We all know how messy tax returns can get when couples who used to file jointly divorce and there are children (and tax credits) involved. It’s often difficult to explain the rules surrounding Head of Household filing status and the various tax credits available to parent-clients who have separated or divorced. But what happens when the clients misunderstand and decide to fight about it in family or divorce court? The following case study says “nothing good” can be a horrifying and frustrating answer to this question.

Remember the dreaded student loan “tax bomb?” For the past few years, it's been easy to forget about it. Thanks to a temporary federal tax exclusion enacted during the pandemic, borrowers who received student loan forgiveness between 2021 and 2025 generally didn't have to include that forgiven debt in their taxable income — leaving many borrowers (and their advisors) to wonder if the tax bomb would eventually disappear for good. Unfortunately, Congress allowed the temporary exclusion to expire. Beginning in 2026, forgiven student loan balances may once again be treated as taxable income. While that sounds like a major change, the reality is that most borrowers didn’t benefit from these tax-free years in the first place. For most borrowers, forgiveness is still years away, and there’s no crystal ball for what future federal policymakers may do. In the meantime, advisors may need to revisit planning conversations that many assumed were behind them. And depending on where a borrower lives, their federal tax bill may be only part of the story.

CPAs routinely help clients improve tax efficiency, yet one of the most consequential advisory questions is whether the business itself could remain operational after a significant uninsured loss. Tax planning improves after-tax cash flow and strengthens annual performance, but continuity planning determines whether the enterprise can withstand disruption long enough to recover. When an adverse event threatens operations, liquidity and stability often matter more than marginal tax savings. For that reason, the discussion of risk funding deserves to sit alongside traditional tax strategy in any comprehensive advisory relationship.

A lot of client meetings still start with the same assumptions: W-2 in a U.S. state, mortgage nearby, a 401(k), maybe some RSUs, and a college-savings plan. Yet many of those “simple” clients now own an apartment in another country, freelance for a foreign company, or have parents wiring money from overseas. The tax code does not see those details as background color; it treats them as organizing facts. This is where citizenship, residency, and domicile quietly step onto center stage. For planners, the challenge is not memorizing every cross-border rule. It is knowing when a client is no longer “just domestic” and shifting your planning framework before you stumble into penalties, double taxation, or blown opportunities.

Consider this article your periodic reminder that, for married taxpayers, filing jointly is an election and not the default (and certainly not the only) filing status option. It is important in a busy practice to remember to offer this option to clients who may benefit from filing separately, even if they don't ask.

The IRS has issued a statement about a new settlement offer that is going out for conservation and historic preservation easement disputes. It is similar to previous offers, but there is one big difference. The partnership will not have to make a payment at the time that it accepts the offer. Other than that, it is similar to the deal offered in 2020. Taxpayers get to deduct what they are out-of-pocket as an ordinary deduction and are subject to a 10% penalty. In general, the out-of-pocket donation might be around 20% to 25% of the claimed charitable deduction. The Tax Court, on average, has been allowing 6%, although results vary. There is usually a 40% penalty in the decided cases.

One would think that now, with summer doldrums and vacation days planned, Tax Court operations would slow and we could all go away. Not this month; six full-dress T. C. opinions and some Memos and miscellany fall like a summer cloudburst. Busy times.

Astute readers of this publication may recognize that I frequently write on Cryptocurrency and also on Tax Court cases. It feels like Christmas to me to be able to write about a tax court case about crypto. This is only the Third Tax court case to even mention crypto, and the first to look at the underlying principles of taxation. (The other two were about including crypto assets in a CDP hearing and a frivolous tax protester argument). Today’s case, Paschall v. Commissioner, is about the taxation of staking income.