Insights Search

In its ongoing crusade against so-called “basis-shifting” transactions, the Internal Revenue Service has created widespread uncertainty regarding the tax treatment of routine transactions.

Stephen Josey and Quentin Manuel examine how the IRS enforces civil tax fraud penalties within the federal tax system, offering practitioners key insights into the legal standards, evidentiary burdens, and practical consequences involved. They explain how civil fraud differs from negligence and criminal tax fraud, highlight the IRS’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and badges of fraud, and outline the significant financial and legal risks taxpayers face when fraud is found. They also address defenses available to taxpayers and emphasize the importance of distinguishing between intentional misconduct and good-faith mistakes in today’s enforcement environment.

As the Trump administration continues to roll out its sweeping tariff policy, the North American energy industry is working to address the effects of the President’s tariff strategy. The Trump administration intends to “unleash American energy,”¹ in part by imposing tariffs designed to remedy what the administration views as unfair trade practices and increase U.S. domestic energy production. The currently imposed and threatened tariffs will inevitably impact the energy industry and its consumers. The particularly relevant tariffs can be defined in two broad categories: (1) sectoral tariffs, in this case, imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and (2) the country-specific and “reciprocal tariffs” that the Trump administration has imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Joyce Adetutu, Jason Fleischer, and Stephen Josey emphasize that the unresolved legal status of the IEEPA tariffs creates significant uncertainty for importers. With the tariffs still being collected during appeal, businesses risk overpaying and should consider filing protests to safeguard potential refunds. To navigate this shifting landscape, importers must stay alert to liquidation deadlines and build tariff-related contingencies into their contracts.

The opening days of the 119th U.S. Congress have been marked with congressional action under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to potentially invalidate regulations that were issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the final days of the Biden administration.

On March 14, 2025, President Trump signed legislation disapproving the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation implementing the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.

As it releases executive orders with unprecedented speed, the Trump administration has begun executing its vision for the United States and the world. This article addresses some of the tax-related topics likely to be the focus of the Trump administration in the coming months, including the extension of certain expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”), changes to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the “IRA”), increased tariffs, and changes to enforcement priorities at the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”).

For more than twenty years, the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”), and later, the United States‑Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), have facilitated cross-border trade and investment among the United States, Mexico, and Canada through the elimination of virtually all financial barriers to trade.

The Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) have released final regulations designating so-called “basis-shifting” transactions among related parties as “transactions of interest.”

The IRS’s new “corporate group mailbox” is a welcome step toward streamlining communications between large business taxpayers and the Independent Office of Appeals.

Attorneys in our appellate, energy regulatory, environmental, tax, securities, and employment practices explored how these landmark rulings affect administrative law and practice and what comes next.

In the final decision of the Supreme Court’s term, the Court again considered the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).