The Free Financial Advisor

You are here: Home / Archives for news

IRS Gives Drought-Hit Farmers and Ranchers More Time to Replace Livestock and Defer Taxes

by Leave a Comment

IRS drought livestock tax relief
The IRS has extended tax relief for eligible farmers and ranchers who were forced to sell qualifying livestock because of drought. Notice 2026-54 identifies affected areas in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other regions and can give qualifying producers additional time to replace livestock while deferring certain gains from drought-related sales. Nicole Dennis/Shutterstock

Farmers and ranchers who were forced to sell livestock because of drought may have additional time to replace those animals without immediately recognizing certain gains for federal tax purposes.

The Internal Revenue Service announced the extension on September 15, 2026. The relief covers qualifying areas in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other regions that experienced exceptional, extreme or severe drought during the 12-month period ending August 31, 2026.

“Large swaths of the United States continue to experience drought conditions, distressing hard-working American farmers and ranchers,” IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said in announcing the relief.

The rules can give qualifying agricultural producers additional time to replace livestock sold because of drought while allowing them to defer recognition of certain gains from those forced sales or exchanges.

Who Can Qualify for the Livestock Tax Relief?

The relief doesn’t apply to every livestock sale made by a farmer or rancher in one of the 49 states.

Under IRS Notice 2026-54, the rules generally concern livestock held for draft, breeding or dairy purposes that were sold or exchanged because of qualifying drought conditions.

The tax treatment stems from Internal Revenue Code Section 1033, which provides rules for certain involuntary conversions. For livestock, qualifying sales or exchanges can receive special treatment when animals are sold solely because of drought, flooding or another weather-related condition that results in the area being designated as eligible for federal assistance.

Livestock raised for slaughter doesn’t qualify under these particular provisions. Poultry and livestock held for sporting purposes are also excluded.

Farmers and ranchers must be able to establish that the drought caused the qualifying sale or exchange.

The Normal Replacement Period Can Grow From Two Years to Four

Timing is one of the most important parts of the tax provision.

The normal replacement period for an involuntary conversion is generally two years, but qualifying livestock sales caused by drought or other specified weather-related conditions can receive a four-year replacement period.

The IRS can extend that four-year period even further on a regional basis when the drought conditions persist.

Notice 2026-54 specifically addresses farmers and ranchers whose four-year drought-sale replacement period was scheduled to expire at the end of 2026—or, for certain fiscal-year taxpayers, during the taxable year that includes August 31, 2026.

When the applicable region continues to meet the drought conditions described by the IRS, the replacement period can continue until the end of the taxpayer’s first tax year ending after the first drought-free year for that region.

That distinction is important: the IRS isn’t simply handing every producer a new four-year deadline beginning in 2026.

Qualifying Areas Are Determined County by County

Although the IRS announcement says the latest relief reaches areas in 49 states, eligibility isn’t necessarily statewide.

Notice 2026-54 contains an extensive appendix identifying counties and other jurisdictions where exceptional, extreme or severe drought was reported during the 12 months ending August 31, 2026.

For purposes of the extension, the applicable region includes the county where the drought-related livestock sale occurred as well as counties contiguous to that county.

The IRS relies on weekly U.S. Drought Monitor information produced by the National Drought Mitigation Center. For this latest extension, qualifying drought conditions had to be reported during at least one week between September 1, 2025, and August 31, 2026.

Farmers shouldn’t assume they’re covered merely because their state appears on the IRS’s 49-state list. Checking the specific county or other jurisdiction listed in the notice is an important first step.

Why the Extension Can Matter Financially

Forced livestock sales can create a difficult tax problem for agricultural producers already dealing with drought.

A rancher may need to reduce a breeding herd because there isn’t enough pasture, forage or water to maintain the animals. Selling those animals can produce taxable gain even though the sale wasn’t part of the producer’s normal business plan.

The special replacement rules can allow an eligible producer to defer recognition of qualifying gain while giving the operation time to rebuild the herd after conditions improve.

That extra time can be particularly important when drought lasts for several consecutive years and replacing livestock immediately would be impractical or financially difficult.

The rules are detailed, however, and not every livestock sale receives the same tax treatment. Farmers and ranchers dealing with significant drought-related sales may want to work with a tax professional familiar with agricultural taxation before assuming a particular transaction qualifies.

Check Your County Before the Replacement Deadline Arrives

Farmers and ranchers who previously made qualifying drought-related livestock sales should review the new notice if their replacement period was approaching its deadline.

The IRS directs taxpayers to Notice 2006-82 for additional details and examples explaining how drought-related replacement-period extensions work.

Broader guidance on livestock sales, farming income and other agricultural tax issues is available in the IRS’s Publication 225, Farmer’s Tax Guide.

The key is not to assume that living in one of the 49 affected states automatically qualifies every livestock transaction for relief. Producers should confirm their location, why the livestock was sold, what the animals were used for, and when their existing replacement period would otherwise expire before relying on the extension.

What to Read Next

IRS Sets December Hearing on Proposed Tax-Exempt Rules for Racial Nondiscrimination at Private Schools

September 15 Is a Major Tax Deadline – Who Actually Needs to Pay the IRS?

You Can Pay the IRS Directly From Your Bank Account for Free—No Registration Required

Amazon Prime Refunds Expand: More Consumers Will Get Automatic Payments, With Up to $200 Possible

by 1 Comment

Amazon Prime settlement refund
More consumers are becoming eligible for automatic payments from the Amazon Prime settlement, including some customers who used up to 20 Prime benefits during a 12-month period. Some eligible consumers could eventually receive as much as $200 total across multiple settlement-payment rounds. Tada Images/Shutterstock

More Amazon Prime customers could receive money from the company’s $2.5 billion Federal Trade Commission settlement under a newly approved process that expands automatic refunds and could eventually bring total payments to some eligible consumers to as much as $200.

The Federal Trade Commission announced September 17 that Amazon will accelerate and expand payments from the consumer redress fund established under the 2025 settlement.

One of the biggest changes is that more consumers will receive payments automatically. The revised process eliminates the need for additional claims from consumers identified in Amazon’s records as potentially eligible, including some people who previously didn’t submit a claim or whose submitted claim was invalid.

Consumers should also understand that the new $200 figure doesn’t mean everyone receiving a refund will immediately get $200.

Who Is Newly Eligible for Automatic Amazon Prime Refunds?

The original settlement established several stages for distributing money.

During the initial automatic-payment phase, Amazon issued payments to eligible consumers who enrolled in Prime through one of the enrollment flows challenged by the FTC and used no more than three Prime benefits during a 12-month period after enrollment.

Another phase covered eligible consumers who used no more than 10 Prime benefits during a 12-month enrollment period and included a claims process.

Under the court-approved revised payment order, Amazon began issuing payments by August 30 to potentially eligible consumers from that claims group who had submitted approved claims, submitted invalid claims or never submitted the claim form, as long as they hadn’t already received a settlement payment and weren’t subject to a holdback.

That means some people who missed the earlier claims process can still receive money automatically.

People Who Used Up to 20 Prime Benefits Are Being Added

The revised process expands the pool again beginning by October 1, 2026.

Amazon’s claims administrator will begin issuing automatic payments to additional eligible consumers identified in company records who used more than 10 but no more than 20 Prime benefits during any 12-month period of Prime enrollment.

Customers who already received a payment from the consumer fund are excluded from this particular expanded round.

The change speeds up a process that otherwise would have expanded eligibility incrementally based on the number of Prime benefits used.

According to the court order, handling those consumers in larger batches should allow refunds to reach later groups sooner.

The First Refund Is Still Capped at $51

One potentially confusing part of the new announcement is the $200 figure.

The original settlement capped refunds during the automatic, claims and expanded-payment phases at the amount of Prime membership fees paid, up to $51.

That basic $51 cap hasn’t simply been replaced by an immediate $200 refund for everyone.

Instead, the revised process creates the possibility of an additional payment later.

By the end of March 2027, Amazon must determine how much of the consumer fund has actually been accepted. If less than $1 billion has been accepted, remaining money will be distributed on a pro rata basis to eligible consumers who previously accepted a settlement payment.

Some Consumers Could Eventually Receive Up to $200 Total

Those additional pro rata payments can be as much as $149 per eligible consumer.

Combined with an earlier payment of up to $51, that creates a maximum of $200 in total settlement payments per eligible consumer across the program.

The court order says those additional payments will begin by the end of April 2027 if the remaining-funds condition is met.

The exact additional payment isn’t guaranteed to be $149 because it depends on how much money remains in the fund after earlier payments are accepted.

Consumers who already received and accepted an Amazon Prime settlement refund should therefore keep an eye out for another legitimate payment next year.

You Don’t Need to File a New Claim

For the newly expanded payment rounds, eligible consumers identified through Amazon’s records won’t need to submit a new claim form.

Amazon’s claims administrator will issue the payments automatically.

The FTC’s Amazon refund information says payments may arrive through electronic payment methods such as PayPal or Venmo or as mailed checks, depending on the applicable distribution stage and payment information.

Consumers still need to pay attention to acceptance deadlines.

For the group receiving the expanded automatic payments beginning by October 1, the court order gives recipients until March 5, 2027, to accept the payments. Unaccepted payments can then be voided and don’t have to be reissued.

The Settlement Dates Back to FTC Allegations About Prime Enrollment

The refunds stem from the FTC’s case accusing Amazon of enrolling millions of consumers in Prime subscriptions without their consent and making the cancellation process unnecessarily difficult.

Amazon agreed in September 2025 to a $2.5 billion settlement, including a $1 billion civil penalty and $1.5 billion intended for consumer refunds.

The original court order established the process for identifying eligible consumers and distributing the consumer redress money.

Court records show Amazon initiated more than 12.5 million automatic payments totaling more than $406 million during the first phase alone.

The latest change is designed to distribute more of the remaining consumer fund without requiring another round of paperwork from potentially eligible customers.

Watch for Refund Scams

A large refund program can also give scammers an opportunity to impersonate Amazon or the FTC.

Consumers should be suspicious of anyone who says they must pay a fee, buy something, provide a gift card or transfer money to receive an Amazon Prime settlement refund.

The FTC warns consumers that it won’t demand money or require someone to transfer funds in order to receive an FTC-related refund.

If you’re eligible for one of the expanded automatic Amazon Prime payments, you shouldn’t have to pay someone to release it.

Consumers who receive suspicious messages can report them at the FTC’s official fraud-reporting website rather than clicking links in unsolicited texts or emails.

What Amazon Prime Customers Should Do Now

Consumers don’t need to submit a new claim to become part of the expanded automatic-payment process.

Instead, watch for a legitimate electronic payment or mailed check and don’t ignore it indefinitely because some payments have acceptance deadlines.

If you already received a settlement payment, you could potentially receive another payment beginning in 2027 if less than $1 billion from the consumer fund has been accepted and money remains for the additional distribution.

Keep in mind that the $200 figure is a maximum across settlement-payment rounds, not a guaranteed check amount.

The safest place to verify current information is the FTC’s official Amazon refund page rather than a link sent through an unexpected email, text or social-media message.

What to Read Next

FTC Freezes Civil Penalty Amounts for 2026 After Government Shutdown Disrupted Inflation Data

FleetCor, Now Corpay, Agrees to Pay $100 Million Over Hidden Fuel Card Fees and Savings Claims

FTC Finalizes $930,000 Settlement Over ‘Active Listening’ AI Ad Service That Allegedly Didn’t Work as Advertised

FleetCor, Now Corpay, Agrees to Pay $100 Million Over Hidden Fuel Card Fees and Savings Claims

by Leave a Comment

FleetCor FTC settlement
FleetCor, now known as Corpay, and CEO Ronald Clarke have agreed to pay $100 million to resolve an FTC administrative action involving hidden or unauthorized fuel card fees and deceptive claims about savings. The FTC says the money will be used to provide redress to harmed business customers if the proposed settlement becomes final. Tada Images/Shutterstock

FleetCor Technologies, now known as Corpay, and its CEO Ronald Clarke have agreed to pay $100 million to resolve a Federal Trade Commission administrative action involving fuel cards marketed largely to small businesses.

The proposed settlement, announced September 17, follows years of litigation over FleetCor’s fuel card practices. According to the Federal Trade Commission, the company charged customers hidden or unauthorized fees and made deceptive claims about fuel savings, fees and fraud-control features associated with its cards.

The $100 million payment is expected to be used to provide redress to business customers harmed by the practices, according to the FTC. The proposed administrative settlement still must go through a public-comment process before the Commission decides whether to make the consent order final.

FTC Says Small Businesses Faced Undisclosed Fees

FleetCor sells fuel cards that businesses can provide to employees who purchase gasoline and other fuel for company vehicles.

The FTC said FleetCor’s customers were overwhelmingly small businesses and alleged that the company imposed a broad range of fees customers did not know about or agree to pay. According to the agency, those charges totaled hundreds of millions of dollars and affected tens of thousands of customers.

The allegations weren’t limited to ordinary account fees.

The FTC’s case against FleetCor also alleged that the company charged late fees to customers who had paid on time or, in some instances, had been prevented by FleetCor from making timely payments.

According to the FTC, some fees didn’t begin appearing until customers had gone through several billing cycles, potentially making the added charges less noticeable.

Some Fees Were Difficult for Customers to Spot

The way the charges appeared—or didn’t appear—on customer records was another major part of the government’s case.

The FTC alleged that FleetCor invoices didn’t disclose that certain fees were being charged. Customers instead had to look at other account-management reports to identify them.

Even there, the agency said, some fees were mixed in with other information or weren’t listed at all.

A federal district court entered summary judgment for the FTC on all counts in 2023, finding that FleetCor had charged hidden or otherwise unauthorized fees and misrepresented both fuel savings and fees associated with its cards.

A federal appeals court upheld the judgment against FleetCor on all counts in 2026. The appeals court affirmed the judgment against CEO Ronald Clarke on all but one count while vacating the injunction against him.

FTC Challenged Fuel-Savings Claims, Too

Fees weren’t the only issue.

The FTC alleged that FleetCor promoted some fuel cards by promising businesses specific savings on fuel purchases, but those promised savings weren’t always available.

Court records in the case describe claims that customers would receive specific discounts on every gallon purchased, while restrictions could prevent those discounts from being available at certain retailers or reduce or eliminate the savings under some circumstances.

For a small business operating several vehicles, the difference between an advertised per-gallon discount and the savings actually received can become significant as fuel purchases accumulate.

The FTC also challenged representations FleetCor made concerning fraud controls associated with the cards.

$100 Million Is Intended for Customer Redress

Under the proposed settlement, FleetCor and Clarke will pay $100 million, which the FTC says will be used to provide redress to business customers harmed by the company’s practices.

The agreement also says FleetCor and Clarke won’t oppose reimposition of a federal court injunction against Clarke.

A court order already permanently prohibits FleetCor from billing customers for charges unless the company obtains express informed consent and provides clear and unavoidable information about those charges.

The order also prohibits FleetCor from hiding material information about a charge behind a hyperlink and from making deceptive representations about its fuel cards.

Those provisions address practices at the center of the FTC’s original allegations.

The Settlement Isn’t Final Yet

The FTC voted 1-0-1 to accept the proposed consent agreement, with FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson recused.

The agency said a description of the agreement will be published in the Federal Register and will then be open for public comment for 30 days.

After the comment period closes, the Commission will determine whether to make the proposed consent order final.

That distinction matters: FleetCor and Clarke have agreed to the $100 million settlement, but the administrative consent order was still proposed when the FTC announced it on September 17.

Once an FTC consent order becomes final, violations of the order can potentially result in additional civil penalties.

Businesses That Used FleetCor Cards Should Watch What Happens Next

Businesses that previously used FleetCor fuel cards don’t need to assume they’re automatically entitled to part of the $100 million settlement simply because they were customers.

The FTC has said the money will be used for customer redress, but details about which businesses qualify, how payments will be calculated, and whether customers will need to take any action may depend on the final order and the agency’s redress process.

For now, affected businesses can follow the official FTC FleetCor case page for updates and future documents.

Business owners may also want to preserve old FleetCor account statements, invoices, fee records, and other account documentation while the case proceeds.

The case offers a broader reminder for businesses using fuel cards and other payment products: advertised discounts don’t necessarily reveal the complete cost of an account, so reviewing actual fees and realized savings can be just as important as comparing the headline offer.

What to Read Next

FTC Freezes Civil Penalty Amounts for 2026 After Government Shutdown Disrupted Inflation Data

7 Refund Payments Consumers Could Receive From the FTC Right Now

FTC Finalizes $930,000 Settlement Over ‘Active Listening’ AI Ad Service That Allegedly Didn’t Work as Advertised

Social Security Corrects Error in New Cardiovascular Disability Rules — What Claimants Should Know

by Leave a Comment

Social Security cardiovascular disability rules
Social Security has corrected a numbering error in its recently revised rules for evaluating cardiovascular disorders in SSDI and SSI claims. The September correction doesn’t change the medical criteria or create new eligibility requirements for people with heart-related conditions. Pressmaster/Shutterstock

The Social Security Administration has issued a technical correction to its recently revised rules for evaluating cardiovascular disorders in disability claims, but people applying for benefits shouldn’t interpret the update as another change in eligibility requirements.

SSA published the correction in the Federal Register on September 16. It fixes a numbering error in the cardiovascular disability regulations the agency finalized earlier this summer.

The underlying Social Security cardiovascular disability rule was published July 2 and revised the medical criteria SSA uses when evaluating cardiovascular disorders in adults and children under the Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income programs.

The September Correction Changes One Number

The latest Federal Register action is extremely limited.

In Appendix 1 to Subpart P of Part 404, a heading appearing on page 40837 of the July 2 final rule was printed as “How do we evaluate ECG evidence?”

The September correction adds the missing number so the heading correctly reads: “2. How do we evaluate ECG evidence?”

No medical language in the section was changed.

The correction doesn’t revise what electrocardiogram evidence SSA considers, establish a new cardiovascular listing, change a medical threshold or alter who can qualify for disability benefits.

The July Rule Was Much More Significant

While the September correction is editorial, the July 2 final rule it addresses made substantive changes.

SSA revised the cardiovascular portion of its Listing of Impairments, commonly called the listings. The agency said the revisions reflect its disability-adjudication experience, advances in medical knowledge and public comments received following an earlier proposed rule.

The listings contain medical criteria SSA uses during the disability evaluation process. If an adult has a medically determinable impairment that meets or medically equals the criteria of an applicable listing and satisfies the other requirements, SSA can find the person disabled at that stage of the evaluation.

Cardiovascular conditions addressed in SSA’s listings include disorders involving the heart and circulatory system.

A Listing Isn’t the Only Way Someone Can Qualify

The September correction also shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that a person must precisely meet one cardiovascular listing to have any chance of receiving disability benefits.

SSA explains that the Listing of Impairments contains medical criteria used at a particular stage of its disability evaluation process.

If an adult’s severe impairment doesn’t meet or medically equal a listing, the disability evaluation can continue. SSA may consider the person’s residual functional capacity along with other factors relevant under the agency’s sequential evaluation process.

That distinction can be important for someone with significant heart disease whose medical condition doesn’t match every requirement of a particular cardiovascular listing.

ECG Evidence Remains Part of Cardiovascular Evaluation

An electrocardiogram, commonly abbreviated ECG or EKG, records electrical activity in the heart and can provide medical evidence relevant to certain cardiovascular conditions.

SSA’s cardiovascular regulations contain detailed guidance explaining how the agency evaluates medical evidence associated with cardiovascular impairments. The current cardiovascular listings include criteria and explanatory material for evaluating conditions involving the cardiovascular system.

The September correction doesn’t change that guidance. It simply restores the intended sequential number to one heading addressing ECG evidence.

For claimants and beneficiaries, that means there is no new application to submit, medical test to obtain or action to take solely because SSA issued this correction.

Claimants Should Focus on the Underlying Disability Rules

Someone with a pending SSDI or SSI claim involving a cardiovascular condition should continue responding to SSA requests for medical evidence and other information rather than worrying that the September correction changed the standard governing the claim.

SSA’s July rule is the substantive regulatory action to understand; the September notice merely corrects how one portion of that rule was numbered when published.

People with questions about how a cardiovascular condition is being evaluated in an individual disability case can review SSA’s current Disability Evaluation Under Social Security guidance or contact the agency directly.

Federal agencies routinely issue corrections when errors are discovered in published regulatory documents. In this case, the important takeaway is straightforward: SSA corrected a missing section number, not the substance of its cardiovascular disability criteria.

What to Read Next

Reasons Your Social Security Increase and Your Actual Check Increase Aren’t Always the Same

6 Social Security Earnings-Test Details Workers Near Retirement Often Misread

What to Know About Social Security Claiming Assumptions That Can Distort a Retirement Plan

IRS Sets December Hearing on Proposed Tax-Exempt Rules for Racial Nondiscrimination at Private Schools

by Leave a Comment

IRS private school tax exemption
Treasury and the IRS are proposing updated racial nondiscrimination requirements for tax-exempt private schools, with a public hearing scheduled for December 2. The agencies estimate the proposal could affect as many as 18,000 private educational institutions. Ground Picture/Shutterstock

The Internal Revenue Service has scheduled a December public hearing on proposed regulations that would update federal tax-exemption rules governing racial nondiscrimination at private schools.

The hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2026, at 10 a.m. Eastern Time and will take place entirely by teleconference. It follows proposed regulations issued earlier this month by the Treasury Department and IRS under REG-119986-25.

The proposal would provide that a private school does not qualify for federal tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) if it adopts, maintains, or enforces a policy or practice that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national or ethnic origin.

Private Schools Already Face Nondiscrimination Requirements

The proposal isn’t creating the concept of racial nondiscrimination as a condition of tax exemption from scratch.

Current IRS guidance for tax-exempt organizations says a private school seeking federal tax-exempt status must have a racially nondiscriminatory policy toward students and cannot discriminate against applicants or students based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin.

Existing requirements also address admissions, scholarships, loans, school programs and athletics. Tax-exempt private schools generally must publicize their nondiscrimination policies and maintain certain records demonstrating compliance.

The Treasury Department and IRS say the proposed regulations would update those rules in light of Supreme Court decisions and establish a uniform nondiscrimination standard.

The Proposal Would Also Address Race-Based Preferences

One significant part of the proposal involves provisions of existing IRS guidance that have allowed certain policies favoring racial minority groups when their purpose and effect were to establish or maintain a school’s nondiscriminatory policy.

Treasury and the IRS propose eliminating those provisions, saying the exceptions are inconsistent with the uniform nondiscrimination standard contemplated by the new regulations.

Under the proposal, covered schools couldn’t make admissions decisions or provide benefits based on race, color, or national or ethnic origin. Schools could continue programs intended to expand educational opportunity using race-neutral criteria such as family income, geographic location, first-generation status, individual hardship, military-family status, or academic achievement.

The proposal also wouldn’t prevent private schools from maintaining religious missions or programs. Treasury and the IRS say religious schools could continue selecting students based on genuine religious affiliation or membership when consistent with federal law.

The agencies estimate that the regulations could affect as many as 18,000 private educational institutions, including private primary and secondary schools, colleges, universities, professional schools and trade schools.

December 2 Hearing Will Be Conducted by Telephone

According to the federal hearing notice, anyone wishing to testify must submit an outline of the topics they plan to discuss by November 3, 2026.

Each speaker will receive 10 minutes.

If the IRS receives no outlines by November 3, the hearing will be cancelled, and the agency will publish a cancellation notice.

People who want to attend without testifying must register by email by November 30 to receive the telephone number and access code. Requests for disability-related assistance must be submitted by November 27.

Testimony outlines can be submitted through the federal rulemaking portal by identifying IRS and REG-119986-25 or mailed to the IRS address provided in the official notice.

The Rules Wouldn’t Take Effect Immediately

The proposal remains just that—a proposal. The hearing and public-comment process occur before Treasury, and the IRS determines what will appear in final regulations.

The September 4 proposed regulations state that the new rules, if finalized as contemplated, would affect private schools for taxable years beginning on or after May 31, 2027.

That distinction is important for schools, families, and donors because the September proposal hasn’t itself changed the current requirements for tax-exempt private schools.

For donors, a school’s federal tax-exempt status can also matter when determining whether a charitable contribution qualifies for a federal income-tax deduction, subject to the applicable tax rules.

The December hearing gives schools, nonprofit organizations and other interested parties another opportunity to weigh in before the regulations are finalized. Written comments on the underlying proposal and requests for a public hearing are also due November 3.

What to Read Next

Treasury Opens $5 Billion New Markets Tax Credit Round to Drive Investment in Low-Income Communities

IRS Proposes New Tax Rules for U.S. Companies With Foreign Income and Overseas Operations

September 15 Is a Major Tax Deadline – Who Actually Needs to Pay the IRS?

Treasury Opens $5 Billion New Markets Tax Credit Round to Drive Investment in Low-Income Communities

by Leave a Comment

New Markets Tax Credit 2026
The Treasury Department’s CDFI Fund is making $5 billion in New Markets Tax Credit allocation authority available for 2026 to help attract private investment into low-income and economically distressed communities. Fishman64/Shutterstock

The U.S. Department of the Treasury is opening a new $5 billion round of a federal tax-credit program designed to attract private investment into economically distressed communities.

Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund announced the Calendar Year 2026 round of the New Markets Tax Credit Program in a Federal Register notice published September 15.

Organizations seeking an allocation face several deadlines, including a November 10, 2026, deadline for the full application.

The $5 Billion Isn’t a Pool of Direct Grants

The New Markets Tax Credit Program works differently from a traditional federal grant program.

Through the New Markets Tax Credit Program, the CDFI Fund gives certified Community Development Entities, or CDEs, authority to offer federal tax credits to investors who make qualifying equity investments.

Those CDEs then use the investment capital to finance eligible businesses and projects in low-income communities.

The federal tax credit totals 39% of the original qualified investment and is claimed over seven years. Investors generally claim 5% in each of the first three years and 6% in each of the following four years.

That means the newly announced $5 billion represents the amount of equity investment authority for which New Markets Tax Credits may ultimately be claimed—not $5 billion that Treasury will distribute directly to businesses or communities as grants.

The Program Has Financed Businesses and Community Projects

Congress created the New Markets Tax Credit Program in 2000 to encourage investment in communities that historically have had difficulty attracting private capital.

According to the CDFI Fund’s program overview, eligible investments have helped finance businesses and projects serving distressed communities.

The CDFI Fund says that through fiscal year 2023, the program generated about $8 in private investment for every $1 of federal funding and supported the construction or rehabilitation of more than 268 million square feet of commercial real estate.

Projects financed through the program can include operating businesses as well as facilities and services serving low-income communities.

The program does not mean that every business located in a low-income area automatically qualifies for a tax credit. Investments must flow through qualified Community Development Entities and meet detailed federal requirements.

Treasury Has $5 Billion Available for the 2026 Round

The Federal Register notice for the 2026 allocation round makes $5 billion in New Markets Tax Credit allocation authority available.

The CDFI Fund anticipates awarding individual allocatees up to $100 million in tax-credit investment authority.

However, that isn’t an absolute cap or a guaranteed award amount.

The agency says it may award more or less than $100 million when it determines doing so is appropriate, and it retains discretion to make allocations to any, all, or none of the organizations that apply.

Awards are therefore competitive rather than automatic.

Congress Made the $5 Billion Annual Program Permanent

The 2026 round follows a significant change to the future of the program.

The New Markets Tax Credit had previously been extended by Congress for limited periods, creating uncertainty about whether the program would continue after its existing authorization expired.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 permanently extended the New Markets Tax Credit and provided $5 billion in annual allocation authority beginning in 2026.

That means the current $5 billion round isn’t simply another short-term extension of the program.

The CDFI Fund’s 2026 notice cites the 2025 law as the authority for the $5 billion available in this year’s allocation round.

Applicants Face Several Deadlines

Organizations interested in the 2026 allocation can’t wait until November to begin the process.

The CDFI Fund has established several critical deadlines:

  • September 22, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. ET: CDE certification applications and certain certification/service-area requests
  • October 6, 2026, at 5 p.m. ET: Allocation Application Registration
  • November 3, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. ET: Certain allocation-agreement amendment requests
  • November 6, 2026, at 5 p.m. ET: Last day to contact CDFI Fund staff with application questions
  • November 10, 2026, at 5 p.m. ET: Full CY 2026 Allocation Application and required attachments

Applications and related submissions are handled electronically through the CDFI Fund’s Awards Management Information System, or AMIS.

Importantly, an organization that fails to complete the required application registration by October 6 won’t be able to subsequently submit a 2026 allocation application.

Certification Rules Also Changed for This Round

Treasury highlighted two notable program changes for the 2026 round.

First, prior New Markets Tax Credit allocatees face revised minimum requirements involving the issuance of Qualified Equity Investments and the closing of Qualified Low-Income Community Investments tied to earlier allocations.

Second, applicants must meet new timing requirements involving CDE certification.

To be considered for a 2026 allocation, an applicant generally must either already be certified as a Community Development Entity as of the Federal Register publication date or submit its CDE certification application through AMIS by the September 22 deadline.

The CDFI Fund says it won’t provide allocation authority to applicants that ultimately aren’t certified as CDEs.

Some Prior Allocatees Face January 2027 Deadlines

The application deadline isn’t the only date organizations participating in the program need to watch.

Certain prior allocatees subject to Qualified Equity Investment issuance and Qualified Low-Income Community Investment requirements have until January 7, 2027, at 11:59 p.m. ET to meet the applicable thresholds.

The deadline to report those QEIs and certify the required QLICIs through AMIS is January 14, 2027, at 11:59 p.m. ET.

Those deadlines are particularly relevant to organizations with earlier New Markets Tax Credit allocations because satisfying prior-round requirements can affect eligibility in the new competition.

Organizations considering an application should review the complete CDFI Fund New Markets Tax Credit application materials rather than relying only on the headline November deadline.

With $5 billion in new allocation authority available and the program now permanently extended, the 2026 round represents the beginning of a new phase for a tax incentive that has been directing private investment toward low-income communities for more than two decades.

What to Read Next

Treasury Yields Are Rising. Why Should Someone Who Doesn’t Own a Treasury Care?

The Fed Decides September 16—The 3 Accounts That Reprice Within 48 Hours, and the 4 That Take Months

Treasury Proposes New Stablecoin Rules Under GENIUS Act — Here’s Who Could Be Affected

FTC Freezes Civil Penalty Amounts for 2026 After Government Shutdown Disrupted Inflation Data

by Leave a Comment

FTC civil penalties 2026
The Federal Trade Commission says its civil penalty amounts will remain at 2025 levels throughout 2026 because the government shutdown prevented federal officials from producing the October 2025 inflation data required to calculate the annual increase. Tada Images/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission will keep its civil penalty amounts at 2025 levels for the remainder of 2026 after a government shutdown prevented federal officials from producing inflation data required to calculate this year’s increase.

The FTC formally announced the unusual move in a Federal Register notice published September 15. Federal law normally requires agencies to adjust applicable civil monetary penalties annually for inflation, but 2026 will be different.

The reason traces back to the federal government shutdown in late 2025.

Why FTC Penalties Aren’t Increasing in 2026

Under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, federal agencies generally make annual inflation adjustments to civil monetary penalties under their jurisdiction.

The calculation relies on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, or CPI-U, produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Specifically, the annual adjustment depends on comparing CPI-U data for October of the preceding year with October data from the year before that.

But the government shutdown prevented BLS from producing the required October 2025 CPI-U figure.

Without that number, federal agencies didn’t have the data needed to calculate the 2026 adjustment using the formula established by law.

On April 17, the Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M-26-11, announcing that there would be no updated cost-of-living multiplier for 2026 and instructing agencies to continue using their 2025 civil monetary penalty amounts.

The FTC’s September notice formally confirms that the agency is following that guidance.

This Isn’t an FTC Decision to Lower Penalties

Consumers and businesses shouldn’t interpret the announcement as the FTC reducing its civil penalties or backing away from enforcement.

The agency isn’t lowering its 2025 penalty levels. It simply isn’t applying the inflation increase that would normally occur in 2026.

The FTC says it will continue applying the penalty amounts established for 2025.

This situation also isn’t unique to the FTC. OMB’s April guidance applies across federal agencies subject to the inflation-adjustment law because they face the same missing October 2025 CPI-U data.

OMB noted that 2026 is the first year since implementation of the 2015 law in which annual adjustments aren’t required because the necessary inflation data aren’t available.

How FTC Civil Penalties Work

The FTC enforces numerous consumer-protection and competition laws, but a civil penalty isn’t automatically available every time the agency believes a business engaged in unfair or deceptive conduct.

The legal authority depends on the particular violation.

For example, the FTC explains in its enforcement guidance that civil penalties can be available for violations of certain FTC rules, statutes, and final Commission orders.

The agency can also use its Penalty Offense Authority in certain circumstances. Under that process, the FTC may seek civil penalties when a company engages in conduct it knows has previously been found unfair or deceptive in a written Commission decision.

The FTC says civil penalties are intended in part to deter conduct that harms consumers and can sometimes exceed the amount a company earned from the misconduct.

The maximum amount applicable to a particular case depends on the law or rule involved and potentially factors such as the number and timing of violations.

Some FTC Penalties Can Reach Tens of Thousands of Dollars Per Violation

The 2025 penalty schedule contains different maximum amounts depending on the statutory provision involved.

For example, the FTC currently says companies that receive certain Notices of Penalty Offenses and then engage in prohibited conduct can face civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation under the applicable 2025 adjustment.

Other statutes enforced by the FTC carry different maximum penalty amounts.

The complete schedule is contained in 16 CFR § 1.98, which lists the inflation-adjusted civil monetary penalties within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Those are the amounts the FTC will continue using in 2026 rather than applying another inflation adjustment.

Why the September Notice Didn’t Go Through Public Comment

Normally, federal regulatory changes can involve notice-and-comment procedures and a waiting period before taking effect.

This announcement is different because the FTC isn’t changing the regulatory text or establishing new penalty amounts.

Instead, it’s notifying the public that the 2025 amounts will remain in place because the federal government lacks the CPI-U figure needed to calculate the annual adjustment.

The FTC therefore said prior public notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act and a delayed effective date weren’t required.

The notice took effect when it was published in the Federal Register on September 15.

What the 2026 Penalty Freeze Means

For consumers, the announcement doesn’t change what conduct the FTC can investigate or which consumer-protection laws businesses must follow.

For companies subject to statutes, rules, or orders carrying FTC civil penalties, however, it means the maximum inflation-adjusted amounts won’t receive the increase that ordinarily would have occurred in 2026.

The unusual pause stems from missing government inflation data rather than a change in the underlying enforcement laws.

The Office of Management and Budget’s guidance directed federal agencies to continue using their 2025 civil penalty levels, and the FTC’s September notice formally confirms that it will do exactly that.

Consumers and businesses looking for the penalty amount associated with a particular FTC law or rule can consult the agency’s current schedule in 16 CFR § 1.98.

What to Read Next

7 Refund Payments Consumers Could Receive From the FTC Right Now

FTC Finalizes $930,000 Settlement Over ‘Active Listening’ AI Ad Service That Allegedly Didn’t Work as Advertised

FTC Raises National Do Not Call Registry Access Fees for Telemarketers Starting October 1

IRS Proposes New Tax Rules for U.S. Companies With Foreign Income and Overseas Operations

by Leave a Comment

IRS foreign tax credit rules
The IRS and Treasury Department are proposing new rules for allocating deductions when certain U.S. companies calculate foreign tax credits and deductions connected to foreign-derived income. DK_STUDIO29/Shutterstock

U.S. companies doing business overseas could face updated rules for calculating important international tax deductions and foreign tax credits under a new proposal from the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department.

The proposed regulations, published September 11, are intended to implement international tax changes Congress enacted in the 2025 One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act.

For most individual taxpayers, the proposal won’t change how they prepare their federal income tax returns. Instead, the rules primarily matter to domestic corporations claiming a deduction connected to foreign-derived income and taxpayers operating abroad through foreign corporations.

What Is the IRS Proposing?

At the center of the proposal is a complicated but important tax question: When a company has income from both U.S. and foreign sources, which expenses and deductions should be assigned to each?

That calculation matters because assigning a deduction to one category of income rather than another can change the amount of income used to calculate certain tax benefits.

The proposed regulations address two areas.

The first involves the calculation of deduction eligible income, or DEI, used in determining a domestic corporation’s deduction for foreign-derived deduction eligible income, commonly abbreviated FDDEI.

The second involves the foreign tax credit limitation for foreign-source Section 951A category income. That category generally relates to income U.S. shareholders recognize from controlled foreign corporations.

The IRS proposal provides detailed rules for deciding how deductions should be allocated and apportioned when companies make those calculations.

The Rules Stem From the 2025 Tax Law

Congress changed both areas as part of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law July 4, 2025.

The changes generally apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.

For deduction eligible income, the amended law changed which deductions reduce gross income when calculating DEI.

Under the new framework, deductions—including certain taxes—that are properly allocable to the relevant gross income generally reduce DEI. However, interest expense and research or experimental expenditures are excluded from that reduction.

The proposed Treasury regulations provide instructions for applying those statutory changes.

Foreign Tax Credit Calculations Are Changing Too

The foreign tax credit is designed, broadly speaking, to reduce the potential for U.S. taxpayers to be taxed twice on qualifying foreign income.

But determining how much foreign tax credit a taxpayer can use involves a limitation calculation, and that requires determining how much taxable income belongs in different foreign-income categories.

The 2025 law added special rules under Section 904(b)(5) for deductions associated with foreign-source Section 951A category income.

Under those rules, certain deductions—including the Section 250 deduction associated with net CFC tested income and certain taxes—are allocated to that foreign-source income.

Interest expenses and research and experimental expenditures, meanwhile, aren’t allocated to foreign-source Section 951A category income under the new rules.

Other deductions generally go to that foreign-source category only when they are directly allocable to it. Otherwise, they’re allocated to U.S.-source income.

The proposed regulations provide additional details for putting those rules into practice.

Who Actually Needs to Pay Attention?

This isn’t a proposal that the typical employee, retiree or small household needs to factor into a Form 1040.

Treasury and the IRS say the regulations would primarily affect taxpayers operating in foreign countries through foreign corporations and domestic corporations claiming the deduction for foreign-derived deduction eligible income.

That means companies with foreign subsidiaries, significant international operations or qualifying foreign-derived income—and the tax professionals advising them—have much more reason to study the proposal closely.

The allocation rules can affect both the amount of income used in calculating the FDDEI deduction and the limitation on foreign tax credits.

Because international corporate tax calculations can involve multiple entities, income categories and jurisdictions, affected businesses should evaluate the proposal based on their particular structures rather than relying on a simplified example.

Companies May Be Able to Use the Proposed Rules Before They’re Final

One noteworthy part of the proposal is that affected taxpayers don’t necessarily have to wait for Treasury to publish final regulations before relying on the new guidance.

The proposed rules generally apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.

Treasury and the IRS also say taxpayers may rely on the proposed Section 250 rules before final regulations are published if they follow the applicable proposed regulations in their entirety.

Similar reliance is available for the proposed rules addressing Section 904(b)(5) and related deduction allocation, again provided taxpayers follow those proposed provisions in their entirety.

That can give businesses and their tax advisers a framework for dealing with the statutory changes while the formal rulemaking process continues.

IRS Wants Comments by November 10

These regulations aren’t final yet.

The IRS is accepting written and electronic comments on the proposal, along with requests for a public hearing, through November 10, 2026.

Electronic comments can be submitted through the federal rulemaking portal by referencing REG-117273-25.

Treasury and the IRS will consider those comments before moving ahead with final regulations.

For most consumers, there is no immediate tax action required because of this proposal. Businesses with controlled foreign corporations, foreign-derived income or significant cross-border operations, however, may want their tax professionals to review the rules now because the underlying statutory changes already apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.

What to Read Next

September 15 Is a Major Tax Deadline – Who Actually Needs to Pay the IRS?

You Can Pay the IRS Directly From Your Bank Account for Free—No Registration Required

IRS Opens 2027 Corporate Tax Compliance Program — Applications Due October 30

Federal Regulators Double Bank Asset Threshold for 18-Month Examination Cycle to $6 Billion

by Leave a Comment

18-month bank examination cycle
Federal banking regulators have raised the asset threshold from $3 billion to $6 billion for certain qualifying institutions to use an 18-month on-site examination cycle instead of the standard 12-month schedule. dennizn/Shutterstock

Some community banks may now go six additional months between regularly scheduled federal on-site examinations after regulators doubled the asset threshold for institutions eligible for an extended examination cycle.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve Board and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have issued an interim final rule raising the threshold from $3 billion to $6 billion in total assets.

The change took effect September 14, 2026, and implements a provision of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.

For bank customers, the important distinction is that the rule doesn’t eliminate federal oversight or automatically give every bank below $6 billion an 18-month examination schedule. The longer cycle is intended for qualifying institutions with relatively low-risk profiles that meet additional supervisory requirements.

What Changed for Community Banks

Federal law generally requires insured depository institutions to receive a full-scope, on-site examination at least once every 12 months.

Certain smaller institutions that satisfy additional requirements, however, can qualify for an examination every 18 months instead.

Until this change, the relevant asset ceiling was $3 billion. The new rule raises that threshold to less than $6 billion, potentially allowing more community banks to use the extended schedule.

According to the OCC, approximately 50 additional OCC-regulated institutions are expected to become eligible for the 18-month examination cycle because of the higher threshold.

The Federal Reserve, FDIC and OCC said extending the examination cycle can reduce the time and resources low-risk institutions devote to the examination process.

A Bank Doesn’t Qualify Based on Size Alone

A bank having $5 billion in assets doesn’t automatically mean federal examiners will visit only once every 18 months.

Federal regulators emphasize that institutions must satisfy qualifying criteria for the extended examination schedule. Those requirements include being considered well capitalized and well managed.

The rule is designed for smaller institutions with relatively low-risk profiles rather than giving every bank under the new asset ceiling an automatic six-month extension.

Regulators also aren’t going completely hands-off during the longer interval.

The agencies said they will continue their existing practice of off-site monitoring between scheduled examinations for institutions using the extended cycle.

That distinction matters for depositors who might see the phrase “fewer bank examinations” and assume federal oversight is disappearing. The change affects the normal schedule for qualifying full-scope on-site examinations; it doesn’t mean regulators stop monitoring a bank for 18 months.

Why Regulators Say the Change Is Needed

Federal regulators describe the rule as a way to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on community banks that have already demonstrated stronger financial and managerial characteristics.

A full bank examination can require significant staff time and resources as examiners evaluate areas including financial condition, management, risk controls and compliance with applicable laws.

Moving a qualifying institution from a 12-month to an 18-month cycle gives it another six months between those regularly scheduled examinations.

The agencies argue that this is appropriate for smaller, well-managed and well-capitalized institutions with lower-risk profiles.

OCC officials have also framed the change as part of a broader effort to tailor supervision to the size, complexity and risk of community banks rather than applying the same regulatory burden to every institution.

U.S. Operations of Some Foreign Banks Are Included Too

The rule isn’t limited to domestic community banks.

The OCC, Federal Reserve and FDIC are also making corresponding changes to regulations governing the examination cycles of qualifying U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banks.

Those changes are being made consistent with requirements under the International Banking Act of 1978.

As with domestic institutions, meeting the asset threshold alone doesn’t necessarily establish eligibility for the longer examination cycle. The applicable regulatory requirements still have to be satisfied.

What Does This Mean for Bank Customers?

For the typical checking or savings account customer, there is no immediate action to take.

The rule doesn’t change the balance in an account, the interest rate a bank pays or the basic way customers access their money.

It also doesn’t change the standard FDIC deposit insurance amount. At an FDIC-insured bank, deposits are generally automatically insured to at least $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.

Instead, this is primarily a change in how frequently certain qualifying banks undergo their regularly scheduled full-scope federal on-site examinations.

Customers concerned about the financial condition of a bank can still verify whether an institution is FDIC insured and review publicly available information about it rather than attempting to determine safety based solely on whether its normal examination cycle is 12 or 18 months.

The Rule Is Already in Effect, but Regulators Want Comments

The agencies issued the change as an interim final rule, which means it took effect upon publication while regulators are still accepting public comments.

The Federal Reserve identifies the proposal as Docket No. R-1898, while OCC materials identify Docket ID OCC-2026-0761.

Comments are being accepted for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.

The immediate takeaway for consumers is fairly limited: some additional community banks that satisfy federal safety, management and other qualifying standards can now move from annual on-site examinations to an 18-month schedule.

For the banks themselves, however, regulators say those additional six months can reduce examination-related time and costs while off-site supervision continues between scheduled exams.

What to Read Next

What Actually Happens to the Money in Your Bank Account When You Die?

Why Banks Sometimes Close Accounts Without Warning

You Can Pay the IRS Directly From Your Bank Account for Free—No Registration Required

You Can Pay the IRS Directly From Your Bank Account for Free—No Registration Required

by Leave a Comment

IRS Direct Pay
IRS Direct Pay allows taxpayers to send eligible federal tax payments directly from a checking or savings account without registering for an IRS Online Account or paying a Direct Pay fee. Users can make same-day payments or schedule them up to 365 days in advance and receive a confirmation number after submitting the request. BLACKDAY/Shutterstock

Paying a federal tax bill online doesn’t necessarily require creating another account—or paying a processing fee to use a credit or debit card.

The Internal Revenue Service issued a reminder September 10 that its Direct Pay service allows taxpayers to send federal tax payments directly from a checking or savings account for free. No registration or IRS Online Account is required.

The tool can be useful for taxpayers paying a balance due, making estimated tax payments, paying after filing an amended return, requesting certain filing extensions, or handling several other federal tax obligations.

Here’s what taxpayers should know before using it.

Direct Pay Doesn’t Require an IRS Account

IRS Direct Pay works differently from the agency’s Individual Online Account.

Taxpayers using Direct Pay make a one-time payment without signing in or registering for an account. Individual taxpayers instead answer identity-verification questions using information from a prior-year tax return they select.

For businesses, the system verifies the business name and employer identification number against IRS records.

Payments are made directly from a checking or savings account at a U.S. financial institution using the bank’s routing and account numbers.

The IRS describes Direct Pay as both free and secure.

You Can Use It for More Than a Tax Bill

Direct Pay isn’t limited to paying the balance shown on an annual income tax return.

Individual taxpayers can use it for numerous payment types, including balance-due payments, estimated taxes, amended returns, installment agreements and certain extension payments.

Business taxpayers can use Direct Pay for balance-due payments, federal tax deposits and other eligible federal tax payments.

There is an important rule for married couples filing jointly: taxpayers generally need to enter information for the spouse whose name appears first on the joint tax return when making the payment.

The IRS provides a list of eligible payment types through its Direct Pay Help resources.

Payments Can Be Scheduled Up to a Year Ahead

Direct Pay also offers some flexibility for people who don’t want the money withdrawn immediately.

The IRS says taxpayers can make a same-day payment or schedule one as far as 365 days in advance. That could be particularly useful for someone planning estimated tax payments or preparing ahead for a known tax deadline.

After submitting a payment request, taxpayers receive a confirmation number and can also choose to receive confirmation by email.

Keep that number.

It is needed if you later want to look up, change, or cancel the payment. The IRS generally allows a scheduled Direct Pay payment to be changed or canceled up to two business days before its scheduled date.

One limitation is that Direct Pay handles one payment at a time rather than establishing an automatic recurring-payment schedule.

There Are Several Important Limits

Direct Pay isn’t available for every taxpayer or every situation.

People who have never filed a federal tax return—or who haven’t filed one in more than six years—may need to choose another IRS payment method because Direct Pay relies on prior return information for individual identity verification.

The service also cannot be used to have a tax refund directly deposited into your bank account. Despite the similar terminology, Direct Pay is a payment service for sending money to the IRS, not receiving a refund from it.

The IRS also limits users to five Direct Pay payments within a 24-hour period.

Individual Direct Pay payments must be less than $10 million. Taxpayers needing to make a payment of $10 million or more can use a same-day wire transfer or the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System when eligible and enrolled.

Don’t Stop at the Confirmation Screen

Receiving a Direct Pay confirmation number means the IRS received the payment request, but taxpayers should still make sure the money was successfully withdrawn.

The IRS recommends checking your bank statement or IRS account at least 48 hours after the requested payment date to confirm the transaction was completed.

That’s particularly important because a payment request could fail if, for example, the account doesn’t contain enough money to cover the withdrawal.

Saving the confirmation number and checking the corresponding bank transaction gives taxpayers documentation if they later need to investigate a payment problem.

Start at IRS.gov Instead of a Search Ad or Unfamiliar Link

Taxpayers interested in Direct Pay should access it through IRS.gov rather than relying on an unsolicited email, text message, advertisement, or unfamiliar website claiming to collect federal tax payments.

The legitimate IRS tool does not charge taxpayers a fee to send an eligible payment directly from their checking or savings account.

That’s an important distinction from some other electronic payment options. The IRS notes that taxpayers who choose to pay federal taxes using a debit card, credit card, or digital wallet generally make the transaction through an approved payment processor that charges a processing fee.

For someone who simply wants to send money directly from a bank account without registering for another online service, Direct Pay provides a relatively straightforward alternative.

Just verify the payment type, bank information, tax year, and amount carefully before submitting—and save the confirmation number until you’re certain the payment has been processed.

What to Read Next

IRS Opens 2027 Corporate Tax Compliance Program — Applications Due October 30

Tax Deadlines Extension Filers Should Put on Their Calendar Now

IRS Raises Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit to 3.1 Cents Per Kilowatt-Hour for 2026