Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Not So Independent?: New Proposed Rules Constrain IRS’s Independent Office of Appeals

By Jeremy Himmelstein, Jenny A. Austin & Anthony D. Pastore on September 28, 2022
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Closed Sign
Closed Sign in a window

On September 13, Treasury proposed new regulations relating to taxpayers’ rights to access the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (“Appeals”). Appeals was designed to resolve disputes with the IRS in a fair and impartial manner. Taxpayers secured the right to take certain disputes to Appeals following the Taxpayer First Act of 2019. However, the proposed regulations seek to limit when taxpayers can go to Appeals, and the types of issues that can be raised.

The proposed regulations identify 24 types of issues that will not trigger Appeals rights. The most notable issues include regulatory validity challenges, challenges to IRS notices or revenue procedures, and certain tax treaty questions. In addition to issuing proposed regulations, the IRS has also already updated the Internal Revenue Manual to reflect the limitation on Appeals’ jurisdiction to determine issues based solely on validity challenges to regulations or IRS notices or revenue procedures.

Challenges to Treasury Regulations.  The proposed regulations exclude from Appeals’ jurisdiction most challenges to Treasury Regulations. In the last few years, the IRS and courts have seen dozens of regulations challenged, either under the Administrative Procedure Act for procedural defects, or under “Chevron” for substantive issues. Some of the challenged regulations have been on the books for decades, but the uptick is largely attributable to recent regulations that were promulgated following the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017.

The new proposed rules provide that Appeals will not entertain regulatory validity challenges unless there has been an “unreviewable decision” from a federal court invalidating the regulation in question. An “unreviewable decision” is a decision that is final and no longer appealable. This means that Appeals would not be authorized to consider a recent Colorado federal court decision—ruling that the section 245A temporary regulations regarding the dividends-received-deduction is invalid—because other issues in that case remain pending.[1]

Challenges to IRS Notices and Rev. Procs.  Similarly, the proposed regulations would prohibit Appeals from considering challenges to IRS notices and revenue procedures. Taxpayers have recently been targeting “listing notices,” which are notices that require taxpayers to report their participation in certain transactions. These notices create potential penalty exposure under sections 6707A and 6662A, among others. In March, a federal appeals court struck down one of these listing notices.[2] Other notices will be the subject of forthcoming TCJA validity challenges. Nonetheless, Appeals will lack authority to review similar issues—including challenges to that same listing notice—until the decision is final and unappealable. This may needlessly prolong disputes that could otherwise be settled quickly.

Certain Treaty Issues.  The proposed regulations provide that Appeals will lack authority to consider issues that have been delegated to other IRS units. For example, Appeals will not consider competent authority cases under tax treaties that are within the jurisdiction of the Large Business & International Division’s Advance Pricing and Mutual Agreement Program.

Takeaways.  Although most taxpayers will continue to be eligible to take cases to Appeals, the proposed regulations limit Appeals’ jurisdiction over certain issues. In practice, this is simply formalizing what we have experienced with Appeals on validity challenges in particular for a while now. If a taxpayer intends to challenge a regulation, notice, or revenue procedure in Appeals, the taxpayer should consider whether a federal court has already reviewed the issue and whether the court’s decision is final and unreviewable. If a taxpayer has additional arguments as to why the proposed adjustment is not appropriate, Appeals still has jurisdiction to address those other arguments.


[1] Liberty Global, Inc. v. United States, No. 1:20-cv-03501-RBJ (D. Colo. Apr. 4, 2022).

[2] Mann Construction, Inc. v. United States, 27 F.4th 1138 (6th Cir. 2022).

Photo of Jenny A. Austin Jenny A. Austin

Jenny Austin is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Chicago office and a member of the Tax Controversy practice. She concentrates her practice on federal tax controversy and litigation, working across all industries, including medical device, pharmaceutical, health care, retail, and technology companies. She…

Jenny Austin is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Chicago office and a member of the Tax Controversy practice. She concentrates her practice on federal tax controversy and litigation, working across all industries, including medical device, pharmaceutical, health care, retail, and technology companies. She guides clients through all stages of tax controversies, from Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits to administrative appeals, alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and litigation. Jenny is prepared to respond to a variety of both domestic and international issues that the IRS audits and challenges. Jenny favors strategies to resolve issues successfully with the IRS at the earliest possible stage without litigation.

Read full bio.

Read more about Jenny A. AustinEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Anthony D. Pastore Anthony D. Pastore

Anthony Pastore is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Chicago office and a member of the Tax Controversy & Transfer Pricing practice.

Since joining the firm in 2013, Anthony has represented corporate, partnership, and individual taxpayers in all stages of tax controversy, including examination…

Anthony Pastore is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Chicago office and a member of the Tax Controversy & Transfer Pricing practice.

Since joining the firm in 2013, Anthony has represented corporate, partnership, and individual taxpayers in all stages of tax controversy, including examination, administrative appeal, litigation, and trial. He has experience with transfer pricing allocations, debt-equity characterization, valuations, accounting method changes, substance-over-form arguments, and penalties.

Read full bio.

Read more about Anthony D. PastoreEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Tax
  • Blog:
    Best Methods
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo