Connect with us

Accounting

SCOTUS limits Tax Court jurisdiction if an IRS tax levy disappears

Published

on

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held on June 12, 2025, that the Tax Court lost jurisdiction over a collective due process hearing when there was no longer an ongoing levy. 

During the multiyear proceedings before the Tax Court and the Internal Revenue Service over an alleged outstanding tax liability, the taxpayer in the case — Jennifer Zuch — filed several tax returns that showed overpayments. Each time, the IRS applied these overpayments to her outstanding tax liability, rather than issuing refunds. Once her liability reached zero, the IRS moved to dismiss the Tax Court proceeding as moot, since the agency no longer had a basis to levy on the property. 

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the service. The lone dissent was from Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The court’s decision in Zuch is a novel case that creates an exception to the general rule that the taxpayer gets to pick their preferred forum for resolving their tax dispute, according to Hinshaw & Culbertson partner Anshuman Vaidya. 

“A taxpayer ordinarily gets to choose whether to go to the U.S. Tax Court, a U.S. district court, or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to resolve their dispute with the IRS regarding the amount of tax owed. The Tax Court is often a preferred venue for taxpayers, as petitioners may file for relief without having paid the underlying tax first. However, the Tax Court generally hears cases taking place before the IRS issues a formal assessment. The district court or Court of Federal Claims are typically appropriate after assessment, but a taxpayer would first have to pay the IRS the tax owed and then sue the IRS for a refund in one of those forums,” he said. 

But in addition to the responsibility of the IRS to assess tax, it also has the responsibility to collect tax. To aid in its collection efforts, the agency has authority to issue levies on bank accounts and property. Once it issues its notice of intent to levy, this triggers procedures that may ultimately allow the taxpayer to seek relief, post-assessment, in theTax Court, which then has jurisdiction to review all of the related issues surrounding the levy, including the underlying tax obligations supporting the levy. 

“What this opinion makes clear is that if the IRS drops its levy, the Tax Court no longer has jurisdiction over the underlying tax dispute,” said Vaidya. The taxpayer’s only recourse may be to start over and file a suit for refund in the district court or the Court of Federal Claims if the statute of limitations for filing a refund suit has not expired. Thus, it is the rare instance where the IRS has some control over the forum in which a taxpayer’s dispute is actually heard. Taxpayers should therefore be wary of using IRS collection actions as a vehicle to get into the Tax Court to challenge their underlying tax disputes, as the IRS ultimately controls the keys to that vehicle.” 

The National Federation of Independent Business disagreed with the decision, and filed an amicus brief in the case with the National Taxpayers Union Foundation and the National Association of Wholesaler Distributors. 

“This decision will allow continued abuse of administrative authority and deny taxpayers the rights granted to them by Congress,” said Beth Milito, vice president and executive director of the NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center. “The IRS will now feel entitled to steal from taxpayers and leave small-business taxpayers with no outlet to challenge the IRS before their assets are seized.”

Continue Reading

Accounting

Continuous Auditing Transforms Corporate ERPs

Published

on

continuous auditing transforms corporate erps

As corporate accounting departments cross the threshold into late July 2026, the adoption of continuous, automated auditing systems has reached a definitive turning point. Driven by advances in artificial intelligence and deep integration with modern Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) platforms, leading finance organizations are moving away from traditional, periodic post-hoc audits in favor of real-time, 100% transactional verification. This technological transition is redefining internal control environments, reducing compliance costs, and eliminating the structural delays inherent in legacy quarterly closing processes.

Unlike traditional auditing frameworks that rely on statistical sampling—a process that inevitably leaves operational blind spots—continuous auditing software monitors operational data feeds continuously. Every purchase order, electronic invoice, payroll disbursement, and cross-border wire transfer is automatically cross-referenced against established corporate governance parameters, regulatory tax schedules, and anti-fraud algorithms in real time. Anomalies or unauthorized ledger entries are flagged instantly, allowing internal audit teams to investigate and remediate compliance gaps immediately rather than months after the close of a financial period.

The implications for executive financial management are far-reaching. By embedding continuous verification directly into daily transaction workflows, chief financial officers gain uninterrupted visibility into the organization’s true financial standing. Real-time balance sheet auditing eliminates the severe operational bottlenecks associated with month-end and quarter-end financial reconciliations, freeing accounting professionals to focus on strategic financial modeling, tax planning, and capital allocation rather than manual data entry and spreadsheet consolidation.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting leadership to invest heavily in data governance and technical upskilling. Internal audit teams must evolve from manual ledger reviewers into system architects capable of auditing complex algorithms and validating automated data pipelines. Accounting firms and corporate controllers that master continuous auditing will establish a resilient compliance framework capable of meeting stringent international regulatory standards with total transparency.

Continue Reading

Accounting

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

Published

on

U.S. Imposes New 50% Tariffs on Canadian Imports Under Rare Legal Provision

WASHINGTON — In a major escalation of cross-border trade friction, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed executive orders imposing new 50% tariffs on a wide selection of Canadian exports, citing discriminatory practices by Ottawa targeting American auto, dairy, and beverage industries.

The new duties, announced Monday, will take effect in 30 days. They target a broad spectrum of consumer and industrial goods—ranging from wine, liquor, and milk products to commercial cement, furniture, clothing, and hockey equipment.

Untested Legal Mechanism

To enact the sweeping measures, the administration invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a rarely used legal provision allowing the executive branch to levy additional tariffs of up to 50% on foreign nations deemed to discriminate against U.S. commerce.

White House officials noted that Section 338 addresses trade discrimination rather than national security or economic emergencies. The move comes months after prior global emergency tariffs faced legal challenges in domestic courts, signaling Washington’s pivot toward alternate statutory authorities to maintain import duties.

Senior administration officials briefed reporters that the measure directly responds to Canadian provincial bans on U.S. alcohol, restrictions on American vehicle exports, and import quota disparities affecting U.S. dairy and cheese producers relative to third-party trading partners.

“While the administration continues to secure reciprocal trade agreements globally, Canada retaliated against efforts to protect domestic industry,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated.

USMCA Impact and Carve-Outs

Significantly, the newly ordered 50% duties will apply to designated items even if they otherwise comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

However, the administration confirmed key targeted exemptions:

  • Energy products (including oil and natural gas)
  • Potash and critical minerals
  • Fish and seafood
  • Goods already governed by sector-specific duties (such as existing steel and aluminum tariffs)

Administration representatives emphasized that the tariffs do not stem from recent disputes concerning drifting Canadian wildfire smoke, noting that policy options regarding environmental spillover remain under separate review.

Canadian Response and Market Reaction

Following the White House announcement, the Canadian dollar experienced a sharp decline against the U.S. dollar, falling approximately 0.4% during evening trading.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a statement emphasizing that Canada’s earlier counter-duties had merely matched previous U.S. trade actions. “Canada stands ready to engage intensively to address outstanding issues with the U.S. to the mutual benefit of our citizens,” Carney stated, pointing to detailed proposals Ottawa submitted to modernize the USMCA framework.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford took a firmer stance, urging a “dollar-for-dollar” reciprocal response if the measures go into effect on August 19.

With a 30-day implementation window before the duties officially lock in, industry associations and trade groups on both sides of the border are calling for urgent bilateral negotiations to avert further supply chain disruption across North America.

Continue Reading

Accounting

Automated Continuous Auditing: Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

Published

on

Transforming Compliance and Real-Time Financial Oversight

The traditional accounting paradigm—defined by periodic monthly closures and post-hoc annual audits—is rapidly giving way to continuous, automated financial oversight. As of July 2026, forward-thinking accounting practices and multinational corporate finance departments are leveraging continuous auditing systems powered by advanced machine learning models. These systems monitor operational transactions in real time, shifting audit methodologies from sample-based post-analysis to absolute, 100% transaction-level verification.

The operational advantages of continuous auditing are transformative. Standard auditing procedures historically relied on statistical sampling, which, despite rigorous methodology, inherently left gaps where anomalies or fraudulent transactions could go undetected for months. Modern continuous auditing platforms integrate directly with enterprise resource planning (ERP) databases, instantly cross-referencing purchase orders, invoices, bank feeds, and tax records. Any deviation from established control parameters or unusual transaction behavior triggers immediate flags for internal audit teams, dramatically reducing detection lag from quarters to seconds.

Beyond fraud prevention, continuous auditing fundamentally alters internal reporting and decision-making. Executive leadership no longer has to wait weeks after the close of a quarter to evaluate precise financial standing; real-time verified ledger data provides an uninterrupted view of operating margins, tax liabilities, and cash flow dynamics. This real-time visibility enables corporate controllers to adjust capital allocation strategies dynamically, mitigating liquidity constraints and capitalizing on emerging commercial opportunities far more efficiently than competitors bound to legacy reporting cycles.

However, implementing continuous auditing requires accounting professionals to acquire new analytical capabilities. The role of the auditor is evolving from manual data reconciliation toward system validation, algorithmic model governance, and strategic risk interpretation. Accounting firms and corporate finance departments must invest in continuous technical education, ensuring that audit staff possess the data engineering skills necessary to design, maintain, and evaluate complex automated compliance systems.

Continue Reading

Trending