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

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.