, 1960, stands not as the culmination of voting rights reform, but as a necessary mile marker on the road toward more expansive and enforceable civil rights protections.Apple is facing a new class action lawsuit from app developers who allege the company defied a federal court order meant to reduce its App Store control and fees. Filed by developer Pure Sweat Basketball in California federal court, the suit follows a ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers that Apple willfully violated a 2021 injunction issued in the Epic Games case. That injunction allowed developers to guide users to alternative, potentially cheaper payment methods outside of Apple's in-app system.Instead, Apple allegedly imposed a new 27% fee on such external purchases, effectively undermining the injunction and preserving its App Store revenue stream. Pure Sweat claims Apple's actions cost developers “hundreds of millions or even billions” of dollars in excessive commissions. The proposed class could include as many as 100,000 developers.Judge Rogers recently referred Apple and one executive to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt, escalating the stakes. Apple maintains it did not violate the court order and has filed a notice of appeal. The lawsuit argues Apple deliberately ignored the injunction's intent, continuing to block apps—like Pure Sweat's workout video platform—that included outside purchase links.This latest case adds to Apple's growing legal troubles, including other antitrust suits from consumers and government entities over its App Store and smartphone practices.Apple hit with app developer class action after US judge's contempt ruling | ReutersAs reported by Techdirt, Washington is set to become the eighth U.S. state to pass Right to Repair legislation, signaling continued momentum for the consumer-driven movement despite an overall climate of weak enforcement. Two bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: HB 1483, which covers personal electronics and home appliances, and SB 5680, which targets repair access for wheelchairs and mobility devices. Both measures aim to force manufacturers to make spare parts, diagnostic tools, and repair information more accessible to users and independent technicians.Advocates from consumer rights, disability, and environmental groups played a major role in pushing the bills forward. One supporter, Marsha Cutting, shared how her experience with a malfunctioning wheelchair underscored the stakes of the fight—arguing that, with this law in place, she could have fixed her chair instead of waiting months for a replacement.Washington's move highlights the cross-party frustration with corporations that monopolize repairs—especially in sectors like agriculture, where companies like John Deere have drawn scrutiny. Ohio may soon follow suit as the ninth state.Still, as Techdirt notes, many of the states that passed such laws have yet to enforce them meaningfully. In some cases, like New York, the legislation was weakened after passage. Without enforcement teeth, these bills risk being symbolic victories. And with mounting political and fiscal pressure during Trump's second term, there's concern that ambitious consumer protections could quietly fall off the legislative agenda.Washington The Eighth State To Pass ‘Right To Repair' Law | TechdirtMy column for Bloomberg Tax this week looks at the resurgence of Republican-backed proposals for a so-called “millionaire tax” and argues that, far from being a step toward fairness, these marginal rate hikes risk cementing the very inequities they claim to address. I contend that celebrating superficial tweaks to the top marginal tax rate—while leaving the broader tax base untouched—burns valuable political momentum and can make real structural reform less likely in the future.The problem isn't just that the ultrawealthy pay too little tax—it's that we're taxing the wrong things in the wrong ways. A new bracket on reported income doesn't reach the vast majority of economic income for the ultrawealthy, which comes from unrealized gains, pass-through structures, and other vehicles that avoid ordinary income classification. A serious reform agenda would prioritize taxing that hidden wealth: ending stepped-up basis, closing the carried interest loophole, and addressing partnership opacity.Superficial changes like a new tax bracket can create the illusion of progress while leaving the architecture of tax avoidance intact. Worse, these symbolic victories often sap the will for deeper, more consequential change. Once lawmakers can declare they've “done something,” it becomes harder to make the case that more action is needed. As I argue in the piece, this is how inequality persists—not just through resistance, but through the misdirection of well-intentioned but shallow reform. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

House Republicans are pushing a plan to dismantle the US audit board and send its watchdog duties to the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of a federal budget-cutting process. It's not the first GOP attempt to rein in the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, but this time it comes against the backdrop of the Trump administration's sweeping drive to cut regulations and downsize government. Congress set up the board in the early 2000s to restore investor trust following high-profile corporate accounting scandals at Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. The move to eliminate PCAOB threatens to derail independent oversight of auditors charged with vetting the financial reports of public companies worth trillions in stock value, according to Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Amanda Iacone. On this episode of Talking Tax, Iacone speaks with Benjamin Freed, Bloomberg Tax team lead for state tax and financial accounting, about why the PCAOB is being targeted now, previous attempts to curb its influence, and what a potential disbanding could mean for audit firms. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Before leaving for a two-week break, House Republican lawmakers adopted a Senate budget outline to expedite legislation to push through trillions of dollars in tax cuts, raise the debt ceiling, and slash billions in spending. Now comes the hard part where policy committees need to fill in the fine details. The Senate framework called for $1.5 trillion in new tax cuts, to enact policies like some proposed by President Donald Trump on the campaign trail. The Senate's use of a so-called current policy baseline wipes away, on paper, trillions of dollars expected to add to the deficit from extending the expiring parts of the GOP's 2017 tax law. The House is seen as taking the lead, with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) publicly aiming for a Memorial Day deadline to get a bill on Trump's desk. In this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax federal editor Kim Dixon talks to congressional reporters Chris Cioffi and Zach Cohen about what to expect in the next work period. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This Day in Legal History: Army-McCarthy Hearings BeginOn April 22, 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings began in Washington, D.C., marking a pivotal moment in American legal and political history. The televised proceedings, which stretched over two months, were convened to investigate conflicting accusations between Senator Joseph McCarthy and the U.S. Army. McCarthy claimed the Army was sheltering communists; the Army countered that McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, had improperly pressured military officials to give preferential treatment to a former McCarthy aide.These hearings drew millions of viewers and brought McCarthy's aggressive, often unsubstantiated allegations into public view. Under questioning, McCarthy's bullying tactics and disregard for evidence became increasingly apparent. The most famous moment came when Army counsel Joseph Welch rebuked McCarthy with the now-historic line, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”—a turning point in the hearings and in public perception of McCarthy.As support for McCarthy dwindled, the hearings exposed the dangers of reckless accusations without due process, a central legal concern during the Red Scare. Later that year, the Senate formally censured McCarthy, effectively ending his political influence. The hearings stand as a cautionary tale about the abuse of investigatory powers and the erosion of civil liberties in times of national fear. They also highlight the essential role of transparency and accountability in American governance. The legacy of the Army-McCarthy hearings continues to inform debates over the balance between national security and individual rights.Alphabet's Google faces a major antitrust trial starting Monday in Washington, as the U.S. Department of Justice and 38 state attorneys general seek to break up its dominance in the search engine market. Central to the government's case is a proposal for Google to sell its Chrome browser and potentially even its Android operating system if competition isn't restored. Prosecutors argue that Google's exclusive agreements, like those paying billions to Apple and other companies to be the default search engine, have harmed rivals, including emerging AI firms like Perplexity AI and OpenAI.Google insists the DOJ's demands are extreme and warns that ending these deals could harm browser makers like Mozilla and raise smartphone costs. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta is presiding over the trial, expected to last three weeks. Google plans to appeal any unfavorable ruling and argues that its deals help fund free, open-source technology. The case follows a separate DOJ victory last week, where a judge found Google maintained an illegal monopoly in ad tech. The trial's outcome could dramatically reshape how Americans access information online and influence future antitrust enforcement, with similar scrutiny already aimed at companies like Meta.Google faces trial in US bid to end search monopoly | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Minnesota's appeal defending its law that barred individuals under 21 from obtaining permits to carry handguns in public. This decision leaves in place a ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the restriction unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The case is one of many that have challenged age-based and other gun restrictions following the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which established that firearm regulations must align with the nation's historical traditions to be valid.Gun rights groups, including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Firearms Policy Coalition, challenged the law, arguing it infringed on the rights of 18- to 20-year-olds. Minnesota defended the law as a modest safety measure, noting that youths already have access to guns under specific conditions, such as hunting or supervision. The 8th Circuit disagreed, saying the state failed to prove that young adults posed a sufficient threat or that the restriction had historical precedent.While more than 30 states have similar age-related laws, Minnesota's could no longer be enforced once the appeals process concluded. The case underscores how courts are interpreting and applying the Bruen test, which has reshaped the legal landscape for gun laws. Although the Supreme Court has upheld some modern firearm restrictions, it has consistently signaled that any such laws must fit within historical frameworks.US Supreme Court won't save Minnesota age restriction on carrying guns | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I talk about the risk posed by the Department of Government Efficiency's (DGE) access to taxpayer data. If the federal government wants more access to your tax data, it should have to meet a high bar—proving a clear need, protecting the information, and being transparent about how it's used. Right now, the DGE, spearheaded by Elon Musk, is pushing for expanded access to the IRS's Integrated Data Retrieval System (IDRS), which holds deeply sensitive taxpayer records. The rationale? To root out fraud and streamline federal oversight. But noble intentions aren't a substitute for safeguards—and as it stands, DGE hasn't provided any clear guardrails for how it would handle this data.We've seen how this can go wrong. In Sweden, the national tax agency is now facing a lawsuit for sharing taxpayer data with private companies, including marketers and data brokers. Sweden's commitment to constitutional transparency has been used to justify these disclosures, even as they appear to violate Europe's strict privacy laws. It's a reminder that transparency can be weaponized, and privacy treated as an inconvenience. If that sounds extreme, just imagine your tax return fueling a marketing database in the name of government openness.In the U.S., Section 6103 of the tax code makes unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer data a felony. DGE's quest to tap into the IDRS raises serious questions about whether internal access could amount to disclosure, especially if it increases the risk of leaks, misuse, or political meddling. DGE already has access to some refund-related data, but it's now seeking far more granular insight—without explaining what it will do with it, or how it will prevent abuse.What Sweden's case makes clear is that even the best intentions can lead to disastrous outcomes when privacy is not treated as sacrosanct. The U.S. should take that warning seriously. Taxpayer data is among the most sensitive information the government holds. Expanding access to it—especially by an agency as vaguely defined as DGE—should not happen without a fully transparent, purpose-limited, and accountable framework.Until then, DGE should not be granted access to the IRS's IDRS system or any individualized taxpayer information. The risks are too high, and the protections too flimsy. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Deep cuts to the IRS workforce mean the agency might have to rely more heavily on technology to keep up taxpayer services and enforcement. The IRS is set to lose 20,000 workers after the Trump administration's second deferred resignation offer. That's in addition to thousands who have already left or are on administrative leave. Barry Johnson, former IRS chief data and analytics officer, oversaw the rollout of artificial intelligence at the agency before his retirement in January. When he left, he said the IRS was piloting an AI tool to help employees search the Internal Revenue Code. The agency also used AI to improve taxpayer services, such as with chatbots, and to make enforcement more efficient. But the workforce cuts could hinder that progress, Johnson said. "I'm especially concerned with proposed cuts in what we call the field staff, the folks who process tax returns and conduct audits," he said. "Because to the extent that we lose that subject matter expertise, our ability to train and validate AI applications will be diminished." In this episode of Talking Tax, Johnson talks to Bloomberg Tax reporter Erin Schilling about the challenges of relying on technology with a shrunken staff, how the research division uses taxpayer data while upholding confidentiality, and what it means for the agency when top executives leave. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The hard-charging effort led by billionaire Elon Musk to reshape the federal workforce at the IRS and other agencies might lead to lasting changes. But what it means for taxpayers still isn't fully realized. Some efforts to buy out or fire employees have been postponed until after the filing season ends in April, and are facing legal action. Ending taxpayer assistance center leases and reducing the number of taxpayer assistance staff who can answer phones will mean backsliding in improved service levels, former National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson warns. On this episode of Talking Tax, Olson talks to Bloomberg Tax reporter Chris Cioffi about the potential for brain drain at the agency amid a wave of resignations and whether major upheaval might lead to an erosion in taxpayer trust. They also tackle the danger of taxpayer data privacy violations as Musk's Treasury Department team gains access to the department's payment systems. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Millions of US companies are off the hook when it comes to disclosing their beneficial owners' identities to the federal government, after the Trump administration announced it wouldn't enforce penalties for domestic entities under the Corporate Transparency Act. The Treasury Department's previous regulations had required about 30 million businesses operating in the US to disclose who directly or indirectly controlled them in reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. But in a pivot from the previous administration, the Treasury now says all US entities are exempt from reporting requirements. The move was the latest twist in a wave of litigation against the law, which some companies argue oversteps Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. Following a nationwide injunction blocking the CTA's enforcement in December 2024, businesses across the country faced whiplash as the law and the previous version of its implementing regulations were successively enjoined past the original January 2025 compliance deadline. But now, facing a narrower scope of which companies are obliged to comply under new rules, appeals courts must now grapple with whether newly exempt domestic companies retain their standing to sue. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax audio producer David Schultz talks with Bloomberg Law reporter John Woolley about the year-long legal drama around the Corporate Transparency Act, how the Trump administration disrupted that litigation, and how the Treasury's policy changes could impact the fight against international financial crime. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

New York officials are in the final stage of the state's budget process, following March 13 passage of the Assembly and Senate individual spending and revenue proposals for fiscal 2026. It's now up to a three-way negotiation between the Legislature's two chambers and Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), who has her own plans for a budget that's likely to top $252 billion—including a host of tax changes that don't completely align with what the Democratic-led lawmakers want. As in recent years, lawmakers have proposed raising taxes on the highest-income earners and corporations, which Hochul has rejected in the past. There are divergent approaches to how much to expand the state's child tax credit. And the Senate wants to tailor the governor's idea of sending New Yorkers sales tax rebates—a salve to inflation—to just seniors rather than all taxpayers. Other issues include an expansion of New York's film tax credit program to benefit more independent movies and whether the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's funding needs will disrupt the various tax proposals. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax state editor Benjamin Freed talks with New York correspondent Danielle Muoio Dunn and Bloomberg Government Albany correspondent Zach Williams about the budget process, the political stakes for Hochul ahead of her 2026 re-election campaign, and the odds that lawmakers wrap up the budget by their April 1 deadline—or at least the first night of Passover. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Tax departments at multinational companies are scrambling to keep up with the Trump administration's tariff announcements as the updates pile in day to day and sudden shifts complicate transfer pricing calculations. Tariffs raise companies' costs, and those can't always be passed on to consumers—meaning businesses have to choose where to allocate the costs in their supply chains. While the importing entity pays the tariffs, the company can adjust the transfer price to pass that cost to other, related entities. That can present opportunities to reduce the impact of tariffs—but also may lead to risks of audits from tax and customs agencies. And with so much unknown, it's become hard for companies to find tax certainty, said Summer Austin, partner at Baker McKenzie. Austin and Baker McKenzie partner Jennifer Revis talked to Bloomberg Tax reporter Caleb Harshberger about what the tariffs mean for transfer pricing and how companies should respond. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

President Donald Trump's early executive order to end federal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs upended at least one team in the Treasury Department. The Treasury Equity Hub, formed in 2021, evaluated how effective the department's policies and programs were at reaching all types of Americans. Removing this team could hurt further research into racial disparities in IRS enforcement, Treasury Equity Hub Director Diane Lim said. A 2023 high-profile study showed that Black taxpayers were disproportionately audited, a finding that led the IRS on a campaign to fix the problem, though the future of that work is unclear. Trump has launched a war on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts both in the federal government and the private sector, with mixed success. A federal judge blocked portions of his orders to end DEI programs because they could threaten free speech. Still, the corporate world has started rolling back diversity efforts in response to the administration's efforts. Lim and her team have been on administrative leave since the start of the new administration. She said she expects the team will receive layoff notices in the next wave of federal workforce reductions. In this episode of Talking Tax, Lim tells Bloomberg Tax reporter Erin Schilling that ending DEI programs in the IRS and Treasury might have cascading impacts on the US tax system. For this tax filing season, it might mean the IRS has more trouble conducting outreach to underserved communities. But over the long term, if people feel the tax system is unfair, there could be more instances of people choosing to not file or to cheat on their taxes. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Inaugurated On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the 16th president of the United States, taking office at a time of immense national turmoil. Seven Southern states had already seceded from the Union, and the country teetered on the brink of civil war. In his inaugural address, Lincoln struck a careful balance between firmness and conciliation, stating that while he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it existed, he would also not allow the Union to be dissolved. He appealed to the South's “better angels” and warned that secession was unlawful, emphasizing that the Constitution was designed to create “a more perfect Union.” This speech set the tone for a presidency marked by Lincoln's deep empathy for the downtrodden and his capacity for personal growth.  Often celebrated for his moral clarity, Lincoln was also a leader willing to change his mind when confronted with new information. As the Civil War progressed, his views on slavery evolved, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. He once said, “I shall adopt new views as fast as they shall appear to be true views,” an acknowledgment of his willingness to adapt when justice demanded it. This intellectual humility was one of his greatest strengths, allowing him to navigate the unprecedented crisis before him. His presidency, which began on this day, would redefine the nation's understanding of freedom, democracy, and leadership.Lincoln's presidency saw the transformation of a man as much as a nation. When he first took office, he publicly questioned the intellectual equality of Black people and initially supported only limited measures to restrict slavery's expansion. However, as the war unfolded and he engaged with Black leaders like Frederick Douglass, Lincoln's views evolved dramatically. By the end of the conflict, he not only issued the Emancipation Proclamation but also argued for Black suffrage, stating in his final speech that he believed Black men deserved the right to vote. He also expressed openness to women's suffrage, a radical position for the time. That April 11, 1865, speech, in which he publicly called for Black enfranchisement, enraged John Wilkes Booth, who declared, “That is the last speech he will ever make!” Three days later, Booth made good on his threat, assassinating Lincoln at Ford's Theatre. Lincoln's first inauguration marked the beginning of a journey that would not only reshape his own beliefs but also alter the course of American history—at the cost of his life and those of 400,000 of his fellow Americans.Immigrant rights groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Venezuelan migrants. The lawsuit, brought in Boston federal court, opposes Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's move to accelerate the expiration of deportation protections and work permits for 521,000 Haitians by August. This reverses the Biden administration's previous extension of TPS for Haiti through February 2026. A similar decision was made for Venezuelan TPS recipients, with protections ending as early as April 2 for 348,000 individuals, a move already facing separate legal challenges. The lawsuit, filed by advocacy groups and individual migrants, argues that DHS lacked the authority to revoke an existing TPS extension and acted based on racial bias and political motivations. It cites past disparaging remarks by Trump about Haitian and Venezuelan immigrants as evidence of discrimination, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded.By way of brief background, the lawsuit claims the administration's actions violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. While the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly provides equal protection against state discrimination, the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to extend similar protections against federal government actions. Plaintiffs argue that the abrupt termination of TPS disproportionately harms Haitian and Venezuelan migrants and is driven by racial and ethnic bias rather than lawful considerations.Lawsuit challenges Trump's end to Haitian, Venezuelan deportation protections | ReutersKraken announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has agreed in principle to dismiss its lawsuit accusing the cryptocurrency exchange of operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The dismissal, which comes with no admission of wrongdoing, penalties, or required business changes, is with prejudice, preventing the SEC from refiling the case. Kraken criticized the lawsuit as a politically motivated effort by the Biden administration that hindered innovation. The SEC, which had sued Kraken in 2023 under former Chair Gary Gensler's leadership, has shifted its approach to crypto regulation since Trump's return to office. Recently, the agency also dropped a similar case against Coinbase and is considering settling a civil fraud case against Justin Sun. The lawsuit had accused Kraken of facilitating crypto trades without proper regulatory compliance, but the company maintained that crypto assets do not fall under traditional securities laws.In legal terms, a dismissal with prejudice means the case is permanently closed and cannot be refiled. This is significant for Kraken because it ensures the SEC cannot bring the same claims against the company in the future. This type of dismissal often indicates that the plaintiff (in this case, the SEC) has decided not to pursue the matter further due to legal weaknesses or shifting priorities.Kraken says SEC to dismiss lawsuit | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg Tax this week focuses on the Multistate Tax Commission's (MTC) proposed rule aimed at simplifying tax compliance for mobile workers. While the proposal is a step in the right direction—creating a safe harbor for those working in nonresident states for 20 days or fewer—it doesn't go far enough to address the real burdens faced by workers and businesses.To make the rule truly effective, I argue that three key modifications are needed: increasing the safe harbor threshold to 30 days, implementing an income-based sliding scale, and eliminating arbitrary carve-outs for certain high-income professionals.Currently, 41 states impose income tax on nonresidents, with some—like Arkansas and Delaware—triggering tax obligations after just one day of work. This creates a compliance nightmare for mobile workers, who may have to file multiple state tax returns for short business trips. The MTC's 20-day threshold is an improvement, but expanding it to 30 days would better align with existing state policies and recommendations from tax advocacy groups.Additionally, the MTC's one-size-fits-all approach fails to differentiate between income levels. A sales rep earning $50,000 a year and a hedge fund manager making $5 million shouldn't be treated the same. A sliding scale—offering a longer grace period for lower-income earners while maintaining stricter thresholds for high-income, highly mobile workers—would make compliance fairer and more practical. Pegging the income thresholds to inflation would further ensure middle-class workers aren't disproportionately impacted over time.Finally, the proposal's exclusion of professional athletes, entertainers, and undefined “persons of prominence” is problematic. These individuals are denied the safe harbor, while a high-earning executive or consultant would benefit from it. The distinction isn't based on income but on profession, creating an arbitrary and inconsistent standard. If fairness and clarity are the goals, the MTC should remove these exceptions.With states actively debating mobile workforce tax reforms and Congress failing to pass a federal solution for nearly two decades, now is the time to get this right. Expanding the threshold, implementing an income-based scale, and removing unfair carve-outs would make the rule more equitable and increase the likelihood of state adoption. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The US audit board has already been forced to revise its priorities as the Trump administration begins to reshape the federal government. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board pulled an auditor disclosure rule that was set for SEC approval earlier this month. The audit board opted to delay finalizing another project that would expand how auditors consider the financial impact of their clients' law violations days after Donald Trump's November election win. But deeper changes might be coming to the Enron-era regulator, which Congress designed to be an auditor watchdog. Republicans previously targeted the PCAOB through legislation and budget proposals that would have eliminated the independent regulator. Project 2025, considered a playbook for the second Trump administration, similarly called for the SEC to take over the board's work. Any major changes in board leadership could usher in the third swing in priorities at the regulator since 2017. Ally Zimmerman is an associate professor of business administration at Florida State University and a former fellow at both the PCAOB and Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees the board's work. In this episode of Talking Tax, Zimmerman spoke with Bloomberg Tax reporter Amanda Iacone about the PCAOB's future and what auditors and the investors who depend on their work can expect in the coming months. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

This Day in Legal History: Woodrow Wilson Signs Grand Canyon National Park ActOn February 26, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Grand Canyon National Park Act, officially designating the Grand Canyon as a national park. This landmark decision aimed to preserve the canyon's breathtaking landscapes, unique geological formations, and rich biodiversity for future generations. Prior to its national park status, the Grand Canyon had been a federally protected reserve, but conservationists pushed for stronger protections. The designation marked a significant victory for the early environmental movement, ensuring that the canyon would be safeguarded from mining, logging, and other commercial exploitation.The Grand Canyon, carved over millions of years by the Colorado River, is one of the world's most iconic natural wonders. Its layered rock formations offer a window into Earth's geological history, dating back nearly two billion years. Beyond its scientific significance, the canyon holds deep cultural importance for Indigenous tribes, including the Havasupai, Hopi, and Navajo, who have lived in and around the area for centuries. The national park designation helped protect these cultural and historical sites, though it also led to conflicts over land rights.The creation of Grand Canyon National Park was part of a broader movement in the early 20th century to protect America's natural landscapes. This movement, championed by figures like President Theodore Roosevelt, laid the foundation for the modern National Park System. Today, Grand Canyon National Park attracts millions of visitors annually, serving as a testament to the enduring importance of conservation efforts.President Donald Trump has ordered the suspension of security clearances and government contracts for the law firm Covington & Burling due to its legal assistance to special counsel Jack Smith. In a memo signed in the Oval Office, Trump accused law firms of using pro bono work to obstruct the government. The directive specifically targets Peter Koski, a Covington partner, and calls for a review of the firm's federal contracts.  Smith recently disclosed that Covington provided him with $140,000 in pro bono legal services as he faces government scrutiny. Covington stated that it represents Smith in a personal capacity and will continue to defend his interests. Legal experts note that security clearances are crucial for private attorneys handling national security matters.  Trump, who has been indicted in two cases led by Smith, referred to the order as the "Deranged Jack Smith signing" and mocked the prosecutor after signing the memo.Trump Targets Covington Security, Contracts Over Work With SmithThe U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip, ruling that prosecutorial misconduct violated his constitutional rights. In a rare win for a capital defendant, two conservative justices joined the court's three liberals to overturn Glossip's conviction. Oklahoma's Republican attorney general had also acknowledged errors in the case, including prosecutors withholding evidence and failing to correct false testimony.  Glossip was convicted for allegedly orchestrating the 1997 murder of his boss, Barry Van Treese, though the actual killer, Justin Sneed, was the state's key witness. Newly disclosed documents revealed that Sneed had considered recanting, was coached by prosecutors, and lied about his mental health history. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that correcting Sneed's false testimony would have significantly damaged his credibility.  Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in the ruling, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett partially agreed but wanted the state court to decide if a new trial was warranted. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the case should have been left to Oklahoma courts. Glossip's execution had been blocked nine times before, and his attorney emphasized the ruling as a crucial step toward justice. It remains uncertain whether Oklahoma will retry the case or pursue the death penalty again.Justices Order New Trial in Rare Win for Death Row Inmate (2)A U.S. judge has extended an order blocking President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing a sweeping freeze on federal funding, citing concerns that the policy could be reinstated. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that despite the administration's withdrawal of an initial memo pausing grants and loans, statements from White House officials suggested the freeze was still in effect.  The funding pause, announced in January, aimed to review federal financial assistance programs for compliance with Trump's executive orders, including those ending diversity initiatives and pausing climate-related projects. Nonprofits and small business groups sued, arguing the freeze would cause widespread harm.  AliKhan criticized the policy as legally baseless and impractical, saying it would either halt up to $3 trillion in spending overnight or force agencies to review all grants within a day. She called the administration's actions “irrational” and warned of a potential national crisis. The ruling prevents the government from reimposing the freeze under a different name, marking a legal setback for Trump's efforts to reshape federal spending priorities.Trump blocked from imposing sweeping federal funding freeze | ReutersIn my weekly Bloomberg Tax column, I examine Washington State's new data broker tax, a well-intended but ultimately insufficient approach to curbing exploitative data practices. The legislation treats consumer data like a natural resource, imposing a severance tax on its collection. However, this framework fails to address the real issue: long-term data retention and reuse.  A more effective solution would be a retention tax, which would discourage firms from hoarding personal data indefinitely. Under the current bill, companies pay a tiered tax based on the number of residents whose data they collect. While this sounds like a fair approach, it risks consolidating data power in the hands of large platforms that can absorb the tax and continue selling consumer information without restriction. Worse, the tax may encourage firms to store data longer, giving it an artificial market value that promotes hoarding rather than limiting collection.  Unlike oil or minerals, personal data is not depleted upon use—it can be endlessly repackaged and resold. A retention tax would align economic incentives with privacy concerns, forcing firms to justify prolonged data storage and pay accordingly. Without it, Washington's proposal does little to curb long-term privacy risks and may ultimately entrench the very data exploitation it seeks to prevent.Washington's Data Broker Tax Is a Promising but Inadequate Move This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Republicans in Congress have been working to find consensus to cement tax code changes made in President Donald Trump's first presidency and jump-start his new administration using the budget reconciliation process. The maneuver allows Republicans with full control of Washington to avoid the Senate's filibuster, so they can effectively move legislation without Democrats' support. But the process is complicated and comes with many potential pitfalls. The process will be made all the more difficult for congressional GOP leadership, which must deal with the pressures of Trump's demands for tax cuts while guiding its fractious conference. House GOP lawmakers in particular will need near-uniform consensus because of its thin majority. Sarah Binder is a senior fellow in governance studies at Brookings and a professor of political science at George Washington University. She specializes in Congress and legislative politics as well as Congress's relationship with the Federal Reserve. On today's Talking Tax, Binder walks Bloomberg Tax reporter Chris Cioffi through the history of reconciliation since it was created in the 1970s and what lawmakers can and can't enact through the process. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

This Day in Legal History: First Formal Anti-slavery Resolution in American HistoryOn February 18, 1688, a group of Quakers in Germantown, Pennsylvania, drafted the first formal anti-slavery resolution in American history. Addressed to their local monthly meeting, the document condemned the practice of slavery and argued that it was incompatible with Christian teachings. The authors—Garret Henderich, Derick op de Graeff, Francis Daniel Pastorius, and Abram op de Graeff—compared enslaving Africans to the feared practice of Christian captives being taken by Turkish pirates. They pointed out the hypocrisy of Quakers, who sought religious freedom for themselves while denying liberty to others. The resolution questioned whether Christians had the moral right to enslave others based on race and emphasized the Golden Rule: treating others as one would want to be treated. It also warned of the possibility that enslaved people might eventually resist their oppression, raising the moral dilemma of whether their masters would then take up arms against them. The document urged Quakers to reconsider their complicity in slavery and to recognize the dignity and humanity of all people. Though the resolution was not immediately adopted by the broader Quaker community, it laid the groundwork for the abolitionist movement within the Society of Friends. Over time, Quakers became some of the most outspoken opponents of slavery in America. The Germantown protest stands as an early and courageous call for justice, foreshadowing the larger struggle for human rights that would unfold in the centuries to come.The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a judge's order blocking the removal of Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel, as litigation over his firing continues. Dellinger, appointed by former President Biden, was informed of his dismissal on February 7, but he sued, arguing that Trump lacked the authority to remove him without cause. Federal law allows the Special Counsel to be dismissed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.On February 12, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a temporary restraining order reinstating Dellinger, stating that his firing violated legal job protections. The Justice Department, calling the ruling an attack on presidential authority, argues that courts should not dictate whom the president retains in his administration. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration's appeal, deeming it premature.This case may set an important precedent for Trump's broader efforts to reshape the federal government by removing independent agency heads. It follows a pattern of dismissals, including Trump's recent firing of 17 inspectors general without explanation. The Special Counsel's Office plays a crucial role in protecting whistleblowers and enforcing restrictions on political activity among federal employees.Trump administration turns to US Supreme Court in bid to fire agency head | ReutersPresident Donald Trump announced he will nominate Edward Martin for a full term as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin, currently serving in an interim capacity, has drawn controversy for his past legal work. He previously represented individuals charged in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and recently sought to drop charges against a defendant he once defended.Martin was also present outside the Capitol during the attack and has criticized the Justice Department's handling of the prosecutions. His nomination requires Senate approval, and ethical concerns have been raised about his involvement in cases related to former clients. Justice Department rules typically require attorneys to recuse themselves from such cases for at least a year.Trump, on his first day back in office, granted clemency to nearly all of the 1,600 people charged in connection with the riot. Martin's nomination is expected to face scrutiny due to his past legal advocacy for those involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Trump to nominate top prosecutor Martin for permanent term as US attorney for DC | ReutersA former business development manager is suing Reed Smith LLP for at least $50,000 in unpaid overtime, claiming the firm misclassified her as a manager to avoid paying her for excessive work hours. Phoebe Medeiros filed the lawsuit in California state court, alleging she regularly worked 90-hour weeks, sometimes in shifts as long as 36 hours, despite official timesheets reflecting a standard 40-hour workweek.Medeiros, who transferred to Reed Smith's Southern California office in 2022, says she primarily worked under the direct instructions of partner Mark Pedretti, preparing business pitch materials and relaying information, rather than functioning as a true manager. Pedretti, who is not named as a defendant, has not commented on the lawsuit.Reed Smith has not responded to requests for comment, and neither Medeiros nor her attorneys from The Rutten Law Firm have provided statements. Medeiros has since left the firm and now works at Freshfields. The case, Medeiros v. Reed Smith, LLP, is being heard in California Superior Court for Los Angeles County.Reed Smith Sued by Business Development Manager for Overtime PayAnd in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I pitch the idea of tax-abatement bridge loans for office conversions. Post-pandemic, cities like New York, San Francisco, and Washington are struggling to revitalize commercial districts, with tax abatements for office-to-residential conversions proving ineffective because they only apply after project completion. Instead of making developers wait years to benefit, states should allow them to borrow against future tax savings through upfront, low-interest bridge loans—essentially restructuring the incentive rather than creating a new subsidy.  With record-high office vacancies and persistent housing shortages, conversions make obvious policy sense. However, they remain slow due to high costs and the difficulty of securing favorable loans in the current interest rate environment. Existing tax incentives only kick in post-construction, forcing developers to front conversion costs while facing uncertainty about future property tax rates. A bridge loan program secured by future abatements would mitigate this risk by locking in tax savings at financing, providing developers with stable, immediate capital.  The model would work through a public-private partnership: states would calculate future tax savings, commercial banks would underwrite low-interest loans secured by those abatements, and developers would repay the loans using the redirected tax breaks. Because funds would be deployed in phases based on project milestones, states wouldn't be on the hook for speculative projects that never materialize. Unlike grants or new subsidies, this wouldn't cost taxpayers beyond existing abatements, which are currently underutilized due to their delayed structure.  This approach should appeal across the political spectrum—expanding housing supply without direct handouts to developers satisfies progressive concerns, while a self-financing mechanism aligns with fiscal conservatism. Similar models have worked elsewhere, such as Wisconsin's senior housing loan program and widely used tax increment financing districts. Given the scale of the housing crisis, cities can't afford to wait—tax-backed bridge loans offer a practical fix to a well-documented problem. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Eric Pierre is a second-generation CPA and former professional basketball player, Eric brings the same competitive edge to finance that he brought to the court. He graduated with a Master of Professional Accountancy from Stephen F. Austin State University and holds CPA licenses in both Texas and California.   While many CPAs stick to basic moves, Eric sees the entire board, anticipating challenges and opportunities far in advance. His strategic approach to wealth preservation has caught the attention of major media outlets, with Eric being quoted or mentioned in Forbes, CNBC, and Bloomberg Tax.   Eric's expertise allows him to navigate the complex world of finance with the precision of a seasoned pro. For those seeking to protect and grow their wealth, he offers more than just accounting services. Eric provides comprehensive strategies, always thinking several moves ahead to ensure his clients win in the high-stakes game of financial success.   What You Will Learn: Who is Eric Pierre? Why is effective tax management considered essential for business owners? What unique challenges do high net worth individuals face regarding taxes? What specific tax strategies are discussed, such as the "Augusta Rule" and vehicle depreciation? How can real estate investments impact tax liabilities and benefits for business owners? What qualifications must someone meet to be considered a qualified real estate professional for tax purposes? What common misconceptions about wealthy individuals and their tax issues are addressed in the conversation? What tax rule allowed the host to expense major capital expenditures like roofing through business entities? How does cost segregation and bonus depreciation work for property owners? What common misconceptions do people have about IRS audits and tax-related issues? What are some common mistakes or oversights consumers make regarding tax management? How can tools like QuickBooks assist business owners in tracking their expenses effectively? What is the significance of the Opportunity Zone legislation in tax planning? What are the main topics covered in Eric's book, "The Great Tax Escape"? What tax planning strategies should people consider as the year-end approaches to prepare for tax season? Eric shares how everyone can contact him. Additional Resources from Eric Pierre: Website: http://www.pierreaccounting.com/ Email: eric@pierreaccounting.com Phone: 619-997-2750 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pierreaccounting Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pierreaccounting/ Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/pierreaccounting/ X: http://x.com/PierreCPA YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO1XWRM-KZpjtlrbHnrYGFg Attention Investors and Agents Are you looking to grow your business? Need to connect with aggressive like-minded people like yourself? We have all the right tools, knowledge, and coaching to positively effect your bottom line. Visit:http://globalinvestoragent.com/join-gia-team to see what we can offer and to schedule your FREE consultation! Our NEW book is out...order yours NOW! Global Investor Agent: How Do You Thrive Not Just Survive in a Market Shift? Get your copy here: https://amzn.to/3SV0khX HEY! You should be in class this coming Monday (MNL). It's Free and packed with actions you should take now! Here's the link to register: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_sNMjT-5DTIakCFO2ronDCg

Treasury Department and IRS finalized rules requiring crypto exchanges to provide information on taxpayers' buying and selling activities are meeting industry and Republican pushback. Centralized brokers must issue form 1099-DA, starting in 2026 for tax year 2025, and decentralized brokers are to start doing so in 2028 for tax year 2027. The form includes such things as personal data, gross proceeds on sales, and transaction dates. Crypto tax advisers bring up two themes about the new rules: First, it's challenging for some brokers to implement the infrastructure needed to comply with the reporting requirements because tracking transactions is a huge undertaking when trades happen so quickly. Second, some Congressional Republicans don't like the rule and have introduced a joint resolution to nullify parts of the regulations. In this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax reporter Rebecca Chen chats with Jessalyn Dean, vice president of tax information reporting at digital asset tax and accounting platform Ledgible, on the requirements and enforcement efforts, and how they might change under the second Trump administration. —Produced by Mo Barrow. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

President Donald Trump threw a major wrench into the fate of the OECD global tax deal on his first day in office, sparking concerns among the international tax community about the deal being fundamentally reshaped. Trump issued a presidential memo Jan. 20 stating the global tax deal has no "force or effect" in the US and instructed the Treasury Department to come up with a list of protective measures to impose on any country that enacts discriminatory or extraterritorial taxes against American taxpayers. This week, Bloomberg Tax reporter Lauren Vella sits down with Scott Levine, Treasury's former deputy assistant secretary for international affairs and top US OECD tax delegate, to chat about the status of the global deal and the impact of the new US administration's position on negotiations. Levine maps out two scenarios he sees playing out in Paris under the new Trump administration and gives some insight into how countries at the OECD might be feeling about the transition of power in the US. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Few of the provisions of the tax code this year have garnered as much attention from industry as the about-to-sunset pass-through deduction. In their 2017 tax overhaul, Republicans allowed owners of pass-through businesses such as partnerships, S-corporations, and LLCs to deduct 20% of certain business income from their taxes. Businesses and their lobbyists say it gives those firms small and large parity with traditional corporations. Critics say its benefits largely flow to the wealthy. That deduction—along with the rest of the individual provisions of that 2017 law known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act—expires at the end of 2025 absent congressional action and President Donald Trump's signature. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax reporter Zach Cohen spoke with two guests about what the deduction does and prospects for renewal by Congress this year. Jeff Brabant is a vice president of federal government relations at the National Federation of Independent Businesss, and Elena Spatoulas Patel is a nonresident senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Sorenson Assistant Professor in the Division of Quantitative Analysis of Markets and Organizations at the University of Utah's David Eccles School of Business. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The leader of a top US standard-setter wants his board to take the next step in using emerging technology to craft accounting rules for local and state governments. Joel Black, chair of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, said a key priority for the board this year is shifting gears from monitoring emerging tools such as artificial intelligence to preparing for its future integration. In his final two years as leader, Black said he intends to craft an enduring focus on how technology can make financial reporting more efficient. GASB establishes standards for state and local governments that follow generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. Cities and states' staffing shortages and resource constraints have motivated the board to be especially selective about the projects it takes on, Black said. The board is currently working to update how governments should value infrastructure assets such as bridges and tunnels, as well as develop digital classifications for financial reporting. Black, who previously worked at Mauldin & Jenkins LLC and KPMG LLP, has led the board since 2020. Bloomberg Tax reporter Jorja Siemons spoke with Black about his 2025 priorities. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

President-elect Donald Trump's plans to deconstruct the federal workforce would take a bite out of IRS efforts to answer taxpayer phone calls and enforce compliance for tax cheats. After getting billions in funding from the 2022 tax-and-climate law, the IRS started a long-needed rebuild, including bringing on more workers. Between Oct. 1, 2021 and Sept. 30, 2023, the IRS processed nearly 53,000 new hires, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said in a September report. But Trump's promises to end remote work for federal workers and reinstate a policy that would make it easier to fire certain employees are seen as ways to end the IRS's competitiveness in the job market and ability to keep employees who are flight risks. Bloomberg Tax reporter Erin Slowey spoke with Kelly Reyes, executive director of the Professional Managers Association that represents the interests of IRS managers, about what a presidential transition means for IRS employees and how agency managers are preparing for next tax filing season. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Jan. 3 marks the beginning of the next Congress, where Republicans will lead both chambers and control the White House. Democrats being out of power has big implications for tax policy, as GOP lawmakers heading into the new year debate what to renew from the 2017 GOP tax law, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The TCJA was passed with no votes from Democrats and benefits skewed toward the wealthy and corporations. Incoming GOP leaders have proposed breaking their top priorities into two bills and moving them through Congress using the reconciliation process. The first would jump-start President-elect Donald Trump's priorities on immigration and gas drilling, and the second would include tax and other legislative priorities. Republicans say moving tax legislation to later in the year would give them more time to decide what to do about many of the law's individual provisions that expire at the end of 2025. They also will have to decide what Trump campaign promises to include. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax reporters Chris Cioffi, Zach Cohen, and Lauren Vella discuss what to expect in the 2025 tax fight, and the policy issues that likely will define the debate. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Online retailers that rely solely on third-party logistics providers like Amazon for tax compliance may still face tax liability for direct sales through their own websites. Many states enacted marketplace facilitator laws in the years since the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in South Dakota v. Wayfair, shifting tax collection responsibilities to platforms like Amazon or Walmart. But individual vendors can still face additional tax obligations because of direct sales, how their inventory is controlled, or state-specific sales thresholds. As of October, most of the 24 states in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which aims to simplify sales tax codes, said inventory in a third-party warehouse creates a physical nexus—a connection that triggers tax responsibilities. Rules vary even more outside the Streamlined pact. In New York, for instance, storage alone is sufficient for nexus, while in Arizona, inventory beyond a seller's control likely doesn't. Bloomberg Tax reporter Angélica Serrano-Román and Diane L. Yetter, founder of the Sales Tax Institute, discussed how businesses using third-party logistics services navigate tax compliance, the inconsistency in court decisions on who is liable for tax collection and remittance, and the contentious issue of retroactivity where states might seek uncollected taxes from before the Wayfair decision. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

A new White House administration and Republican-led Congress are slated to disrupt how the IRS operates. Republicans' taste for cuts to the agency's annual appropriations and the tens of billions of added funding from the 2022 tax-and-climate law is putting the IRS and the Treasury Department on offense, as they make a case for why a well-funded IRS is good for everyone. The Treasury Department has warned that further clawbacks would mean customer service—a bipartisan concern—as well as enforcement efforts, would take a hit. Bloomberg Tax's Erin Slowey spoke with Charles Rettig, a shareholder at Chamberlain Hrdlicka, on why the IRS needs its funding and how a new commissioner could shake up the agency. Rettig, who served as commissioner during the first Trump administration, also addressed what he is telling his clients amid the uncertainty. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The IRS is winning more cases in the US Tax Court over companies' valuation of intangible assets, such as patents and trademarks, through transfer pricing. The wins have caught the attention of companies and practitioners as they mull the growing risks of transfer pricing, which governs transactions between related companies that are part of the same multinational group. Disputes between the IRS and companies such as Coca-Cola and 3M have showcased the agency's newfound ability to audit their positions and win in Tax Court when challenged. Both cases are being appealed. In addition, a new IRS policy to assess more penalties when documentation is lacking could make companies' transfer pricing positions much riskier than in the past, practitioners say, and taxpayers may have to start factoring that in. In this week's Talking Tax podcast, Bloomberg Tax reporter Caleb Harshberger spoke with Grant Thornton LLP Transfer Pricing Technical Leader Steve Wrappe and Greenberg Traurig LLP shareholder Sharon Katz-Pearlman about how the IRS has changed its approach and what additional funding from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act means for taxpayers moving forward. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The nation is unpacking what comes next with Donald Trump's second presidency and with a Senate that flipped from Democratic to Republican. One of the biggest questions that remains unanswered is how this impacts upcoming talks over myriad provisions in the GOP's signature 2017 tax law that expire at the end of 2025. Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo—no stranger to tax policy and negotiations—becomes chair of the Senate Finance Committee and will have a major hand in what happens with those expiring provisions that were part of the legislation known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Crapo is seen as a behind-the-scenes operator but his new role puts him at the center of talks to decide what to keep and what to jettison from a tax package that could have a price tag in the trillions of dollars. A second Trump presidency also has implications for the IRS. Republicans have threatened to claw back supplemental IRS modernization funding, and have criticized the agency's focus on the Direct File program, offering free filing to certain taxpayers who qualify. In this week's Talking Tax podcast, Bloomberg Tax reporters Erin Slowey and Chris Cioffi discuss what changes at the Senate Finance Committee, Trump's presidency, and new players in the landscape could mean for tax policy this year and into the next Congress. They spoke with Bloomberg Tax Deputy Team Lead for Federal Tax Kim Dixon. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

California regulators are prepared to walk away from strict licensing rules that require accountants to earn the equivalent of five years of college to qualify. The California Board of Accountancy has proposed reforms that would grant the certified public accountant license to candidates with a traditional bachelor's degree plus two years of work experience in addition to passing the CPA exam. The proposal would unwind current rules that call for 150 hours of college credits to qualify—a requirement that is seen as a barrier to entering the profession. Instead, the board's draft legislation would strip the specific number of college credits from its rulebook to focus on the degree earned or the candidate's coursework. State lawmakers would have to approve any changes. Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Amanda Iacone spoke with Dominic Franzella, the executive officer of the state accountancy board, about how California's proposal matches up against related reforms the American Institute of CPAs introduced in September and whether the state's plans could help address the shrinking pipeline of future accountants. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The fate of the 2017 GOP tax overhaul is top of mind for corporations in the weeks leading up to the election. Many of the law's provisions are expiring in 2025, setting Congress up to negotiate another major tax law. Corporations are closely watching what happens to bonus depreciation, interest expense deductions, and research and development expensing, S&P Global Rating Managing Director Shripad Joshi said. Plus, both presidential candidates have campaigned on changing the corporate tax, which the 2017 law permanently lowered to 21%. Without knowing who will control the White House and Congress next year, it's difficult for corporations to plan ahead. Right now, they're reviewing tax proposals that may be considered and modeling how different scenarios could impact them. That means figuring out where their tax weaknesses lie and parsing out which changes could hurt or help cash flow the most. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax reporter Erin Schilling talks with Joshi about how corporations are dealing with this uncertainty and which tax policy changes will affect them the most. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

After more than two years, the Treasury Department has proposed rules to implement the new minimum tax on companies' book income. Now comes the hard part. The regulations, which Treasury issued last month, would govern how the corporate alternative minimum tax is applied and calculated. CAMT, enacted in 2022, requires big companies to pay at least 15% in taxes on the income they report on their financial statements—a crackdown on companies that have been able to pay little or nothing in the past by taking advantage of tax breaks and tax-planning strategies. The proposed regulations run to more than 600 pages, and set up a highly complex regime for companies that fall under CAMT. Tax professionals and companies continue to pore over the rules, to see what kind of effects they'll have. Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Michael Rapoport spoke with Monisha Santamaria, a principal in KPMG LLP's Washington National Tax practice about the complexity of the CAMT regulations; some notable aspects of the rules; how CAMT will affect more than just the 100 or so companies that Treasury says will have to pay it; and the chance for companies to persuade Treasury to revise its plans.

The European Court of Justice's ruling against Apple Inc. over a $14.4 billion Irish tax bill stunned members of the international tax community, who said it throws the high court's precedent on tax state aid cases into disarray. The EU high court ruled last month that the company's tax positions in Ireland, which were agreed to by Irish authorities in 1991 and 2007, amounted to illegal state aid. EU law stipulates that member states shouldn't give companies preferential treatment—state aid—over other businesses. Unlawful state aid could come in the form of preferential tax benefits. The decision was particularly perplexing to tax observers because it didn't rely on rulings in similar, previous high-profile cases involving Fiat Chrysler or Amazon, where the ECJ sided with the companies rather than the European Commission. This week, Bloomberg Tax reporter Lauren Vella chats with University of Virginia professor Ruth Mason and Stephen Daly, reader in tax law at King's College in London, who say that there is a possibility companies with structures similar to Apple aren't safe from EU probes into their tax positions. They also discuss what effect the decision could have on the court's reputation and the European Commission's power to investigate tax matters. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Multistate Tax Commission dates to the 1960s, yet the intergovernmental tax agency and its mission on behalf of state revenue departments are often not well understood. The map of tax laws and regulations across the 50 states would be much more complicated and inconsistent without the efforts of committed attorneys, auditors, and administrators working on behalf of the commission. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Michael J. Bologna discusses the MTC's goals and achievements with former general counsel Nancy Prosser, who retired Sept. 24. Prosser talks about the agency's essential mission to promote uniform and consistent tax policies across the states, and assist taxpayers in achieving full compliance. She also stresses the MTC's efforts to advocate for state and local sovereignty in the development of tax policy. Prosser retired after four years as general counsel and a 16-year career in tax administration with the Texas Comptroller for Public Accounts, including two years as the Texas tax agency's general counsel. In the interview, Prosser also talks about her career in state tax administration and her hopes for improved state tax uniformity going forward. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The GOP's 2017 tax law—the biggest change in the US tax code in three decades—left a mammoth task for the IRS and Treasury Department. It resulted in the Treasury and a severely underfunded IRS creating the blueprint for taxpayers and tax practitioners trying to follow the law, releasing over 200 pieces of formal guidance and more than 300 pieces of informal guidance. Many of these provisions are set to expire next year and face an uncertain fate as the November election approaches with control of the House and Senate in play. Dave Kautter, a partner at RSM US LLP, spoke with Bloomberg Tax reporter Erin Slowey on his time as the Department of Treasury's assistant secretary for tax policy and acting IRS commissioner during that major tax code overhaul. He also spoke about the agencies' role in policy making and how they can prepare for changes in 2025—if at all. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) likes to be prepared. Schneider and fellow House Democrats are getting behind-the-scenes briefings that started this summer to bone up on their tax policy knowledge ahead of what's likely to become a big battle in 2025. The Illinois Democrat is a member of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee and he's running to lead the influential New Democrat Coalition. The hope, he said, is to find agreement on tax policy that will be permanent so lawmakers don't once again find themselves addressing provisions such as pieces of the 2017 GOP-led tax law that expire next year. Schneider, a critic of the state and local tax deduction cap, said he's optimistic that lawmakers can come together on policy areas ranging from global tax to the child tax credit. On this edition of Talking Tax podcast, Bloomberg Tax reporter Chris Cioffi talks with Schneider about the upcoming talks over expiring provisions in that 2017 tax overhaul and other priorities. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Lawmakers return to Washington next week for the final sprint of legislating before the November elections, on the heels of a failed tax bill vote, and with an appropriations deadline fast approaching. Congress will be under pressure in the next few weeks to reach a deal on government funding to avoid a shutdown on Sept. 30. The Democratic-controlled Senate is set to clash with the GOP House over whether to slash IRS funds or keep them steady, though with so little time left in session lawmakers will likely use a short-term continuing resolution to punt the fight. Also up in the air is whether tax writers will come back to the negotiation table on the $78 billion bipartisan tax package that failed to clear a procedural vote in the Senate just before the August recess. Some lawmakers already are attempting to peel off parts of that tax package—including disaster tax relief and an expansion to the low-income housing tax credit—and it's unclear if those efforts will heat up in September or the lame-duck session. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax congressional reporters Chris Cioffi and Samantha Handler discuss the weeks ahead in Congress, and how lawmakers are preparing for the 2025 tax cliff. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The market for clean energy tax credits has been booming, with demand and supply skyrocketing since the 2022 tax-and-climate law established new credits and launched a way for energy developers to easily sell those credits to investors. A midyear report by the energy tax marketplace Crux forecasts that energy tax credit transfer deals could total between $20 billion and $25 billion this year, while financial services firm Evercore ISI estimates that more than $100 billion in transferable credits will be generated annually by 2030. Still, risks remain around certain energy tax credits that have yet to see final rules from the Treasury Department, and 2025 will bring additional changes, including the launch of so-called "tech-neutral" credits that aren't tied to any one piece of technology. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax reporter Caleb Harshberger talks to Crux CEO Alfred Johnson and Hannah Hawkins, principal at KPMG, about how the new market for these credits is developing and what uncertainty remains. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

When Microsoft Corp. won a $94 million income tax refund from the California Office of Tax Appeals in February, it was considered one of the biggest victories for corporate taxpayers ever in California. Now it's unclear if Microsoft will get that refund, or if other multinationals with similar claims will either. A law passed in June reversed the ruling upholding Microsoft's refund, and the first two lawsuits challenging the reversal landed last week. The intent of the new law (S.B. 167) is to avoid $1.3 billion in refunds to companies with similar claims pending for past tax years and $200 million a year in refunds going forward. The law does this by declaring that the California Franchise Tax Board's position in Microsoft's case pertaining to the tax treatment of income repatriated from abroad has been law since it issued a legal notice on the subject in 2006. The newly filed lawsuits from the California Taxpayers Association and National Taxpayers Union make it unclear when the dust will settle. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax senior correspondent Laura Mahoney talks to Gina Rodriquez and Josh Booth, principals in the Sacramento office of global tax services firm Ryan LLC, about what the tax changes mean for other multinationals and for California. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Ernst & Young LLP is developing a generative AI tool for tax professionals that's meant to automate repetitive data work and make tax planning more efficient. The Big Four company is investing $1.4 billion into gen AI globally. Other Big Four firms have made similar pledges. The investments are in part a bet that the technology can fill in some gaps from the longstanding accounting shortage. But implementing the technology in tax departments is difficult, in part because of how often policies change and the vast amount of data. Daren Campbell, leader of EY Americas Tax Technology and Transformation team, gave Bloomberg Tax an inside look at how his team seeks to overcome these challenges, where the technology is today, and what's next. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Nearly 75% of cannabis businesses operate at a loss, and many in the industry point to a feature of the Internal Revenue Code as the reason why. Cannabis companies are prohibited from deducting ordinary business expenses—like rent or payroll—from their federal taxes as long as marijuana remains under the most restrictive portion of the Controlled Substances Act. That could change if marijuana is moved from Schedule I to Schedule III of the act, as the Biden administration has proposed. But in the meantime, 22 states plus Washington, D.C., have allowed medical or recreational cannabis businesses to take some deductions on their state returns, by decoupling their tax codes from Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes the federal ban. Pennsylvania was the most recent to make that change with a state budget adopted last month. In this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax reporters Angélica Serrano-Román and Owen Racer talk about their recent look into how states are increasingly decoupling their tax from 280E at the state level. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The corporate tax rate is coming up in nearly "every conversation" House Ways and Means Committee Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.Va.) has been at recently. Miller is leading one of the ten House Ways and Means GOP tax teams, created to collect information and prepare for tax discussions in 2025, when much of the 2017 tax law expires. Miller's "Supply Chains" team is focusing on energy tax credits and the corporate tax rate, among other issues. This week members met with former Ways and Means Chair Kevin Brady (R-Texas) to discuss the 2017 tax law. Brady and lawmakers reviewed why certain decisions were made in drafting the law, and what provisions may be worth looking into, Miller told Bloomberg Tax. While the 21% corporate tax rate set by Republicans in 2017 does not sunset at the end of 2025, it's set to be a sticking point in negotiations no matter which party wins out in November. Some Republicans have floated raising the rate, and former President Donald Trump has proposed lowering it even further. Bloomberg Tax reporter Samantha Handler spoke with Miller about discussions surrounding the corporate rate and other priorities of her tax team heading into 2025. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The state tax gap—the difference between the true tax liabilities owed to a state and the amount voluntarily submitted to revenue agencies—is possibly the most stubborn and perplexing problem facing tax administrators. For decades, revenue commissioners have tried to close the gap through audits and enforcement sweeps, but the process is slow, costly, and uncertain. Janette Lohman, a former director of the Missouri Department of Revenue, believes there is a way to collect more delinquent taxes faster, cheaper, and with less hostility: a strategy she describes as “prospective voluntary disclosure.” The states generally allow delinquent businesses to voluntarily come forward and pay their back taxes plus interest for a specified look-back period, but Lohman has proposed a process that allows delinquent taxpayers to submit their taxes on a going-forward basis without paying any back taxes or penalties. On this episode of Talking Tax, Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Michael J. Bologna caught up with Lohman to discuss her efforts in Missouri to boost compliance using prospective voluntary disclosure. Lohman, a tax partner in the St. Louis office of Thompson Coburn LLP, recently presented her strategy during the annual meeting of the Federation of Tax Administrators. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Training for CPAs must evolve to focus on the skills and experiences necessary to meet future market demands, the leader of the largest US accounting industry group said. Barry Melancon, president and CEO of the American Institute of CPAs, also defended a required fifth year of college for CPA candidates, saying current rules have achieved their purpose of elevating the role of accountants and turning out better-educated professionals. Melancon, who is preparing to retire in December, spoke to Bloomberg Tax reporter Amanda Iacone about ongoing efforts to restore what is now a shrinking pipeline of future accountants. Proposed reforms could soften the bite of the mandatory 150 college credit hours for CPAs to earn their license by offering alternatives such as employer-provided training or work-study programs. He also discussed the role artificial intelligence could play in closing the talent gap and the impact of private equity investors as CPA firms look to keep pace with technology advancements. —Produced by Matthew S. Schwartz. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The new chief of the IRS criminal division wants America to know he's hiring special agents, and they're fulfilling their mission to investigate tax and financial crimes. Guy Ficco started his new gig in April following an almost three-decade career at the agency. He comes into the position at the same time the IRS is flush with tens of billions in funding from the Democrats' 2022 tax-and-climate law. In fiscal year 2023, CI initiated more than 2,676 criminal investigations and identified over $37.1 billion from tax and financial crimes. The division has an 88.4% conviction rate on cases accepted for prosecution. Bloomberg Tax reporter Erin Slowey spoke with Ficco about how CI is handling its pandemic-era tax credit cases, what retention at the division looks like, and how the volume of investigation referrals has changed in the past couple of years. Produced by Matthew S. Schwartz.

The US Supreme Court brought a muted end last week to its biggest tax case in years, but the arguments that propelled the case are far from over, especially about what the court's ruling could mean for future attempts to enact a wealth tax. The court voted 7-2 to uphold the mandatory repatriation tax, a one-time tax on past foreign corporate profits. Washington state residents Charles and Kathleen Moore had challenged the constitutionality of the tax, arguing that it had forced them to pay $14,729 in taxes on the profits of an Indian company in which they'd invested even though the company's profits were never distributed to them. But the case's significance went far beyond the Moores. Many had feared that striking down the tax not only would lead to billions of dollars in refunds to giant multinational companies that were the tax's primary targets, but also would call into question a host of other taxes based on similar legal principles. The Supreme Court said the tax was constitutional, and stressed that its ruling was narrow, with any outside issues left for another time. But that left unanswered questions about what the ruling could mean for any future wealth tax. Many such proposals would tax wealthy people's “unrealized” gains on investments—profits that haven't actually been distributed or monetized—which was the same issue over which the Moores questioned the repatriation tax. And while the court's ruling was narrow and set aside the realization issue, at least four of the nine justices supported the idea that income should have to be realized before it could be taxed, a signal that any future wealth tax could have a hard time passing legal muster before the court. This edition of Talking Tax has two interviews with two very different perspectives on the Moore ruling. Bloomberg Tax senior reporter Michael Rapoport spoke first with Chye-Ching Huang, executive director of the Tax Law Center at New York University's law school, who wanted to see the tax upheld, and then with Andrew Grossman and Jeff Paravano, attorneys for BakerHostetler who represented the Moores and wanted to see the tax struck down. Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Wealthy taxpayers are rushing to prepare in case a more generous exemption from the estate tax expires at the end of 2025 along with many of the individual tax cuts from the Republicans' 2017 tax overhaul.  In 2024, taxpayers are exempt from the 40% estate tax on the first $13.6 million of assets passed on to heirs. But the exemption is set to fall by about half, practitioners estimate, if Congress doesn't act to extend it. People are moving money into different types of trusts now to take advantage of that higher exemption amount.  Deloitte Managing Director Laura Hinson spoke to Bloomberg Tax reporter Erin Schilling about the most popular trust strategies and how to avoid “donor remorse.”  Hinson also explains how the Supreme Court's recent decision Connelly v. United States will affect estate planning. Produced by Matthew S. Schwartz. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Wealthy taxpayers are rushing to prepare in case a more generous exemption from the estate tax expires at the end of 2025 along with many of the individual tax cuts from the Republicans' 2017 tax overhaul.  In 2024, taxpayers are exempt from the 40% estate tax on the first $13.6 million of assets passed on to heirs. But the exemption is set to fall by about half, practitioners estimate, if Congress doesn't act to extend it. People are moving money into different types of trusts now to take advantage of that higher exemption amount.  Deloitte Managing Director Laura Hinson spoke to Bloomberg Tax reporter Erin Schilling about the most popular trust strategies and how to avoid “donor remorse.”  Hinson also explains how the Supreme Court's recent decision Connelly v. United States will affect estate planning. Produced by Matthew S. Schwartz.