Fluent in English, Spanish & Italian | 888-882-9243

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Monthly Archives: January 2026

Retroactive QEF Relief: How Rev. Proc. 2026‑10 Helps Clean Up PFIC Nightmares


Rev. Proc. 2026‑10 gives PFIC shareholders a more structured path to request IRS consent for retroactive QEF elections via private letter ruling, while tightening documentation and “no prejudice” requirements. It is especially important for high‑net‑worth individuals and fund investors trying to escape punitive PFIC excess‑distribution treatment on legacy holdings. 

A PFIC is a non-U.S. corporation that meets either the income test (at least 75% of its gross income is passive) or the asset test (at least 50% of its assets produce or are held for producing passive income). Common examples include foreign mutual funds, foreign ETFs, foreign hedge funds, and certain foreign pension plans. 

What it covers

Rev. Proc. 2026‑10 supplements the general ruling procedures and focuses specifically on PLR requests for retroactive QEF elections under section 1295(b) and Treas. Reg. § 1.1295‑3(f). It applies to ruling requests received on or after January 20, 2026, and standardizes what the IRS expects in these submissions.

Key eligibility and “prejudice” test

The taxpayer must be seeking consent for a retroactive QEF election, and the IRS must find that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the United States. The prejudice analysis looks at whether the retroactive election would effectively erase income, exploit timing rules, or undermine prior IRS examinations.

Evidence, affidavits, and protective statements

The procedure demands detailed factual statements, supporting documents, and affidavits from the shareholder and others with knowledge of the PFIC and the decision not to elect earlier. Shareholders that filed a PFIC protective statement under Treas. Reg. § 1.1295‑3(b)(2) are given a more favorable pathway if their original non‑PFIC belief was reasonable.

Multiple PFICs and user fees

Rev. Proc. 2026‑10 allows “substantially identical” retroactive QEF ruling requests to be bundled, with reduced user fees for additional substantially identical rulings in the same package. This is particularly relevant for family offices and funds holding multiple similar PFIC positions.

Practical takeaways

Advisors now have a clear checklist but a higher bar for retroactive QEF relief, making weak, lightly documented cases harder to sustain. Going forward, systematically spotting PFICs, filing protective statements, and preserving detailed investment records will be critical for clients who may someday need to rely on Rev. Proc. 2026‑10 to clean up PFIC exposure.

 Have an IRS Tax Problem?


     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 


for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or 
Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)




Sources:

1.       https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-26-10.pdf          

2.      https://kpmg.com/us/en/taxnewsflash/news/2026/01/tnf-rev-proc-2026-10-guidance-on-process-for-requesting-plrs-for-consent-to-make-retroactive-qef-election-under-section-1295.html      

3.      https://www.vitallaw.com/news/irs-issues-additional-guidance-on-retroactive-qualified-electing-fund-ruling-requests-rev-proc-2026-10/ftd010abe57ccc7874a89b45b03590e9c04b1       

4.      https://www.irs.gov/irb/2026-01_IRB

5.       https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report/irs-rev-proc-procedures-for-retroactive-qef-election-ruling-requests-for-pfic-shareholders-irc-1295   

6.      https://kpmg.com/us/en/taxnewsflash/news/2026/01/irs-annual-revenue-procedures-2026.html

7.       https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54a14f8ee4b0bc51a1228894/t/695970b6d1c1822153c34402/1767469239951/2026-01-05+Current+Federal+Tax+Developments.pdf

8.      

Read more at: Tax Times blog

“America First” Wins Again: How U.S. Multinationals Escaped the OECD’s 15% Global Minimum Tax

Nearly 150 countries have just signed off on a global tax deal that, in practice, gives U.S.-headquartered multinationals a significant carve‑out from the OECD’s 15% Pillar Two global minimum tax. For U.S. groups, this “side‑by‑side” safe harbor could mean less foreign top‑up tax exposure and more leverage to keep planning within the U.S. system instead of around it.

The new side‑by‑side deal

The Inclusive Framework has agreed to a “side‑by‑side package” that adds new safe harbors on top of the existing Pillar Two rules. At the center is a Side‑by‑Side (SbS) safe harbor and a UPE (ultimate parent entity) safe harbor that, together, can reduce or eliminate top‑up tax in many jurisdictions for qualifying groups.

Under the SbS model, if a multinational’s ultimate parent is in a jurisdiction that runs its own robust minimum tax system, the group can avoid—or dramatically limit—Pillar Two top‑up tax in other countries. Instead of layering the OECD’s 15% minimum on top of the home country’s rules, the package lets those two systems operate side‑by‑side, with Pillar Two stepping back where the home regime is deemed sufficient.

How U.S. companies won a carve‑out

In this first iteration, the United States is effectively the sole “eligible jurisdiction” for the SbS safe harbor. The justification is that the U.S. already has a combination of a relatively high statutory corporate rate plus minimum‑tax‑type rules (including its own alternative minimum mechanisms and interaction with foreign tax credits) that the deal treats as broadly equivalent protection against base erosion.

Democratic lawmakers passed legislation in 2022 without adjusting an existing levy on offshore income, the provision for global intangible low-taxed income, to operate as a Pillar Two top-up tax. Trump then effectively withdrew from the Pillar Two tax agreement in an executive order at the start of his second term in January 2025.

The GOP's budget bill modified GILTI to get closer to Pillar Two, including by increasing its rate from 10.5% to 14%. The G7 cited these changes in its announcement that U.S. multinationals won't face Pillar Two taxes.

The practical result is that U.S.-headquartered multinationals that meet the technical conditions and elect the safe harbor will generally not face Pillar Two top‑up tax under the income inclusion rule (IIR) or the undertaxed profits rule (UTPR) in other countries. Their global effective tax outcomes are left primarily to U.S. law, rather than being recalculated under the OECD’s 15% framework in every jurisdiction where they operate.

The geopolitical backdrop: tax brinkmanship

This outcome did not happen in a vacuum. After the U.S. withdrew support for the original Pillar Two implementation and signaled that it would not enact conforming legislation, trading partners began moving ahead with their own global minimum tax rules, raising the specter of higher foreign tax burdens for U.S. groups. Washington responded with threats of retaliatory “revenge taxes” and other trade/tax counter‑measures if U.S. multinationals were targeted by overseas top‑up taxes.

The side‑by‑side compromise is, in large part, a political off‑ramp from that stand‑off. It allows other countries to save face by keeping Pillar Two architecture intact on paper, while carving out U.S.‑headquartered groups through safe harbors rather than explicit exemptions written into the model rules.

What this means for U.S. multinationals

For U.S.-based groups, the immediate attraction is clear:

·         Reduced exposure to foreign top‑up tax under Pillar Two, especially the UTPR “backstop” that worried many U.S. boards.

·         Less compliance duplication from having to compute income and effective tax rates under both U.S. rules and a full Pillar Two overlay in every jurisdiction.

At the same time, the safe harbor does not mean a free pass from minimum taxation. Instead, it anchors U.S. multinationals more firmly in the U.S. tax net: groups are effectively told, “If your parent is in the United States, your minimum‑tax destiny will be decided here, not in dozens of foreign revenue authorities.”

For tax departments and advisors, the planning focus shifts from modeling Pillar Two top‑ups country by country to:

·         Confirming eligibility for the U.S. safe harbor and monitoring any conditions or metrics that could cause a group to fall out of it.

·         Re‑evaluating structures that were built around a world with both GILTI‑style rules and a parallel Pillar Two top‑up layer that now may never fully materialize for U.S. parents.

Criticism and what to watch next

Unsurprisingly, the agreement has drawn fire from tax‑justice groups, which argue that the safe harbor undermines the original promise of a truly global minimum tax. They warn that giving the U.S. a unique carve‑out leaves room for profit shifting to continue through low‑tax arrangements that sit comfortably within U.S. rules but outside the reach of Pillar Two.

Business groups, by contrast, have largely welcomed the deal as a pragmatic way to avoid double taxation and prevent a patchwork of punitive “revenge” measures against U.S. companies. They view the side‑by‑side package as a crucial stabilization of the international tax framework at a moment when geopolitical tensions and unilateral digital taxes could easily have pushed things in the opposite direction.

Looking ahead, the key questions for practitioners and multinationals will be:

·         How long the U.S. retains its status as the primary—or only—eligible jurisdiction under the SbS safe harbor.

·         Whether future U.S. legislative changes to minimum tax rules, or shifts in foreign political attitudes, lead to a tightening or unwinding of the carve‑out.

For now, the message to U.S.-headquartered groups is simple: the global minimum tax is arriving, but it will be doing so on terms that leave the U.S. firmly in the driver’s seat.

 Have an IRS Tax Problem?


     Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A. 


for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or 
Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Sources:

1.       https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0350  

2.      https://www.law360.com/articles/2426227/countries-reach-deal-to-exempt-us-from-pillar-2-tax

3.      https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/newsletters/tax-policy-bulletin/assets/pwc-oecd-announces-agreement-on-range-of-new-pillar-two-safe-harbours.pdf     

4.      https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-international/countries-agree-to-carve-out-us-business-from-global-minimum-tax   

5.       https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/global-minimum-tax/side-by-side-package.pdf

6.      https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2025/12/international-community-agrees-way-forward-on-global-minimum-tax-package.html

7.       https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/thought-leadership/the-new-pillar-two-framework-unboxing-the-side-by-side-package

8.      https://itep.org/tax-havens-corporate-tax-avoidance-global-minimum-tax/ 

9.      https://www.cfodive.com/news/treasury-oecd-race-clock-ink-global-minimum-tax-deal-year-end-Trump/807149/ 

10.   https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/trump-oecd-global-tax/

11.    https://thefactcoalition.org/oecd-side-by-side-agreement/

12.   https://www.nftc.org/side-by-side-agreement-is-crucial-step-forward-in-international-tax-framework-negotiations/

13.   https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/us-based-multinational-companies-exempt-global-tax-deal-128917958

14.   https://www.barrons.com/articles/oecd-finalizes-deal-on-global-minimum-tax-with-us-carveout-a19d2cda

15.    https://www.ft.com/content/7d8ef500-a650-4e3f-8130-29e2509de461

16.   https://kpmg.com/us/en/taxnewsflash/news/2026/01/oecd-agreement-pillar-two-side-by-side-package.html

17.    https://www.ici.org/news-release/ici-welcomes-oecd-pillar-two-sidebyside-agreement

18.   https://www.businessreport.com/article/us-companies-carved-out-of-global-minimum-tax-plan?amp=1

19.   https://taxlawcenter.org/files/22Revenge-taxes22-risks-and-uncertainties-3.pdf

20.  https://www.internationaltaxreview.com/article/2fta3vlgya561rjy75g5c/direct-tax/landmark-pillar-two-side-by-side-agreement-reached

21.   https://www.perplexity.ai/search/adbd0c0f-fc39-4f52-8708-06adcbc99465 

22.   https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/tax/newsletters/tax-policy-bulletin/assets/pwc-oecd-announces-agreement-on-range-of-new-pillar-two-safe-harbours.pdf            

23.   https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-international/countries-agree-to-carve-out-us-business-from-global-minimum-tax   

24.  https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/global-minimum-tax/side-by-side-package.pdf 

25.   https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2025/12/international-community-agrees-way-forward-on-global-minimum-tax-package.html   

26.  https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0350   

27.   https://www.cfodive.com/news/treasury-oecd-race-clock-ink-global-minimum-tax-deal-year-end-Trump/807149/ 

28.  https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/trump-oecd-global-tax/ 

29.  https://taxlawcenter.org/files/22Revenge-taxes22-risks-and-uncertainties-3.pdf

30.  https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/thought-leadership/the-new-pillar-two-framework-unboxing-the-side-by-side-package

31.   https://thefactcoalition.org/oecd-side-by-side-agreement/

32.   https://itep.org/tax-havens-corporate-tax-avoidance-global-minimum-tax/

33.   https://www.nftc.org/side-by-side-agreement-is-crucial-step-forward-in-international-tax-framework-negotiations/

34.   https://www.businessreport.com/article/us-companies-carved-out-of-global-minimum-tax-plan?amp=1

35.   https://apnews.com/article/tax-europe-oecd-91627ddcf78c145dab9775252aa08c85

36.   https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0350

37.   https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/oecd-corporate-minimum-tax-deal-us-companies-06a76cf8

38.  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-145-countries-agree-global-193726545.html

39.   https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-based-multinational-companies-exempt-182553390.html

40.  https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2024/10/08/taxing-the-digital-giants-what-the-oecd-global-tax-deal-means-for-the-u-s/

41.   https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1q57mm1/usbased_multinational_companies_will_be_exempt/

https://www.proskauertaxtalks.com/2025/01/trump-administration-disavows-the-oecd-global-tax-deal/

Read more at: Tax Times blog

IRS-CI’s Banner Year: What the 2025 Criminal Investigation Report Means for Taxpayers

This post reviews IRS Criminal Investigation’s Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Report and what it means for taxpayers, financial institutions, and advisors. It focuses on the sharp growth in tax‑related criminal enforcement, the division’s new data‑driven tools, and how those trends should shape risk management going forward.

IRS-CI’s FY25 “Banner Year”: Why It Matters

IRS-CI labeled FY25 a banner year, identifying $10.59 billion in financial crimes—a 15.7% jump over FY24. More telling for practitioners, $4.5 billion of that total involved tax fraud, representing roughly a 112% increase in identified tax fraud from the prior year.

From a policy standpoint, those numbers underscore two themes: IRS-CI is increasingly data‑driven, and it is firmly back in the business of pursuing traditional tax cases at scale. For businesses and individuals, that means the likelihood of sophisticated criminal scrutiny is higher—especially where tax positions intersect with government programs, payroll, or complex financial structures.

How IRS-CI Is Using Its Time

The FY25 report shows IRS-CI dedicating nearly 64% of its investigative time to tax crimes, a notable allocation in a division that also handles narcotics, money laundering, and other financial offenses. About 11% of time went to narcotics‑related financial cases, resulting in 447 convictions, while cyber‑related investigations continued to expand.

On the cyber front, IRS-CI seized 2.35 petabytes of digital data in FY25—nearly 60% more than in FY24—a figure that reflects both the explosion of digital evidence and the division’s growing technical capacity. These trends suggest that even “ordinary” tax cases with digital payment flows, crypto exposure, or online business models may now fall within more sophisticated investigative frameworks.

Investigative Results
  • Total Financial Crimes Identified: IRS-CI identified financial crimes totaling $10.59 billion, a 15.7% increase from FY 2024.
  • Tax Fraud: Tax fraud cases accounted for $4.5 billion of the identified total, more than double the previous year.
  • Conviction Rate: The agency maintained a high conviction rate of 89%.
  • Enforcement Metrics: The report noted a 25% increase in search warrants executed and a 14% increase in prosecution referrals to the Department of Justice.
  • Asset Seizures: Agents seized over $800 million in assets and returned $100 million to crime victims. 

New Initiatives: CI-FIRST and OFRR

Two initiatives introduced in FY25 are particularly important for banks and other financial intermediaries: CI‑FIRST and the Optimizing Financial Records Requests (OFRR) project. CI‑FIRST (Feedback in Response to Strategic Threats) is a flagship public‑private partnership designed to close the feedback loop with financial institutions on BSA and suspicious activity reporting.

Rather than simply collecting SARs, IRS-CI will now provide more structured feedback on which reporting is most useful, with the goal of improving the quality and targeting of future submissions. OFRR, meanwhile, aims to standardize and accelerate how IRS-CI requests financial records and how institutions respond to subpoenas and legal demands, shortening investigative timelines and reducing process friction.

High-Profile Cases as Policy Signals

The report’s case examples read like a roadmap of enforcement priorities. The Feeding Our Future case, involving more than $250 million in stolen child‑nutrition funds, resulted in lengthy sentences, including 28 years for scheme leader Abdiaziz Shafii Farah, and highlights CI’s focus on pandemic‑era benefit fraud.

On the digital asset side, the sentencing of Bitfinex hack defendants Ilya Lichtenstein and Heather Morgan—receiving 5 years and 18 months, respectively—demonstrates CI’s continued investment in crypto tracing and laundering prosecutions. Likewise, the TD Bank matter, in which CI uncovered AML failures that allowed more than $670 million in illicit funds to move through the bank and helped secure roughly $1.8 billion in penalties, sends a strong message about Bank Secrecy Act compliance expectations.

Practical Takeaways for Taxpayers and Advisors

For taxpayers and their advisors, the FY25 report is less about headline numbers and more about where IRS-CI is pointing its resources next. Expect increased criminal exposure around:

·         High‑dollar refund and payroll schemes, including abusive ERC and employment tax arrangements that blend civil and criminal risk.

·         Pandemic‑related benefit programs and other government‑funded initiatives where fraud indicators overlap with aggressive tax positions or fabricated entities.

·         Crypto‑related activity, particularly mixing services, chain‑hopping, and offshore exchanges used to obscure ownership or taxable gain.

·         Weak AML and BSA controls at financial institutions, especially where SARs are inconsistent, boilerplate, or disconnected from emerging typologies flagged by CI-FIRST feedback.

For businesses, this is an opportune time to revisit internal controls, documentation, and training around payroll tax, credits, and any touchpoints with federal programs. Financial institutions should be prepared not only to respond faster and more consistently to records requests, but also to integrate CI-FIRST feedback into their risk models and SAR drafting.

Have an IRS Penalty Problem?  
 
Never Stop Arguing
Legal Basis for Abatement!

 Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 

 
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation at: 
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com 
or 
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243



Sources:

1.       https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3583.pdf               

2.      https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/news-releases-for-current-month

3.      https://carry.com/news/irs-criminal-investigation-uncovers-financial-crimes-2025    

4.      https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-ci-issues-fiscal-year-2025-annual-report-showcasing-banner-investigative-results             

5.       https://dontmesswithtaxes.com/irs-cis-new-initiatives-plus-time-honored-tax-crime-cases-mean-a-successful-fy25/    

6.      https://www.natptax.com/news-insights/blog/irs-ci-2025-report-highlights-new-investigation-techniques/  

7.       https://www.kahntaxlaw.com/irs-criminal-investigation-division-releases-its-2025-annual-report/

8.      https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2025/04/irs-ci-announces-a-new-initiative-to-enhance-bsa-information-sharing-with-financial-institutions 

9.      https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5084.pdf 

10.   https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/irs-ci-reveals-top-10-cases-of-2025 

11.    https://www.faskelay.com/content/apps/taxalert_popup.php?id=12431

12.   https://www.taxlitigator.com/what-can-we-expect-from-the-irs-criminal-investigation-the-ci-annual-report-for-2025-by-steven-toscher-sandra-r-brown-and-philipp-behrendt/

13.   https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/irs-criminal-investigation-annual-reports

14.   https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/02.-IRS-FY2025-CJ.pdf

15.    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf

16.   https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5530.pdf

17.    https://www.irs.gov/advocate/reports-to-congress

18.   https://www.irs.gov/newsroom

19.   https://www.irs.gov/about-irs/irs-financial-reports

20.  https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-ci-issues-fiscal-year-2025-annual-report-showcasing-banner-investigative-results              

21.   https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3583.pdf      

22.   https://www.natptax.com/news-insights/blog/irs-ci-2025-report-highlights-new-investigation-techniques/    

23.   https://carry.com/news/irs-criminal-investigation-uncovers-financial-crimes-2025  

24.  https://dontmesswithtaxes.com/irs-cis-new-initiatives-plus-time-honored-tax-crime-cases-mean-a-successful-fy25/   

25.   https://www.kahntaxlaw.com/irs-criminal-investigation-division-releases-its-2025-annual-report/

26.  https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/irs-ci-reveals-top-10-cases-of-2025   

27.   https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2025/04/irs-ci-announces-a-new-initiative-to-enhance-bsa-information-sharing-with-financial-institutions   

28.  https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5084.pdf 

29.  https://www.faskelay.com/content/apps/taxalert_popup.php?id=12431

30.  https://www.taxlitigator.com/what-can-we-expect-from-the-irs-criminal-investigation-the-ci-annual-report-for-2025-by-steven-toscher-sandra-r-brown-and-philipp-behrendt/

31.   https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/266/02.-IRS-FY2025-CJ.pdf

32.   https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-ci-issues-fiscal-year-2025-annual-report-showcasing-banner-investigative-results  

33.   https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/irs-criminal-investigation-annual-reports

34.   https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p3583--122024.pdf

35.   https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3583.pdf

36.   https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p3583--2023.pdf

37.   https://www.nstp.org/article/irs-criminal-investigation-releases-fy2022-annual-report-

38.  https://www.jobs.irs.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg-uploads/files/2021_Annual_Report.pdf

39.   https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2025/12/22/irs-criminal-investigation-division-names-their-top-10-tax-crime-cases-for-2025

40.  https://www.irs.gov/forms-instructions-and-publications?items_per_page=25&find=&order=posted_date&sort=desc

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help