• Home
  • About Us
  • Getting Finances Done
    • Hiring Advisors
    • Debt Management
    • Spending Plan
  • Insurance
    • Life Insurance
    • Health Insurance
    • Disability Insurance
    • Homeowners/Renters Insurance
  • Contact Us
  • Our Editorial Commitment

The Free Financial Advisor

You are here: Home / Archives for news

Walmart Agrees to Pay $50 Million Over Allegations Its Pharmacies Filled Invalid Opioid Prescriptions

August 31, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Walmart opioid settlement
Walmart has agreed to pay $50 million to resolve Justice Department allegations that its pharmacies filled thousands of invalid prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances. The settlement also requires new monitoring and reporting safeguards, and DOJ says the resolved claims are allegations only with no determination of liability. QualityHD/Shutterstock

Walmart has agreed to pay $50 million to resolve federal allegations that its pharmacies illegally filled thousands of invalid prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances, ending a major federal case that dates back nearly six years.

The Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration announced the settlement on August 28. The government had accused Walmart of violating the Controlled Substances Act through actions involving both individual pharmacists and members of the retailer’s corporate compliance team.

The settlement doesn’t include a determination that Walmart is liable for the alleged conduct. Walmart told Reuters that it was pleased to resolve the matter and said it would continue supporting its pharmacists and their work providing patient care.

DOJ Says Walmart Filled Prescriptions Despite Warning Signs

The government’s complaint was originally filed on December 22, 2020, and amended in 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

According to the Justice Department’s settlement announcement, the government alleged that Walmart had filled invalid prescriptions since June 26, 2013, through the knowing actions of individuals on its corporate compliance team and pharmacists working in its stores.

Federal officials alleged that members of Walmart’s compliance team knew certain prescribers were operating as “pill mills” but that invalid prescriptions written by those prescribers were filled anyway.

Walmart’s own pharmacists had raised concerns about problematic prescribers through thousands of internal “refusal-to-fill” forms, according to DOJ.

The government cited an internal email in which a compliance-team director said that rather than devoting additional effort to analyzing refusal-to-fill information, “[d]riving sales and patient awareness” was a better use of certain employees’ time.

Pharmacists Allegedly Encountered Red Flags

The government’s allegations weren’t limited to the actions of Walmart’s corporate compliance operation.

DOJ also alleged that Walmart pharmacists filled controlled-substance prescriptions they personally knew were invalid.

Federal officials said some prescriptions came from prescribers known as “pill mills,” while others presented warning signs that should have raised concerns about whether they were being issued for a legitimate medical purpose.

Those alleged red flags included dangerous combinations of opioids, combinations or “cocktails” involving opioids and non-opioid medications, repeated fills of high-dose and frequently abused opioids, and repeated requests to fill frequently abused controlled substances early.

The DEA said pharmacies have a responsibility to identify and prevent unlawful dispensing because illegitimate opioid prescriptions can put patients and communities at risk and undermine safeguards designed to prevent misuse and diversion.

Walmart Must Pay $50 Million and Adopt New Safeguards

The settlement requires Walmart to pay $50 million to resolve the federal allegations.

The retailer has also entered into a memorandum of agreement with the DEA establishing future requirements for how its pharmacies handle controlled substances.

Among those requirements, Walmart must establish a hotline that employees and patients can use to report suspected illegal dispensing of controlled substances.

The company must also proactively monitor dispensing patterns across its pharmacies to identify and address potentially illegal activity and establish a process for evaluating prescribers suspected of illegal prescribing.

DEA Assistant Administrator Cheri Oz said the agreement establishes compliance obligations intended to strengthen safeguards and help prevent similar problems in the future.

The Federal Case Had Previously Been Narrowed

The $50 million agreement resolves litigation that had been underway since 2020, although the government’s original case was broader than the claims ultimately remaining before the settlement.

In March 2024, a federal judge narrowed the lawsuit, dismissing claims involving Walmart’s alleged failure to report suspicious prescriptions to the DEA and pharmacists’ alleged failure to document certain prescription red flags.

The court allowed other claims to continue, including allegations that pharmacists dispensed prescriptions that Walmart compliance personnel knew were invalid and that pharmacists themselves knowingly dispensed invalid prescriptions.

Walmart did not admit liability as part of the $50 million resolution.

In a statement reported by Reuters after the settlement was announced, Walmart said it was pleased to resolve the matter and would continue supporting the work its pharmacists perform for patients.

The Settlement Ends the Case Without a Finding of Liability

The federal government characterized the agreement as part of its broader enforcement of laws governing pharmacies that dispense opioids and other controlled substances.

The case involved attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Division as well as U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in Delaware, North Carolina, Florida and New York.

For consumers, the settlement doesn’t mean that every opioid or controlled-substance prescription filled at a Walmart pharmacy was improper. The government’s allegations concerned specific dispensing and compliance practices over a period beginning in 2013.

The Justice Department also emphasizes an important legal distinction: the claims resolved by the settlement remain allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.

Going forward, the most visible consumer-facing change required by the agreement may be the new reporting hotline, which will allow both Walmart employees and patients to report suspected illegal dispensing of controlled substances.

What to Read Next

Should You Pay Off a 0% Credit Card Before the Promotional Rate Ends?

You Can Afford the Car Payment. Can You Afford the Car?

Your Credit Card Has a $30,000 Limit. How Much Should You Actually Be Willing to Spend?

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: consumer safety, Controlled Substances, DEA, Department of Justice, healthcare, Opioid Prescriptions, Opioids, Pharmacy, prescription drugs, Walmart, Walmart Pharmacy

IRS Is Shutting Down the FIRE Filing System Nov. 19 — What Businesses Need to Do Before 2027

August 31, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

IRS FIRE system retirement
The IRS will stop accepting information returns through its FIRE system on November 19, 2026, at 3 p.m. ET. Current FIRE users will need a separate IRIS Transmitter Control Code to electronically file tax year 2026 information returns during the 2027 filing season. A9 STUDIO/Shutterstock

The IRS is warning businesses, tax professionals and other information-return filers that its long-running FIRE electronic filing system is approaching its final shutdown, with the last opportunity to submit information returns through the platform coming in November 2026.

Beginning with the 2027 filing season, filers who previously used the Filing Information Returns Electronically system, commonly known as FIRE, will need to transition to the newer Information Returns Intake System, or IRIS, to electronically file tax year 2026 information returns.

The IRS announced the latest transition details in an August 24 reminder and is encouraging current FIRE users to prepare before the shutdown rather than waiting until filing deadlines approach.

The Final FIRE Filing Deadline Is November 19

The IRS has established several important dates for current FIRE users. November 1, 2026, is the last day filers can submit test information returns through the FIRE Trading Partner Test System. November 9 is the final day to make changes to existing Information Returns Applications for Transmitter Control Codes, or TCCs.

Most importantly, November 19, 2026, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time is the last day information returns can be filed through FIRE. After the November maintenance window, the system will no longer accept information-return submissions. Beginning after January 1, 2027, IRIS will be the IRS’s only electronic filing system for information returns previously handled by FIRE, including current-year returns, prior-year returns and corrections.

Current FIRE Users Need a New IRIS TCC

Filers shouldn’t assume their existing FIRE credentials will automatically carry over to IRIS. The IRS says current FIRE users must complete an IRIS Application for Transmitter Control Code before filing through the new platform. Transmitter Control Codes aren’t interchangeable between the different IRS intake systems, meaning a FIRE TCC can’t simply be used to submit returns through IRIS.

That’s one reason the IRS is encouraging businesses, tax professionals and other affected filers to begin the transition now. The change is particularly important for organizations that electronically submit large volumes of information returns, including many forms in the 1099 series.

Employers should note that W-2 series forms follow a different process and are filed electronically with the Social Security Administration rather than through FIRE or IRIS. Other specialized information returns can also use different filing systems, so filers should verify which IRS or federal platform applies to the specific forms they submit.

IRIS Offers Two Ways to Submit Information Returns

IRIS isn’t entirely new. The IRS introduced the system in 2023 and has gradually expanded it as part of the transition away from FIRE.

The first filing option is the IRIS Taxpayer Portal, a free web-based system that allows users to electronically file up to 100 returns at a time. Filers can manually enter information or upload it through a CSV file, download copies for recipients and maintain records of completed and submitted forms.

For businesses, payroll processors, tax professionals and other filers handling larger volumes, the IRS also offers IRIS Application to Application, commonly called A2A.

That option allows filers using third-party software—or organizations that develop their own software—to transmit larger volumes of information returns directly through IRIS.

Beginning in 2027, the IRS says all forms previously supported through FIRE will be available through IRIS.

Waiting Until Filing Season Could Create Problems

The transition matters because tax year 2026 information returns will generally be filed during the 2027 filing season, when FIRE will no longer be available as a fallback.

A business or tax professional who discovers in January that an existing FIRE TCC doesn’t work with IRIS could therefore face unnecessary delays while trying to complete the new registration and filing process.

The IRS recommends that current FIRE users complete their IRIS TCC application, review available IRIS filing guidance and begin preparing for the transition before FIRE shuts down.

Filers can also subscribe to IRIS QuickAlerts for information about system changes and maintenance. The IRS holds IRIS Working Group meetings on the second Wednesday of each month, although participants must register each month to receive the meeting link.

The agency says it will continue providing transition information through those working groups, QuickAlerts and IRS.gov as the final FIRE shutdown approaches.

For businesses and tax professionals that still rely on FIRE, the key takeaway is simple: November 19 at 3 p.m. ET is the end of the road for FIRE submissions, and an existing FIRE TCC isn’t enough to start filing through IRIS in 2027. Preparing the new IRIS access now could prevent a last-minute filing problem when tax season arrives.

What to Read Next

IRS Keeps Interest Rate at 7% for Taxpayers Who Owe Money in Late 2026

Your Financial Advisor Wants You to Roll Over Your 401(k) – Ask These 7 Questions First

IRS Proposes New Restrictions on Refundable Tax Credits for Some Immigrants

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: 1099 forms, 2027 Tax Season, business taxes, FIRE System, Information Returns, IRIS, IRS, Small business, tax filing, Tax Professionals, taxes

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

August 28, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

FTC Cox Media Group settlement
The FTC says an “Active Listening” advertising service marketed as using AI and conversations captured near smart devices did not actually use voice data and allegedly failed to provide the geographic targeting customers were promised. Laktikov Artem/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission has finalized orders requiring Cox Media Group and two marketing firms to pay a combined $930,000 to settle allegations that they misled customers about an AI-powered advertising service promoted as being able to target consumers based on conversations picked up by smart devices.

The FTC announced final approval of the orders on August 27 after considering public comments on settlements first proposed in May. The companies are Georgia-based CMG Media Corporation, which does business as Cox Media Group; New Hampshire-based MindSift LLC; and Wisconsin-based 1010 Digital Works LLC.

FTC Says the ‘Active Listening’ Service Didn’t Work as Advertised

At the center of the cases was a marketing product branded as “Active Listening.”

According to the Federal Trade Commission, the companies claimed the service could use a special algorithm to identify relevant conversations taking place near consumers’ smart devices and then help small businesses target advertisements to potential customers in specific geographic areas.

The FTC alleged that those claims weren’t true.

The service didn’t collect or use consumers’ voice data, according to the agency, and the FTC also alleged that it didn’t accurately target advertisements to the geographic areas customers had paid to reach. Instead, the original FTC complaints alleged that the service involved reselling email lists obtained from other data brokers at a significant markup.

That distinction is important because businesses purchasing the service weren’t simply buying an advertising campaign that underperformed. The FTC alleged they were being given a fundamentally different service from the sophisticated voice- and AI-based targeting capability that had been marketed to them.

Consumers Hadn’t Opted Into the Voice Targeting Either, FTC Says

The FTC also challenged claims about consumer consent.

According to the agency, the companies represented that consumers had opted into having voice data used for the Active Listening service. The FTC alleged no such voice-data collection was actually taking place and that consumers had not provided the claimed consent.

The original complaints said the companies relied on consumers accepting terms of service when downloading and using apps as the basis for saying people had “opted in.” The FTC rejected that reasoning, saying acceptance of mandatory app terms did not constitute opt-in consent for an invasive service involving voice data from inside people’s homes.

The agency added that if Active Listening had actually collected and used voice data without adequate consent as advertised, the practice itself would have violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Cox Media Group Will Pay Most of the $930,000

Under the finalized orders, Cox Media Group must pay $880,000. MindSift and 1010 Digital Works must each pay $25,000, bringing the combined total to $930,000.

The FTC says the money will be used to provide redress to Cox Media Group customers affected by the practices.

The orders also restrict what the three companies can claim going forward. They are prohibited from misrepresenting the qualities or features of advertising and marketing services, the collection or use of voice data, whether consumers have consented to collection or disclosure of voice data, and the geographic-targeting capabilities of their services.

The Commission voted 2-0 to finalize the consent agreements after receiving two public comments on the proposed settlements.

The Case Is Also a Warning About AI Marketing Claims

The settlement has implications beyond these three companies because businesses are increasingly being asked to pay for advertising and other services marketed with AI-powered capabilities.

For small businesses buying digital advertising, the case is a reminder to ask vendors what data actually powers a targeting product, where that data comes from, how geographic targeting is verified and what evidence supports claims involving artificial intelligence.

The case also illustrates why claims involving sensitive consumer information deserve additional scrutiny. In this instance, the FTC says the advertised voice surveillance wasn’t actually occurring—but the agency made clear that collecting and using consumers’ conversations without adequate consent would have presented a separate legal problem.

The final orders resolve the FTC’s allegations against the companies and carry legal requirements governing their future conduct. As with other FTC consent matters, the allegations should not be characterized as independent judicial findings that every allegation was proven at trial.

What to Read Next

Florida Health System Agrees to $541.5 Million Settlement Over Medicare Advantage Diagnosis Codes

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

Federal Agencies Withdraw 2022 Guidance on Special Credit Programs — What Borrowers Should Know

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: AI, artificial intelligence, consumer privacy, Consumer Protection, Cox Media Group, data privacy, Digital Advertising, FTC', Online Advertising, Small business

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

August 27, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Do Not Call Registry fees
</strong> The FTC is increasing the fees certain telemarketers and sellers pay to access National Do Not Call Registry data beginning October 1, 2026. Consumers can still register their own phone numbers for free. Ruslan Huzau/Shutterstock

Businesses that make telemarketing calls will soon pay slightly more to access the federal database designed to protect consumers from unwanted sales calls. The Federal Trade Commission announced new fiscal year 2027 fees for accessing the National Do Not Call Registry, with the changes taking effect October 1, 2026. The increase affects businesses and other organizations that pay to access phone-number data by area code, not consumers who register their numbers.

For consumers, the announcement is also a useful reminder of how the Do Not Call Registry actually works — and what registering a number can and cannot stop.

What Telemarketers Will Pay Starting October 1

The annual fee for accessing National Do Not Call Registry data will increase from $82 to $85 per area code for fiscal year 2027. Businesses adding area codes during the second half of their annual subscription period will pay $43 per additional area code, up from $41.

The maximum annual charge for a single entity will increase from $22,626 to $23,425.

Not every business accessing the database necessarily pays for every area code. Under the FTC’s current system, organizations can access data for up to five area codes for free, while qualifying exempt organizations do not pay access fees.

Why the FTC Is Raising the Fees

The adjustment isn’t simply a discretionary price increase by the agency. Federal law requires the FTC to periodically adjust National Do Not Call Registry access fees based on changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.

According to the agency, the CPI increased enough since the previous adjustment to trigger another fee increase for fiscal year 2027. The calculations ultimately resulted in the $85 per-area-code fee and $23,425 maximum charge.

Because the adjustment is required by statute and involves applying a prescribed inflation calculation, the agency treated the change as a technical amendment rather than going through the usual public notice-and-comment process.

Businesses Have to Check Numbers Against the Registry

The National Do Not Call Registry isn’t simply a list that consumers add their phone numbers to and then forget about. It also creates compliance obligations for many businesses engaged in telemarketing.

Sellers generally must access the portions of the Registry covering the area codes where they plan to make calls and pay the required access fees. Telemarketers working for sellers also need to make sure their clients have properly accessed the Registry before placing covered calls.

The FTC’s guidance warns that sellers or telemarketers can face legal consequences for making calls without obtaining required Registry access, even in some circumstances when the particular number called isn’t itself on the Registry.

The Fee Increase Doesn’t Mean Consumers Have to Pay

Consumers should not confuse the new fees with a charge for putting their own phone number on the Do Not Call Registry. Registration remains free for consumers.

That distinction could also help people recognize a potential scam. Someone who contacts a consumer claiming a payment is required to put a number on the federal Do Not Call Registry should not be trusted simply because the FTC recently announced a fee increase.

The fees taking effect October 1 apply to businesses and other organizations obtaining access to Registry data for telemarketing compliance — not people registering their personal phone numbers.

Being on the Registry Won’t Stop Every Unwanted Call

Consumers should also understand that registration doesn’t create a universal block against every unwanted phone call.

Certain calls aren’t covered by the National Do Not Call Registry’s restrictions, and scammers who are already willing to break the law may simply ignore the Registry altogether. That is why someone can legitimately register a phone number and still receive illegal robocalls or scam calls afterward.

For legitimate sellers and telemarketers subject to the Telemarketing Sales Rule, however, checking numbers against the Registry remains an important compliance requirement. The new fiscal year 2027 fees change how much qualifying businesses pay for that access, rather than changing the basic purpose of the consumer protection program.

What Changes on October 1, 2026

For consumers, very little changes directly on October 1: registering a phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry remains free. For telemarketers and sellers that must pay for Registry data, the cost rises to $85 per area code beyond applicable free access, while the maximum annual fee climbs to $23,425.

Businesses affected by the change should review the FTC’s current requirements rather than relying on previous-year fee information. Consumers, meanwhile, can continue using the Registry as one tool for limiting legitimate telemarketing calls — while remembering that registration alone can’t prevent criminals from placing illegal scam calls.

Are you registered with the National Do Not Call Registry, and have you noticed any difference in the number of unwanted calls you receive? Share your experience in the comments.

What to Read Next

Florida Health System Agrees to $541.5 Million Settlement Over Medicare Advantage Diagnosis Codes

At 55, Should You Still Be Investing Like You’re 35?

At What Point Does Saving More for Retirement Stop Improving Your Life?

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Consumer Protection, Do Not Call, Do Not Call Registry, Federal Trade Commission, FTC', phone scams, robocalls, scam calls, Telemarketing, Telemarketing Sales Rule

Florida Health System Agrees to $541.5 Million Settlement Over Medicare Advantage Diagnosis Codes

August 27, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Medicare Advantage diagnosis codes
A $541.5 million federal settlement involving The Villages Health System highlights how diagnosis codes can affect Medicare Advantage payments. The Justice Department says the settlement resolves allegations and does not constitute a determination of liability. Anatoliy Cherkas/Shutterstock

A Florida healthcare provider has agreed to a massive $541.5 million settlement with the federal government over allegations that unsupported diagnosis codes helped drive up Medicare Advantage payments.

The Villages Health System LLC (TVH), headquartered in The Villages, Florida, agreed to resolve False Claims Act allegations involving diagnosis codes submitted between 2020 and 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice announced August 26.

The case involves a part of Medicare Advantage that most beneficiaries rarely see: the system used to adjust how much the federal government pays private insurers based partly on the health conditions of their members.

Importantly, the settlement resolves allegations, and the Justice Department said there has been no determination of liability.

Why Diagnosis Codes Can Change Medicare Advantage Payments

Medicare Advantage, also known as Medicare Part C, allows beneficiaries to receive Medicare coverage through private insurance plans rather than Original Medicare.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services pays Medicare Advantage Organizations, or MAOs, a monthly amount for each enrolled beneficiary. Those payments are adjusted for factors affecting expected healthcare costs, with plans generally receiving more money for beneficiaries expected to have greater medical needs. Medical diagnosis codes play a significant role in those calculations.

According to DOJ, diagnoses used for these risk adjustments must be supported by medical records from qualifying patient-provider encounters. For outpatient care, the diagnoses also must have required or affected the patient’s care, treatment, or management during the visit.

That creates an important safeguard: a diagnosis submitted for payment purposes isn’t supposed to exist merely as a code on a patient’s chart. It must meet Medicare’s requirements.

What the Government Alleged The Villages Health Did

Federal officials alleged that from 2020 through 2024, TVH knowingly submitted false diagnosis codes to several Medicare Advantage insurers.

According to DOJ, some of the diagnoses did not have adequate support in patients’ medical records. Others allegedly relied on amendments that weren’t initiated by the treating provider, weren’t made in a timely manner, or weren’t approved by that provider.

The government alleges those codes were then submitted by the Medicare Advantage insurers to CMS, resulting in inflated federal payments. TVH’s payments were also allegedly increased as a result.

The Medicare Advantage organizations involved were Humana, several UnitedHealthcare entities, and GuideWell companies including Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida and Florida Blue Medicare.

The Health System Reported the Problem Itself

There is an unusual and important detail in this case: TVH disclosed the coding issue to the government.

On December 27, 2024, the organization made a submission through the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General’s Health Care Fraud Self-Disclosure Protocol. TVH disclosed that it had submitted invalid diagnosis codes for certain Medicare Advantage beneficiaries and that those codes had increased CMS payments to insurers.

DOJ said TVH subsequently took remedial action, provided the government with a detailed written disclosure, and cooperated with investigators.

Those actions mattered when the settlement was negotiated.

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate said the resolution demonstrates that the government will pursue organizations accused of inflating Medicare payments while also giving credit to organizations that self-disclose problems, take corrective action and cooperate with investigations.

Acting Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Miranda L. Bennett similarly said TVH’s use of the self-disclosure process and its cooperation were important factors in resolving the matter.

What Happens to the Medicare Advantage Overpayments?

The settlement isn’t limited to TVH.

DOJ said the Medicare Advantage insurers that received payments connected to the invalid diagnosis codes are returning overpayments to the federal government.

Depending on the insurer, that is occurring through deletion of invalid diagnosis codes and/or agreements with DOJ and CMS to return money.

That distinction is important because CMS initially paid the Medicare Advantage organizations. TVH allegedly benefited because provider groups can have arrangements under which their compensation is tied to some portion of the Medicare Advantage payments insurers receive.

In other words, the coding at issue could affect payments at multiple points in the Medicare Advantage system.

The Settlement Comes During TVH’s Bankruptcy Case

The resolution also comes against the backdrop of a major financial restructuring.

TVH filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on July 3, 2025, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. The bankruptcy court approved the federal settlement on August 25, 2026, one day before DOJ publicly announced it.

Bankruptcy court records also show orders approving settlement agreements involving the United States, Florida Blue and UnitedHealthcare on August 25.

The $541.5 million settlement therefore represents part of a much broader financial situation surrounding the healthcare organization.

What This Means for Medicare Advantage Beneficiaries

For beneficiaries, the announcement does not mean that everyone treated by TVH received an incorrect medical diagnosis, nor does it mean Medicare Advantage members need to repay the $541.5 million themselves.

The government’s allegations concern diagnosis codes used in Medicare Advantage risk-adjustment payments.

However, patients should generally review their medical records and Medicare information and raise questions when they see diagnoses, services or claims they don’t recognize. Accurate health records matter beyond billing because medical information can influence future treatment and communication among healthcare providers.

Anyone who suspects Medicare fraud can report concerns to HHS-OIG. DOJ notes that reports of potential healthcare fraud, waste or abuse can be submitted through the inspector general or by calling 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).

A $541.5 Million Reminder That Medical Coding Has Real Financial Consequences

A diagnosis code can look like a small administrative detail, but Medicare Advantage’s risk-adjustment system can attach substantial financial consequences to the medical conditions reported for beneficiaries.

The Villages Health System settlement demonstrates the scale those consequences can reach when federal officials allege that unsupported diagnoses have influenced payments over several years.

At the same time, TVH’s voluntary disclosure is an important part of the story. Federal officials specifically credited the organization for reporting the issue, taking remedial measures and cooperating with the investigation.

The case ultimately resolves allegations involving hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicare Advantage payments, but DOJ emphasizes that the settlement is not a judicial determination that TVH was liable for the alleged conduct.

Have you ever found a diagnosis or medical service in your health records that you didn’t recognize? Share your experience in the comments.

What to Read Next

At 55, Should You Still Be Investing Like You’re 35?

At What Point Does Saving More for Retirement Stop Improving Your Life?

Your Advisor Recommends an Annuity. Ask These Questions Before You Say Yes.

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: CMS, DOJ, False Claims Act, Florida, healthcare, medical billing, Medicare, Medicare Advantage, Medicare fraud, The Villages Health System

Federal Agencies Withdraw 2022 Guidance on Special Credit Programs — What Borrowers Should Know

August 26, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

special purpose credit programs
Federal regulators have withdrawn 2022 guidance that encouraged lenders to use special purpose credit programs to expand access to credit. The change does not eliminate all SPCPs, but lenders can no longer rely on the rescinded interagency statement when structuring their programs. Shakirov Albert/Shutterstock

Seven federal agencies have withdrawn a 2022 policy statement that encouraged banks and other creditors to use special purpose credit programs to expand access to financing for underserved groups. The rescission took effect August 25, 2026, and affects guidance involving the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, commonly called ECOA, and its implementing rule, Regulation B.

The change does not eliminate special purpose credit programs altogether. Instead, it removes the agencies’ 2022 interagency statement and comes after a separate 2026 change to Regulation B that narrowed how certain characteristics can be used in these programs.

For consumers, particularly borrowers who have encountered down-payment assistance, mortgage programs, or other lending initiatives aimed at economically disadvantaged groups, understanding that distinction is important.

What the Seven Federal Agencies Changed

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Justice, and Federal Housing Finance Agency jointly rescinded the 2022 “Interagency Statement on Special Purpose Credit Programs Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B.” The notice was published in the Federal Register on August 25 as Document No. 2026-17307 and became effective the same day.

The agencies said they took the action to make two points clear: creditors may not discriminate against borrowers based on prohibited characteristics, and lenders should no longer rely on the 2022 statement or related issuances. The OCC separately rescinded its 2022 bulletin that had distributed the earlier interagency guidance to banks it supervises.

Notably, the Federal Reserve participated in the original 2022 statement but is not among the seven agencies listed in the 2026 rescission.

What Are Special Purpose Credit Programs?

Special purpose credit programs, or SPCPs, are not simply a product created by the 2022 guidance. Regulation B itself continues to contain provisions allowing certain qualifying credit programs designed to meet particular needs.

These can include credit-assistance programs expressly authorized by federal or state law for economically disadvantaged groups, qualifying nonprofit programs, and certain programs offered by for-profit organizations to meet special social needs.

The 2022 interagency statement encouraged creditors to explore these programs as a way of increasing credit access for historically disadvantaged people and communities. It also sought to reassure financial institutions that were uncertain about when such programs were permissible under ECOA and Regulation B.

That encouragement has now been withdrawn.

A Separate 2026 Rule Already Changed the Ground Rules

The rescission makes more sense in the context of a significant regulatory change that occurred earlier this year.

On April 22, 2026, the CFPB finalized amendments to Regulation B covering disparate-impact liability, discouragement of applicants and special purpose credit programs. Among other changes, the updated regulation prohibits certain SPCPs from using an applicant’s race, color, national origin or sex as a common characteristic or eligibility factor.

The OCC specifically pointed to that change in explaining the August rescission, noting that the 2022 statement had referenced an earlier version of Regulation B that has since been amended.

That distinction is important because the new announcement should not be interpreted as meaning that every SPCP is now prohibited. Current Regulation B still expressly provides for qualifying special purpose credit programs, subject to the regulation’s requirements.

What This Could Mean for Borrowers

Consumers probably won’t see their existing mortgage, credit card, or other conventional loan suddenly change because of the August 25 announcement. The more immediate impact falls on lenders that operate, design or were considering special purpose credit programs.

Financial institutions now have to evaluate those programs under the current version of Regulation B without relying on the assurances contained in the 2022 interagency statement.

For borrowers, the practical effect could eventually appear in the availability, eligibility criteria, or design of certain targeted lending programs. However, the rescission notice itself does not announce that a particular bank program has been canceled or that a specific group of borrowers will lose access to credit.

Consumers enrolled in an existing program should therefore avoid assuming that the federal announcement automatically terminates their participation. Questions about an individual loan or program are best directed to the lender administering it.

Federal Fair-Lending Protections Still Apply

The withdrawal also does not eliminate ECOA’s broader protections against credit discrimination.

The CFPB’s current Regulation B resources continue to cover consumer credit, business credit, mortgages, refinancing, credit applications, servicing and other lending activities.

The seven agencies emphasized in their rescission that creditors may not discriminate against borrowers based on prohibited characteristics. In other words, this is a change in federal guidance concerning special purpose credit programs, not the repeal of federal fair-lending law.

Borrowers who encounter a change to a special lending program should pay attention to what their lender actually says has changed rather than assuming the August announcement applies identically to every program.

What Happens Next

Banks, credit unions, mortgage companies, and other creditors operating SPCPs will need to review their programs against the amended Regulation B and current federal guidance. The CFPB has also updated its ECOA examination procedures following the April regulatory changes, meaning the new framework is already reflected in federal supervisory materials.

For consumers, there is no universal action required because of the August 25 rescission. Someone currently applying through a special purpose credit program can ask the lender whether eligibility or program terms have changed and whether other assistance programs remain available.

The key takeaway is narrower than the original auto-generated release suggests: the federal government has withdrawn the 2022 guidance encouraging these programs, but special purpose credit programs themselves have not simply disappeared from federal law.

What to Read Next

IRS Proposes New Eligibility Rules for Refundable Payments From 4 Tax Credits

FTC Credit Repair Case Shows Why “Quick Fix” Credit Promises Can Cost Consumers Thousands

FDIC Publishes 2026 Risk Review Covering Funding, Interest Rate, and Credit Risks Facing Banks

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: banking, CFPB, consumer finance, credit, ECOA, FDIC, mortgages, Regulation B, Special Purpose Credit Programs

U.S. Mint Opens Orders for $60 Freedom 250 Race Medal With 15,000-Medal Limit

August 25, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

2026 Freedom 250 Race Medal
The U.S. Mint’s 2026 Freedom 250 Race Medal commemorates the historic IndyCar race through Washington, D.C., and features racing imagery, the U.S. Capitol and motorsports pioneer Roger Penske. The medal is priced at $60, with mintage limited to 15,000. Image Source: U.S. Mint

Collectors and racing fans have a limited opportunity to order a new U.S. Mint medal commemorating the Freedom 250 Grand Prix and America’s 250th anniversary.

The United States Mint opened pre-sales for the 2026 Freedom 250 Race Medal on August 21, 2026, at noon ET, with each medal priced at $60. The ordering window is scheduled to remain open until September 4 at 3 p.m. ET, but mintage is limited to 15,000 medals.

The medal adds some important context missing from the original Federal Register notice: it commemorates the first IndyCar Series race held in the nation’s capital, an event tied to celebrations surrounding the 250th anniversary of American independence.

The Medal Commemorates the Freedom 250 Grand Prix

The Freedom 250 Grand Prix brought IndyCar racing to the streets of Washington, D.C., on August 22 and 23. The 250-mile race used a 1.7-mile street circuit around some of the capital’s best-known landmarks and was created as part of the nation’s semiquincentennial celebrations.

The race itself has already taken place, with American driver Kyle Kirkwood winning the inaugural event on August 23 after leading 128 of its 147 laps.

According to the Mint, the commemorative medal was created to capture the national significance of the event as well as the history and engineering of open-wheel racing. Mint Director Paul Hollis described it as both a motorsports collectible and a commemorative item marking America’s 250th anniversary.

What the $60 Freedom 250 Medal Looks Like

The medal will be struck on a half-dollar planchet at the Philadelphia Mint, an important detail for collectors that wasn’t included in the original draft.

The obverse, or front, features an IndyCar bearing the inscription “USA” alongside an image of the U.S. Capitol. It also includes the inscriptions “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” and “FREEDOM 250.”

The reverse features a portrait of motorsports businessman and Team Penske founder Roger Penske, accompanied by the inscriptions “MOTORSPORT PIONEER” and “ROGER PENSKE.” Penske played a major role in bringing the Freedom 250 to Washington, with his company largely financing the infrastructure required for the event.

Only 15,000 Medals Will Be Produced

The Mint has set the price at $60 per medal, and the Federal Register notice says the product will be made to demand based on orders received during the sales period or limited to 15,000 units.

The Mint’s own product listings currently identify the Freedom 250 medal as both “Limited” and “Pre-Order.”

That does not necessarily mean all 15,000 medals will be produced. If fewer orders are received during the ordering window, production can reflect actual demand. Conversely, collectors interested in the medal should not assume they can wait until September 4 if orders reach the maximum mintage before then.

This Is a Collectible Medal, Not a Circulating Coin

Consumers should also understand what they are purchasing. Although the U.S. Mint produces the nation’s legal-tender circulating coins, it also produces numismatic products and commemorative medals.

The Freedom 250 item is being sold as a medal, not as a circulating $0.50 coin simply because it is struck on a half-dollar planchet. The Mint currently categorizes the item among its sports and historical-event medals.

Collectors should also avoid assuming that the 15,000-unit limit guarantees the medal will increase in value. Limited production can contribute to collector interest, but secondary-market prices depend on future demand and other factors that cannot be predicted when the medal is released.

The Ordering Window Closes September 4

Pre-orders began August 21 at noon ET and are scheduled to close September 4, 2026, at 3 p.m. ET. Consumers interested in the medal can review the official product information and current availability directly through the U.S. Mint’s Freedom 250 listing.

The Federal Register notice establishing the $60 price was issued under 31 U.S.C. 5111 and lists Ann Bailey of U.S. Mint Product Management as the contact for additional information.

With its 15,000-medal ceiling, Philadelphia production, IndyCar and Capitol imagery, Roger Penske portrait and connection to America’s 250th anniversary, the Freedom 250 Race Medal has considerably more collector context than the original pricing announcement alone might suggest.

Would you pay $60 for a Freedom 250 Race Medal, or would you rather spend that money on a traditional U.S. Mint coin? Share your thoughts in the comments.

What to Read Next

IRS Keeps Interest Rate at 7% for Taxpayers Who Owe Money in Late 2026

The “One More Year” Retirement Question: How Much Difference Can Working 12 More Months Really Make?

Your Portfolio Has 12 Funds — But Are You Actually Diversified?

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: America 250, coin collecting, collectibles, Freedom 250, Freedom 250 Race Medal, IndyCar, numismatics, Roger Penske, U.S. Mint, Washington D.C.

IRS Keeps Interest Rate at 7% for Taxpayers Who Owe Money in Late 2026

August 24, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

IRS interest rates 2026
The IRS will keep its interest rate on individual tax underpayments and overpayments at 7% annually, compounded daily, for the fourth quarter beginning October 1, 2026. Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock

Taxpayers carrying an unpaid federal tax balance will continue facing a 7% annual interest rate through the end of 2026.

The Internal Revenue Service announced August 21 that interest rates will remain unchanged for the calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2026. For individuals, both tax underpayments and overpayments will carry a 7% annual rate, compounded daily.

That means taxpayers who owe the IRS should not expect interest costs to become cheaper during the final three months of the year. On the other hand, taxpayers entitled to interest on certain delayed refunds will continue receiving the same 7% rate.

What the 7% IRS Interest Rate Means for Taxpayers

Interest can become important when someone files a tax return but cannot immediately pay the entire balance due. The IRS generally charges interest on unpaid taxes, and because that interest compounds daily, delaying payment can steadily increase the amount owed.

The fourth-quarter rate applies from October 1 through December 31, 2026. The IRS calculates rates quarterly, so the percentage can rise or fall in subsequent quarters depending on changes in the federal short-term rate.

For taxpayers other than corporations, the underpayment and overpayment rates are calculated using the federal short-term rate plus three percentage points. The IRS said the fourth-quarter rates were based on the federal short-term rate determined during July 2026.

The Rate Isn’t Increasing From the Previous Quarter

The announcement does not represent a new increase for taxpayers. Individual overpayments and underpayments were already subject to a 7% rate during the third quarter of 2026, covering July through September.

That distinction may be useful for consumers who see headlines about a “7% IRS interest rate” and assume a new increase is taking effect in October. Instead, the agency is maintaining its existing rate.

IRS rates have moved during 2026. The individual rate was 7% during the first quarter, fell to 6% for the second quarter and returned to 7% for the third quarter before remaining there for the fourth.

Overpayments Can Earn Interest Too

Interest does not work exclusively against taxpayers. The IRS can also pay interest on qualifying overpayments when taxpayers have paid more than they owe and the government does not issue the refund within the applicable time period.

For individuals, the fourth-quarter overpayment rate will also remain 7% annually, compounded daily. However, taxpayers should not interpret that as meaning every tax refund automatically earns 7% interest. Whether interest is owed depends on the circumstances and timing surrounding the refund.

The IRS describes an overpayment as a payment made in excess of the amount owed.

Corporations Have Different Interest Rates

Businesses should pay attention to a separate set of numbers. For the fourth quarter, the corporate overpayment rate will be 6%, while the rate on the portion of a corporate overpayment exceeding $10,000 for a taxable period will be 4.5%.

The general underpayment rate remains 7%, while large corporate underpayments are subject to a substantially higher 9% rate.

These differences result from formulas established under the Internal Revenue Code. Generally, corporate overpayments use the federal short-term rate plus two percentage points, while large corporate underpayments use the federal short-term rate plus five percentage points.

Owing the IRS Can Become More Expensive the Longer You Wait

For households, the practical takeaway is straightforward: a tax balance that remains unpaid can continue accumulating interest even though the fourth-quarter rate isn’t increasing.

Taxpayers who discover they owe money after filing should therefore avoid assuming that waiting until the next quarter will automatically produce a lower interest rate. IRS rates are recalculated quarterly, and future rates can move in either direction.

The complete fourth-quarter calculations are contained in Revenue Ruling 2026-15, which the IRS says will appear in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2026-36 dated August 31, 2026. Taxpayers who need information about their own balances, payment options or interest charges can use IRS.gov or consult a qualified tax professional.

What to Read Next

IRS Proposes New Eligibility Rules for Refundable Payments From 4 Tax Credits

IRS Issues New Guidance on Expanded Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit

Government Imposter Scams: How to Verify an IRS, SSA, or Medicare Contact

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: 2026 taxes, IRS, IRS interest rates, Personal Finance, tax debt, tax payments, tax refunds, taxes

IRS Proposes New Eligibility Rules for Refundable Payments From 4 Tax Credits

August 21, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

IRS refundable tax credit proposal
The IRS and Treasury have proposed regulations that would change eligibility for the refundable portions of four federal tax credits. The proposal has not yet taken effect. Tada Images/Shutterstock

The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury have issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would classify the refunded portion of certain federal refundable tax credits as a “Federal public benefit” under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). The proposal was published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2026.

Four Tax Credits Would Be Affected

Under the proposed rule, individuals who are not considered “qualified aliens” under PRWORA would become ineligible to receive the refundable portion of four specific federal income tax credits: the adoption tax credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the child tax credit, and the earned income credit. The non-refundable portions of these credits are not addressed by the proposal; only the amounts that would otherwise be paid out as a refund to the taxpayer are at issue.

Who Would Meet the Proposed Eligibility Standard?

PRWORA, enacted in 1996, generally restricts certain federal public benefits based on immigration status. Its definition of a “qualified alien” includes categories such as lawful permanent residents, refugees, asylees, and certain other noncitizens who meet statutory requirements. Because immigration classifications can be complicated, taxpayers should not determine their eligibility based solely on a general list in a news article.

The Proposal Applies to Refundable Amounts, Not Every Dollar of the Credit

The IRS stated it is issuing the proposed rule under authority granted by section 7805(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, as well as section 404 of PRWORA, which requires federal agencies administering a federal public benefit to notify the public and benefit recipients of any eligibility changes.

The proposed rule is identified as REG-119882-25 and covers amendments to 26 CFR Part 1 under Internal Revenue Code sections 23, 24, 25A, and 32, which govern the adoption tax credit, child tax credit, American Opportunity Tax Credit, and earned income credit, respectively.

The distinction between a refundable and nonrefundable tax credit matters. A nonrefundable credit can generally reduce the federal income tax someone owes, while a refundable amount can potentially result in money being paid to the taxpayer beyond their income-tax liability. Under the proposal, it is the refunded portion of the affected credits that would be treated as a federal public benefit under PRWORA. The proposal therefore should not be described as making affected taxpayers completely ineligible for all four tax credits.

Nothing Changes for Taxpayers Yet

The IRS has set a public comment deadline of October 5, 2026. A public hearing has been scheduled for October 14, 2026, though it will be cancelled if no requests to speak are received by the October 5 deadline. Requests to attend the hearing must be submitted by 5 p.m. ET on October 9, 2026. Comments may be submitted electronically through the federal rulemaking portal at regulations.gov using docket number REG-119882-25, or by mail to the IRS address specified in the Federal Register notice.

The proposal could be particularly important for households that qualify for refundable credits even when their federal income-tax liability is relatively low. For example, someone might use part of an eligible credit to reduce their tax liability to zero and potentially receive another portion as a refund. Under the proposed framework, PRWORA eligibility would affect the refunded amount rather than automatically eliminating the entire underlying credit. Taxpayers should not change how they file based solely on the proposal because it has not been finalized.

Because this is a proposed rule, it has not yet taken effect. Taxpayers and advisors who may be affected by changes to eligibility for these credits should monitor the rulemaking process and verify their specific circumstances directly with the IRS or a qualified tax professional.

What to Read Next

IRS Proposes New Restrictions on Refundable Tax Credits for Some Immigrants

What to Know About IRS Notice Mistakes That May Turn a Small Tax Issue Into a Bigger Bill

Government Imposter Scams: How to Verify an IRS, SSA, or Medicare Contact

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Adoption Tax Credit, American Opportunity Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, Immigration, IRS, tax credits, taxes, Treasury Department

IRS Proposes New Restrictions on Refundable Tax Credits for Some Immigrants

August 20, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

IRS refundable tax credit proposal
Treasury and the IRS are proposing new eligibility rules for the refundable portions of four federal tax credits, including the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. The proposal has not yet been finalized. sasirin pamai/Shutterstock

The Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service have issued proposed regulations that would clarify eligibility requirements for the refunded portions of certain individual income tax credits, according to an official IRS announcement designated IR-2026-93.

The proposed rules seek to strengthen enforcement of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), a federal law that limits access to federal public benefits to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and qualified aliens. Treasury and the IRS are now proposing that the refunded portions of certain refundable tax credits constitute federal public benefits under that law.

Four Tax Credits Are Included in the Proposal

Four specific tax credits are covered by the proposal: the adoption tax credit, the child tax credit, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Importantly, the proposed rules apply only to the refunded portion of these credits — defined as the amount by which the combined eligible credits exceed a taxpayer’s income tax liability for the year. Taxpayers who do not qualify to receive the refunded portion may still use the non-refunded portion of an applicable credit to offset their income tax liability, according to the announcement.

The proposal follows a legal analysis by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluding that refunded portions of the affected credits qualify as federal public benefits under PRWORA. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano both issued statements indicating the rules are intended to direct these benefits to eligible taxpayers and protect the integrity of the tax system.

This would not necessarily eliminate the entire value of an affected tax credit for someone who does not meet the proposed eligibility requirements. Treasury and the IRS are distinguishing between the portion used to reduce federal income tax liability and the refundable amount that can result in money being paid to a taxpayer beyond that liability. The proposed PRWORA restrictions would apply to the latter.

The Rules Are Not in Effect Yet

If finalized, the regulations would take effect for tax years ending on or after the date the final regulations are published. No final effective date has been set, as the rules are still in the proposed stage.

Treasury and the IRS have invited public comments and requests for a public hearing on all aspects of the proposed regulations. Instructions for submitting comments are included in the proposed regulations.

The EITC in particular is widely used by lower- and middle-income working households, making these proposed changes potentially significant for a broad segment of taxpayers and tax filers who claim refundable credits.

Readers with questions about their specific eligibility for any of the affected credits should consult the IRS website at IRS.gov or speak with a qualified tax professional, as individual circumstances vary.

What to Read Next

What to Know About IRS Notice Mistakes That May Turn a Small Tax Issue Into a Bigger Bill

IRS Issues New Guidance on Expanded Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit

Government Imposter Scams: How to Verify an IRS, SSA, or Medicare Contact

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Adoption Tax Credit, American Opportunity Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, Immigration, IRS, tax credits, tax refunds, taxes, Treasury Department

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Next Page »

Follow Us

Search this site:

Recent Posts

  • Can My Savings Account Affect My Financial Aid? by Tamila McDonald
  • 12 Ways Gen X’s Views Clash with Millennials… by Tamila McDonald
  • What Advantages and Disadvantages Are There To… by Jacob Sensiba
  • 10 Tactics for Building an Emergency Fund from Scratch by Vanessa Bermudez
  • Call 911: Go To the Emergency Room Immediately If… by Stephen Kanaval
  • 7 Weird Things You Can Sell Online by Tamila McDonald
  • 10 Scary Facts About DriveTime by Tamila McDonald

Copyright © 2026 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework