The Treasury Department and IRS have finalized regulations regarding the deduction of up to $10,000 in personal car loan interest by individuals for tax years 2025 through 2028. This includes regulations on information returns required to be filed by a lender or other person engage in a trade or business who receives $600 or more of qualified interest during the calendar year. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations published in January 2026 (NPRM REG-113515-25) with some changes in response to public comments.

The Treasury Department and IRS have finalized regulations regarding the deduction of up to $10,000 in personal car loan interest by individuals for tax years 2025 through 2028. This includes regulations on information returns required to be filed by a lender or other person engage in a trade or business who receives $600 or more of qualified interest during the calendar year. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations published in January 2026 (NPRM REG-113515-25) with some changes in response to public comments.

Qualified Personal Vehicle Loan Interest

For tax years beginning in 2025 through 2028, a noncorporate taxpayer may claim a deduction of up to $10,000 for qualified personal vehicle loan interest (QPVLI) paid or accrued during the tax year on a specified passenger vehicle loan (SPVL) incurred by the taxpayer for the purchase of an applicable personal vehicle (APV) for personal use. Generally, interest includes an amount paid, received, or accrued as compensation for the use or forbearance of money under the debt instrument.

The final regulations clarify that QPVLI also includes prepaid interest in the form of points and deferred or capitalized interest. In addition, it may include origination-related or financing-related charges, prepayment penalties, late-payment charges, default-related charges, and similar fees, if characterized as an interest expense for federal income tax purposes.

Secured by First Lien

Interest is QPVLI only if it is paid or accrued on debt for the purchase of an APV for personal use that is secured by a first lien. The final regulations clarify that an SPVL is secured by a first lien with the first voluntary security interest recorded against the vehicle. Any involuntary liens are disregarded even if given temporary higher priority at a later date.

A vehicle also may be considered secured by a first lien even if the lien has not yet been perfected or recorded due to short-term delays arising under State or local law. It may also be considered secured by a first lien where the lien is removed in connection with the taxpayer no longer owning the vehicle, but the taxpayer continues to be liable for the loan (repossession or insurance payout).

Purchase of Applicable Passenger Vehicle

An SPVL is qualified only to the extent the debt is incurred for the purchase of a new vehicle and any other items or amounts customarily financed in the same purchase transaction (for example, vehicle service plans, extended warranties, sales taxes, and vehicle-related fees). Any portion of a loan for items or amounts not customarily financed in the purchase are not qualified.

The taxpayer must allocate the debt on a pro rata basis. Whether items are customarily financed and directly related to the purchase of the vehicle is determined on an industry-wide basis and not on the particular financing terms. The final rules, however, expand the list of examples of items customarily financed in an APV purchase. The final regulations also maintain that debt incurred for negative equity in a prior purchased vehicle is not incurred for the purchase of an APV.

The requirement that an APV must be a new vehicle under the loan documentation refers to the lender’s classification of the vehicle for purposes of its financing programs. The original use of the vehicle must commence with the taxpayer. However, original use does not commence with a dealer if the vehicle is held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of its trade or business. Original does not commence with a lessee if the lessee purchases the vehicle during or at the end of the lease term.

Information Reporting

Any lender or other person who, in the course of that trade or business, receives from any individual interest aggregating $600 or more for any calendar year on an SPVL, must report the receipt of interest on Form 1098-VLI to the IRS and the payee. The final regulations affirm that lenders are required to include only interest received on an SPVL for the purchase of an APV, the first use of which begins with the payee. This is required by statute and may require the lender to collect information it currently does not collect. The lender must file Form 1098-VLI for each SPVL.

T.D. 10054

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued proposed regulations providing that a private school is not eligible for Federal income tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) if it considers race, color, or national or ethnic origin in any of its educational, admissions, scholarship, athletic, or other school-administered policies. Any such consideration, under the proposed regulation subsection, would be considered de facto racial discrimination. The proposed rules would apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.

The Treasury Department and IRS have issued proposed regulations providing that a private school is not eligible for Federal income tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) if it considers race, color, or national or ethnic origin in any of its educational, admissions, scholarship, athletic, or other school-administered policies. Any such consideration, under the proposed regulation subsection, would be considered de facto racial discrimination. The proposed rules would apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.

Racial Nondiscrimination

The proposed regulations would treat all race-based consideration in private education as contrary to a fundamental public policy, regardless of its purpose, including remedial or diversity-related objectives. This restriction does not inclulde policies or actions designed to eliminate prejudice or other forms of discrimination. The rules would cover private primary and secondary schools, colleges, professional or trade schools, and universities. The rules specifically do not include governmental units, any agency or instrumentality of a governmental unit, or any organization owned or operated by such an agency or instrumentality.

Application to Private Schools

To qualify for tax exemption, a private school could not consider race, color, or national or ethnic origin in:

• (1) Educational or admissions policies
• (2) Scholarship or loan programs
• (3) Athletic or other school-supported programs

The proposal would not prevent religious schools from maintaining religious missions or selecting students based solely on religious affiliation. If finalized, Rev. Proc. 75-50 would also be modified to remove provisions permitting certain race-based preferences for minority groups.

The proposed regulations would add §1.501(c)(3)-2 and apply to taxable years beginning after May 31, 2027.

Proposed Regulations, NPRM REG-119986-25

IR 2026-103

A Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment (FPA) issued by the IRS to a partnership was timely under Code Sec. 6235 because the partnership and IRS had agreed to extend the limitations period for making partnership adjustments. It was determined that the extended period under Code Sec. 6235(a)(1) controlled because the statute permits adjustments until the latest of the periods specified in Code Sec. 6235(a). Accordingly, the partnership’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

A Notice of Final Partnership Adjustment (FPA) issued by the IRS to a partnership was timely under Code Sec. 6235 because the partnership and IRS had agreed to extend the limitations period for making partnership adjustments. It was determined that the extended period under Code Sec. 6235(a)(1) controlled because the statute permits adjustments until the latest of the periods specified in Code Sec. 6235(a). Accordingly, the partnership’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The partnership, which was subject to the centralized partnership audit (CPA) regime, challenged an FPA disallowing a charitable contribution deduction. The partnership argued that the FPA was issued outside the applicable limitations period because the 330-day period following the notice of proposed partnership adjustment had expired. However, the parties had previously executed an agreement extending the limitations period for partnership adjustments under Code Sec. 6235(b).

Further, it was concluded that the periods specified in Code Sec. 6235(a) were not sequential deadlines. The statutory phrase “later of” required use of the latest applicable period, and an agreed extension under Code Sec. 6235(b) extended the limitations period for making adjustments, including issuance of the FPA. Because the FPA was mailed before expiration of the agreed extended period, the FPA was timely.

Katanga Properties, LLC, 167 TC No. 10, Dec. 62,899

The Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act has been signed into law by President Trump.

The Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act has been signed into law by President Trump.

The law (H.R. 5366) allows victims of federally declared disasters to deduct qualified losses above $500 per disaster without itemizing and removes the 10 percent adjusted gross income threshold for those losses. A fact sheet on the bill can be found here.

Under the law, this treatment of personal casualty loss is available until Jan. 1, 2027.

It also excludes wildfire relief payments from taxable income regardless of when they are received, so long as the wildfire disaster declaration occurs after Dec. 31, 2014, and before Jan. 1, 2027.

President Trump signed the bill into law on Sept. 11, 2026.

The IRS has modified automatic accounting method change procedures for research or experimental expenditures and certain residential construction contracts. Rev. Proc. 2026-32 modifies sections 7 and 19 of Rev. Proc. 2025-23 to reflect changes made by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

The IRS has modified automatic accounting method change procedures for research or experimental expenditures and certain residential construction contracts. Rev. Proc. 2026-32 modifies sections 7 and 19 of Rev. Proc. 2025-23 to reflect changes made by the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

For research expenditures, the procedure modifies accounting method changes under Code Secs. 174 and 174A. Code Sec. 174 continues to require capitalization and 15-year amortization for foreign research expenditures. Code Sec. 174A generally allows a current deduction for domestic research expenditures paid or incurred in tax years beginning after December 31, 2024.

The procedure also revises rules governing adjustments associated with accounting method changes. It coordinates certain Code Sec. 481 adjustments with the OBBBA transition method for recovering unamortized domestic research expenditures. It also extends through tax years beginning before 2028 waivers of certain eligibility restrictions for specified automatic changes.

Further, the IRS provides automatic accounting method changes for residential construction contracts affected by the OBBBA amendments to Code Sec. 460. Taxpayers may change from the percentage-of-completion method to an exempt contract method for qualifying contracts entered into in tax years beginning after July 4, 2025. Certain taxpayers may also change their treatment of costs under Code Sec. 263A.

The modified procedures generally apply to Form 3115, Application for Change in Accounting Method, filed after September 4, 2026. Special transition rules apply to certain previously filed Forms 3115.

Rev. Proc. 2026-32

In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.

In order to be tax deductible, compensation must be a reasonable payment for services. Smaller companies, whose employees frequently hold significant ownership interests, are particularly vulnerable to IRS attack on their compensation deductions.

Reasonable compensation is generally defined as the amount that would ordinarily be paid for like services by like enterprises under like circumstances. This broad definition is supplemented, for purposes of determining whether compensation is deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense, by a number of more specific factors expressed in varying forms by the IRS, the Tax Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and generally relating to the type and extent of services provided, the financial concerns of the company, and the nature of the relationship between the employee and the employer.

Why IRS Is Interested

A chief concern behind the IRS's keen interest in what a company calls "compensation" is the possibility that what is being labeled compensation is in fact a constructive dividend. If employees with ownership interests are being paid excessive amounts by the company, the IRS may challenge compensation deductions on the grounds that what is being called deductible compensation is, in fact, a nondeductible dividend.

Another area of concern for the IRS is the payment of personal expenses of an employee that are disguised as businesses expenses. There, the business is trying to obtain a business expense deduction without the offsetting tax paid by the employee in recognizing income. In such cases, a business and its owners can end up with a triple loss after an IRS audit: taxable income to the individual, no deduction to the business and a tax penalty due from both parties.

Factors Examined

The factors most often examined by the IRS in deciding whether payments are reasonable compensation for services or are, instead, disguised dividend payments, include:

1. The salary history of the individual employee
2. Compensation paid by comparable employers to comparable employees
3. The salary history of other employees of the company
4. Special employee expertise or efforts
5. Year-end payments
6. Independent inactive investor analysis
7. Deferred compensation plan contributions
8. Independence of the board of directors
9. Viewpoint of a hypothetical investor contemplating purchase of the company as to whether such potential investor would be willing to pay the compensation.

Failure to pass the reasonable compensation test will result in the company's loss of all or part of its deduction. Analysis and examination of a company's compensation deductions in light of the relevant listed factors can provide the company with the assurance that the compensation it pays will be treated as reasonable -- and may in the process prevent the loss of its deductions.

Note: In the case of publicly held corporations, a separate $1 million dollar per person cap is also placed on deductible compensation paid to the CEO and each of the four other highest-paid officers identified for SEC purposes. (Certain types of compensation, including performance-based compensation approved by outside directors, are not included in the $1 million limitation.)

The S Corp Enigma

The opposite side of the reasonable compensation coin is present in the case of some S corporations. By characterizing compensation payments as dividends, the owners of these corporations seek to reduce employment taxes due on amounts paid to them by their companies. In these cases, the IRS attempts to recharacterize dividends as salary if the amounts were, in fact, paid to the shareholders for services rendered to the corporation.

Caution. In the course of performing the compensation-dividend analysis, watch out for contingent compensation arrangements and for compensation that is proportional to stock ownership. While not always indicators that payments are distributions of dividends instead of compensation for services, their presence does suggest the possibility. Compensation plans should not be keyed to ownership interests. Contingent and incentive arrangements are also scrutinized by the IRS. The courts have frequently ruled that a shareholder has a built-in interest in seeing that the company is successful and rewarding him for increasing the value of his own property is inappropriate. Similar to the reasonable compensation test, however, this rule is not hard and fast. Accordingly, the rules followed in each jurisdiction will control there.

Conclusions

Determining whether a shareholder-employee's compensation is reasonable depends upon many variables, such as the contributions that employee makes to your business, the compensation levels within your industry, and whether an independent investor in your company would accept the employee's compensation as reasonable.

Please call our office for a more customized analysis of how your particular compensation package fits into the various rules and guidelines. Further examination of your practices not only may help your business better sustain its compensation deductions; it may also help you take advantage of other compensation arrangements and opportunities.