The 2025 court decision, Kwong v. United States, is quietly gaining traction among tax professionals for exactly these reasons. Its implications could be far-reaching, potentially opening the door to refund claims, penalty abatements, and revived tax deadlines that many assumed were long closed. But there’s a catch: the opportunity to act may be time-sensitive, and the window to preserve claims could begin closing in just a few short weeks. Here’s what the court actually decided and why it matters now.

The one unvarying constant of Tax Court is variety: even long-established principles solve new problems. March saw a new look at Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and the Empowerment Zone Employment Credit (EZEC) and a first look at the BBA reset of the partnership-partner relationship. Bitcoin, specifically hard-forked coins, are in view. The usual suspects like discovery jousts, SOL, and equitable tolling continue to show up. Take a look.

As tax professionals, we must recognize a profound truth that most Americans never fully grasp: The United States doesn't have a single tax system, it has two fundamentally different systems operating in parallel. Understanding this dichotomy is perhaps the most important insight you can share with your clients, as it forms the foundation for virtually every advanced tax strategy.

Life insurance is such a great income tax deal that it really disturbs me when people manage to create income tax nightmares with it. The build-up in value of a whole life policy is not currently taxed if the policy is properly structured. And even better, except for the insured, the proceeds are totally income tax free when paid because of the death either actual or clearly coming soon of the insured. Of course one of the greatest pieces of marketing genius ever was calling it life insurance, as it is in its pure form, actually death insurance. Here are some stories of life insurance tax nightmares and we’ll see if we can draw a moral from them.

For me, the most exciting Tax Court opinion of 2025 was Judge Joseph Goeke's supplement to his 2024 opinion in the case of Gary M. Schwarz. With a $1,851,878 tax deficiency, it is the largest hobby loss opinion since 2019. (The really big dollar cases tend to settle.)

A short but busy month in Tax Court, with the non-shutdown, new wrinkles in law and regulation, and, as always, problems arcane and mundane; so let's jump in.

The Cohan rule is named for George M. Cohan. George Michael Cohan (1878 – 1942) was a theatrical producer. In the decade before World War I, he was called the “man who owned Broadway” and is considered the father of American musical comedy. In 1940 he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for his contribution to morale during World War I with his songs “You’re a Grand Old Flag” and “Over There,” the first time the medal was awarded to someone in an artistic field. But his most enduring legacy may be the tax rule that shared its name.

I can’t say that 2025 was anything less than tumultuous, or that 2026 isn't likely to be more of the same. Boechler, P. C., Jarkesy, Zuch, the Affordable Care Act, FBAR, and even long-gone FASIT and SDLIA are already starting the year. Come along for the ride!