The House Ways and Means Committee recently offered a window into what the legislative body is working on when it comes to developing legislation to govern the taxation of digital assets, highlighting six bills and a discussion draft covering a range of topics.
The House Ways and Means Committee recently offered a window into what the legislative body is working on when it comes to developing legislation to govern the taxation of digital assets, highlighting six bills and a discussion draft covering a range of topics.
As part of the development, the committee held a June 9, 2026, hearing to solicit commentary from industry on the bills, during which committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) called the “digital asset status quo is untenable. America needs clear tax rules of the road to remain the crypto capital of the world.”
Smith stated that cryptocurrency has “a market capitalization of over $2 trillion. That’s a massive industry by any measure, and nearly all other industries of a similar size enjoy clear tax policies.”
Chairman Smith noted that more and more people own cryptocurrency and “nearly a quarter of cryptocurrency holders earn less than $75,000 and the average crypto holder is nearly as likely to work in construction, manufacturing, or food service as tech or finance.”
The bills and discussion draft include:
- The Applying Existing Tax Anti-Abuse Rules to Digital Assets Act (H.R. 9172)
- The Charitable Deductions for Digital Donations Act (H.R. 9173)
- The Digital Assets Voluntary Disclosure Program Act (H.R. 9174)
- The Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act (H.R. 9175)
- The Providing Analogous Rules for Digital Assets Act (H.R. 9176)
- The Less Tax Paperwork for Digital Asset Owners Act (H.R. 9178)
- The End Digital Assets Tax Shelters Act (Discussion Draft)
The proposed legislation address “three key gaps in the current tax regime that make it harder for Americans to fully participate in the digital asset ecosystem,”
First, he said, “common digital transactions like mining and staking do not fit clearly into existing tax law. In other places, the tax code is silent as to the treatment of digital assets. The ambiguity creates an opening for taxpayers to exploit the law and avoid paying taxes in some circumstances and creates unfair tax burdens on others.
Second, Smith stated that “digital assets do not receive the tax benefit nor the protection from anti-abuse rules long granted to traditional financial assets. The imbalance between digital assets and traditional financial assets creates a two-tier system that unintentionally favor certain assets over others.”
Third, “crypto owners face burdensome tax compliance that makes using digital assets in ordinary commerce almost impossible.” Smith noted that “31 percent of crypto owners would like to buy a cup of coffee at the local shop, yet each $5 cup of coffee bought with a digital asset generates two new pieces of tax paperwork,” which adds a significant burden to both the IRS and the taxpayer.
Ranking Member Richard Neal (R-Mass.) had mixed reviews on the bills. He described his initial observation as some of the bills being “quite sensible, providing clear rules of the road for taxpayers looking to comply with the law. Other provisions sought the common sense goal of alleviating burdensome paperwork requirements, especially in situations where it’s highly unlikely that there would be any tax associated with those transactions, and indeed there are provisions that would close loopholes that are specific to the digital asset industry.”
However, Neal also noted that “it appears there are some provisions that deviate substantially from general tax principles, providing a distinct advantage that are beyond some other investments. We want to be careful about putting a thumb on the scale, and as we all know, it’s much easier to put something into the tax code than it is to take it out.”
Lawrence Zlatkin, Coinbase vice president of tax, testified during the hearing that the bills “represent the most comprehensive effort to modernize digital asset taxation that we have seen to date. Most importantly, this legislation recognized a fundamental reality: market structure and tax policy go hand-in-hand.”
In particular, Zlatkin highlighted H.R. 9178, which he testified “is an important step forward towards making stablecoin payments practical while reducing unnecessary reporting noise,” as well as H.R. 9173, which “provides long-needed clarity for mining and staking rewards, helping ensure taxpayers are not forced into tax obligations before they’ve generated liquidity though an actual sale.”
Mike Kaercher, deputy director of the Tax Law Center at New York University, cautioned that as the bills move through the process, “I encourage policymakers to consider three tax policy principles most closely: parity, administrability, and guardrails to prevent abuse. Some of the provisions in these bills would make improvements consistent with these principles.”
Among those, Kaercher testified that for example, “one of the bills would extend anti-abuse regimes, like wash sale rules and constructive sale rules, to digital assets. That’s a good idea. Another example is the de minimis provision on qualifying stablecoins – a targeted approach with guardrails can reduce paperwork and compliance burdens without creating substantial hidden tax subsidies for digital assets, but the rule should remain targeted because a broader de minimis provision risks abuse and would favor investments in digital assets over those in traditional finance.”
On the provision of deferring tax on mining and staking rewards, Kaercher testified that deferral “isn’t just the distortive subsidy, it could also undermine administrability. Deferral increases complexity for taxpayers and makes it harder for the IRS to do its job.”
He also warned about the possibility of government bailouts if guardrails and policy are not correctly developed.
“I think one thing for policymakers to consider on this is that if digital assets become a larger part of retirement accounts and the assets remain highly volatile, or in a worst-case scenario, crash, that would have an enormous impact on households’ retirement savings, and if that were to happen, I think policymakers would have to think about whether to respond with something like a bailout.”
The Treasury Department, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations implementing the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (P.L. 116-260). The regulations provide new disclosure and administration requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers related to surprise billing protections. Although the final rules are generally effective August 3, 2026, several provisions have delayed applicability dates.
The Treasury Department, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services finalized regulations implementing the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (P.L. 116-260). The regulations provide new disclosure and administration requirements for group health plans and health insurance issuers related to surprise billing protections. Although the final rules are generally effective August 3, 2026, several provisions have delayed applicability dates.
The final rules require plans and issuers to use claim adjustment reason codes (CARCs) and remittance advice remark codes (RARCs), as specified in guidance, when providing any paper or electronic remittance advice to an entity that does not have a contractual relationship with the plan or issuer. These disclosures must be included along with the initial payment or notice of denial of payment for certain items and services subject to the surprise billing protections in the No Surprises Act.
The regulations also make several procedural updates to the federal IDR process. These include refinements to the open negotiation period, the formal initiation of the IDR process, and the dispute eligibility review procedures. Further, the rules address the payment and collection of administrative fees as well as certified IDR entity fees.
The agencies also finalized the definition of bundled payment arrangements, amended requirements related to batched items and services, and amended the rules for extensions of timeframes due to extenuating circumstances. Additionally, the regulation finalizes provisions that require plans and issuers to register in the federal IDR portal.
T.D. 10049
The IRS has published the inflation adjustment factor and reference prices for determining the credit for renewable electricity production for calendar year 2026 sales of kilowatt hours of electricity produced in the U.S. or a U.S. possession from qualified energy resources.
The IRS has published the inflation adjustment factor and reference prices for determining the credit for renewable electricity production for calendar year 2026 sales of kilowatt hours of electricity produced in the U.S. or a U.S. possession from qualified energy resources.
The inflation adjustment factor for qualified energy resources is 2.0570. The reference price for facilities producing electricity from wind is 3.17 cents per kilowatt hour. The reference prices for facilities producing electricity from closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, solar energy, municipal solid waste, qualified hydropower production and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy have not been determined for calendar year 2026.
Phaseout Limits
For electricity sold during the calendar year 2026, the renewable electricity production credit is not subject to a phaseout under Code Sec. 45(b)(1) for electricity produced from wind. This is because the 2026 reference price for electricity produced from wind, 3.17 cents per kilowatt hour, does not exceed 8 cents multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor (2.0570). The phase-out of the credit also does not apply to electricity sold in 2026 and produced from closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, solar energy, municipal solid waste, qualified hydropower production and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.
Credit Amount Adjustments
The credit for renewable electricity production for calendar year 2026 under Code Sec. 45(a) is 3.1 cents per kilowatt hour on the sale of electricity produced from the qualified energy resources of wind, closed-loop biomass and geothermal energy. The credit is 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour on the sale of electricity produced in open-loop biomass facilities, landfill gas facilities, trash facilities, qualified hydropower facilities and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy facilities.
Notice 2026-37
The IRS updated guidance relating to the energy community provisions in:
- Code Sec. 45 production tax credit for electricity produced from certain resources;
- — the resource-neutral Code Sec. 45Y clean electricity production credit that largely replaces the Code Sec. 45 credit for property placed in service after 2024;
- — the Code Sec. 48 business energy investment credit for investments in property that produces electricity from certain resources; and
- — the resource-neutral Code Sec. 48E clean energy investment credit that largely replaces the Code Sec. 48 credit for property placed in service after 2024.
The IRS updated guidance relating to the energy community provisions in:
- — the Code Sec. 45 production tax credit for electricity produced from certain resources;
- — the resource-neutral Code Sec. 45Y clean electricity production credit that largely replaces the Code Sec. 45 credit for property placed in service after 2024;
- — the Code Sec. 48 business energy investment credit for investments in property that produces electricity from certain resources; and
- — the resource-neutral Code Sec. 48E clean energy investment credit that largely replaces the Code Sec. 48 credit for property placed in service after 2024.
Annual Statistical Area Category and Coal Closure Category Update
Notice 2026-39 publishes information taxpayers may use to determine whether they meet certain requirements under the Statistical Area Category or the Coal Closure Category for purposes of qualifying for energy community bonus credit amounts or rates.
- (1) Appendix 1 lists counties and county-equivalents that qualify as energy communities because they meet the Fossil Fuel Employment threshold and the unemployment rate requirement for calendar year 2025.
- (2) Appendix 2 lists newly identified census tracts with either a coal mine closure or a coal-fired electric generating unit retirement, and census tracts directly adjoining those tracts.
- (3) Appendix 3 lists census tracts that newly qualify as coal closure census tracts because of location-data corrections issued since the publication of Notice 2025-31.
Notice 2026-39
The Treasury Department and the IRS have announced plans to issue proposed regulations under Code Sec. 4960 expanding the definition of a covered employee for purposes of the excise tax on excessive compensation paid by applicable tax-exempt organizations (ATEOs). The guidance follows amendments made by section 70416 of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act and applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The Treasury Department and the IRS have announced plans to issue proposed regulations under Code Sec. 4960 expanding the definition of a covered employee for purposes of the excise tax on excessive compensation paid by applicable tax-exempt organizations (ATEOs). The guidance follows amendments made by section 70416 of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act and applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
Before the legislative change, a covered employee generally was one of an ATEO’s five highest-compensated employees for the tax year at issue or an individual who previously held that status. The amended law broadens the definition to include any employee of an ATEO and certain former employees for taxable years beginning after 2025. However, individuals who were not covered employees under the pre-2026 rules will not become covered employees solely because they worked for an ATEO before 2026.
The forthcoming regulations are expected to eliminate references to the five highest-compensated employees standard and make conforming changes. The agencies intend to retain exceptions similar to the current limited-hours and non-exempt funds exceptions, but discontinue the limited-services exception because its rationale no longer applies. Until proposed regulations are issued, ATEOs may rely on Notice 2026-36. The Treasury Department and the IRS requested comments on the proposed rules by August 4, 2026.
Notice 2026-36
IR 2026-73
The IRS has issued the 2025 Data Book detailing the agency’s activities during fiscal year 2025. The report provided an overview of the agency’s operations to meet statutory responsibilities. The revenue collected by the Service exceeded $5.3 trillion.
The IRS has issued the 2025 Data Book detailing the agency’s activities during fiscal year 2025. The report provided an overview of the agency’s operations to meet statutory responsibilities. The revenue collected by the Service exceeded $5.3 trillion.
“Fiscal Year 2025 was a pivotal year, as we began the process of implementing tax relief for hardworking Americans enacted as part of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (WFTC),” said IRS CEO Frank J. Bisignano. “The numbers in the Data Book tell the story of an organization that serves as a key partner in the administration’s mission,” he added. The CEO also highlighted efforts to transform the IRS into a digital-first agency. These efforts would reduce paper processing through the “zero paper” initiative.
During the 2026 filing season, around 45 percent of individual tax returns claimed one or more of the new tax benefits from the WFTC. The average refund on a return claiming one of these deductions was over $3,200, as of May 27.
Further, online tools, including the IRS Online Account were upgraded to expand access and add new features. Expanded technology and advanced analytics would allow the Service to identify high-risk areas of non-compliance and tax fraud. Finally, more information can be found here.
IR 2026-74
The IRS announced the release of a new calculator to determine interest rates for large, multi-year construction and manufacturing projects. The calculator is named Percentage-of-Completion Method (PCM) Look-Back Interest Calculator and is MS Excel based. It supports calculations for Form 8697, Interest Computation Under the Look-Back Method for Completed Long-Term Contracts. However, it does not address all fact patterns or complexities associated with look-back interest calculations.
The IRS announced the release of a new calculator to determine interest rates for large, multi-year construction and manufacturing projects. The calculator is named Percentage-of-Completion Method (PCM) Look-Back Interest Calculator and is MS Excel based. It supports calculations for Form 8697, Interest Computation Under the Look-Back Method for Completed Long-Term Contracts. However, it does not address all fact patterns or complexities associated with look-back interest calculations.
“The IRS is focused on improving and enhancing how we serve taxpayers,” said IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano. “We are transforming the IRS into a digital-first agency that provides the best possible experience for taxpayers, and tools like this calculator are an important step in that effort,” he added.
The look-back interest is determined using a three-step process:
- Hypothetically reallocating income to prior tax year based on actual revenues and costs;
- Computing hypothetical tax overpayments or underpayments of tax; and
- Calculating interest on tax underpayments or overpayments.
Taxpayers and tax practitioners may submit feedback about the calculator, by emailing Stakeholder Liaison and including "Look-Back Interest Workbook Feedback" in the subject line. More information can be found here.
IR 2026-70
Move over hybrids - buyers of Volkswagen and Mercedes diesel vehicles now qualify for the valuable alternative motor vehicle tax credit. Previously, the credit had gone only to hybrid vehicles. Now, the IRS has qualified certain VW and Mercedes diesels as "clean" as a hybrid.
Move over hybrids - buyers of Volkswagen and Mercedes diesel vehicles now qualify for the valuable alternative motor vehicle tax credit. Previously, the credit had gone only to hybrid vehicles. Now, the IRS has qualified certain VW and Mercedes diesels as "clean" as a hybrid.
Qualifying vehicles
The IRS has designated the following diesel-powered vehicles as advanced lean-burning technology motor vehicles that qualify for the alternative motor vehicle tax credit:
-
The 2009 VW Jetta TDI sedan and TDI sportwagen models; and
-
The 2009 Mercedes-Benz GL320, R320 and ML320 Bluetec models.
The credit amounts vary depending on the vehicle's fuel economy. The credit amounts for each vehicle are as follows:
-
2009 VW Jetta TDI sedan and TDI sportwagen: $1,300 credit;
-
2009 Mercedes ML320 Bluetec: $900;
-
2009 Mercedes R320 Bluetec: $1,550; and
-
2009 GL320 Bluetec: $1,800.
VW's diesels went on sale in August, while the Mercedes Bluetec models are expected to go on sale beginning this October.
The alternative motor vehicle tax credit, generally
The alternative motor vehicle tax credit is a lucrative tax credit for purchasers of qualifying automobiles. But, just as the situation is with hybrids, the full amount of the credit for each vehicle is available only during a limited period. The dollar value of the tax credit will begin to be reduced once the manufacturer sells 60,000 vehicles that qualify for the tax credit. Additionally, the credit is available only to the original purchaser of a new, qualifying vehicle. As such individuals who lease the vehicle are not eligible for the credit - the credit is allowed only to the vehicle's owner, such as the leasing company.
Taxpayers may claim the full amount of the allowable credit up to the end of the first calendar quarter after the quarter in which the manufacturer records its sale of the 60,000th advance lean burn technology motor vehicle or hybrid passenger automobile or light truck. For the second and third calendar quarters after the quarter in which the 60,000th vehicle is sold, taxpayers may claim 50 percent of the credit. For the fourth and fifth calendar quarters, taxpayers may claim 25 percent of the credit. No credit is allowed after the fifth quarter.
The credit - as Congress has allotted so far - may only be taken for qualified vehicles purchased before the end of 2010.
If the IRS had its way, every worker would be classified as an employee and every employer would pay employment taxes on their wages. Employment taxes are a huge chunk of government revenue and they're easier to collect than other taxes. However, not all workers are employees. Some are independent contractors, others are statutory employees and still others may be partners
If the IRS had its way, every worker would be classified as an employee and every employer would pay employment taxes on their wages. Employment taxes are a huge chunk of government revenue and they're easier to collect than other taxes. However, not all workers are employees. Some are independent contractors, others are statutory employees and still others may be partners. The line between employee and independent contractor is often murky and frequently employers misclassify workers. If you misclassify your workers, you are liable for back employment taxes. To ease the pain, the law provides a safe harbor and the IRS has a special settlement program.Safe harbor As soon as the IRS begins a worker classification audit, it is suppose to advise the employer if it qualifies for "Section 530 relief." Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is a safe harbor for employers that believed their workers were not employees and they were not responsible for employment taxes. If you qualify for the safe harbor you are generally free from paying back taxes. However, you must agree to treat your workers as employees from here on out and pay future payroll taxes. To qualify for the safe harbor, you have to meet some important tests:·--You had a reasonable basis for not treating the worker as an employee;·--Treatment was consistent; and·--You filed all required Forms 1099 with the IRS.Over the years, the IRS and the courts have articulated in guidance and decisions what is a reasonable basis to treat a worker as an independent contractor. If an employer's practice is similar to longstanding industry practice or if it relied on IRS guidance or court decisions, it may be able to show it had a reasonable basis to treat workers as independent contractors.Some reasons are never reasonable. Examples are lower labor costs and treating a worker as an independent contractor solely because the worker requests it.Consistent treatment is also important. This means that you treated all workers performing similar tasks the same. If you treated some as employees and some as independent contractors, you will fail the consistent treatment test.--Example. ABC Co. has 30 mechanics on its payroll. They all perform identical duties. Twelve of the mechanics are treated as employees and ABC Co. issues W-2s to them. Eighteen mechanics are treated as independent contractors and ABC Co. issues 1099s. This is inconsistent treatment and ABC Co. is ineligible for Section 530 relief.Finally, you must have filed all of the required forms with the IRS. This means Forms 1099 for independent contractors. If you didn't file these forms, you cannot seek relief under the Section 530 safe harbor.Special settlement programIf you treated workers consistently and had a reasonable basis for not treating the workers as employees, the IRS likely will accept 25 percent of the employment tax due instead of 100 percent. You also have to agree to treat the workers as employees in the future.The outcome isn't so good if you can't show you had a reasonable basis not to treat the workers as employees. In this case, the IRS will demand 100 percent of the employment tax due.The worker classification settlement program is entirely voluntary and employers are free to reject whatever offer the IRS makes. One good feature about the program is that the offer stays open even after the employer rejects it. The IRS allows employers to reconsider offers and accept them later in the examination process.Worker misclassification disputes are complicated and the IRS has a strong track record of winning them. If you have questions about the classification of your workers, or the IRS has already contacted you, give our office a call. Together, we can map out a strategy to save you from a potentially huge bill for back employment taxes.