Tax News Daily
The latest tax news from around the world, summarised and tagged for tax professionals. Updated twice daily.
Tax Head
Region
Mike Lindell Had Wages Garnished, IRS Lien on Texas House in 2024
MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell faced significant IRS enforcement actions in 2024, including wage garnishment and a federal tax lien placed on his Texas property. These actions indicate substantial unpaid federal tax liabilities and represent active IRS collection efforts against a high-profile individual. The case highlights the IRS's use of enforcement tools such as liens and levies to recover delinquent taxes, serving as a notable example of personal income tax compliance and IRS collection procedures in practice.
EY Sued Over Breach Targeting Client Tax, Financial Info
EY faces a lawsuit alleging a data breach compromised sensitive client tax and financial information. The case raises significant concerns about cybersecurity obligations for professional services firms handling confidential taxpayer data. For tax practitioners, the litigation highlights growing liability risks tied to data stewardship, particularly as firms manage increasing volumes of digital tax filings, transfer pricing documentation, and financial records. The outcome could influence how accounting and tax advisory firms are required to protect client information and may prompt regulatory scrutiny of data security standards within the tax services industry.
Energy Cash-Grant Case Casts Light On Investment Tax Credit
A court case involving energy cash grants is drawing attention to the scope and application of the federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The litigation examines eligibility criteria and the interplay between direct cash grants and tax credit mechanisms under US energy tax law. The ruling could have significant implications for renewable energy project developers and investors who rely on ITC structuring. It may clarify or restrict how energy incentives are claimed, affecting tax planning strategies for clean energy investments at a time when the ITC remains central to US energy policy under the Inflation Reduction Act.
IRS Introduces Automatic Penalty Relief for Eligible Taxpayers
The IRS has introduced an automatic penalty relief program for eligible taxpayers who failed to meet certain tax obligations, removing the need for taxpayers to proactively request abatement. The relief applies to qualifying individuals and businesses meeting specific criteria, offering a streamlined administrative process. This development is significant for tax practitioners managing compliance for clients with penalty exposure, as it reduces the administrative burden of formal penalty abatement requests. Practitioners should review client accounts to identify those automatically qualifying, ensuring they take full advantage of the relief without additional procedural steps.
Limited Partner Self-Employment Tax Exception Faces Critical Appellate Test
The limited partner self-employment tax exception under IRC Section 1402(a)(13) is facing a critical appellate court test that could significantly reshape how partnership income is taxed for self-employment purposes. The exception, which historically shielded limited partners from SE tax on distributive shares, has come under IRS scrutiny where partners perform services. Recent Tax Court decisions have narrowed the exception, and the appellate review could establish binding precedent affecting hedge funds, private equity, and other fund structures. Tax advisers should monitor the outcome closely, as it may require restructuring partnership arrangements to manage SE tax exposure.
SC rejects FBR bid to impose 35pc tax on dividend income
Pakistan's Supreme Court has rejected the Federal Board of Revenue's attempt to impose a 35% tax on dividend income. The ruling represents a significant tax controversy outcome, blocking FBR's bid to apply the higher rate to dividends. The decision has direct implications for corporate and individual investors receiving dividend income in Pakistan, limiting the tax authority's ability to enforce the elevated rate. This ruling constrains FBR's revenue collection efforts and provides taxpayer relief, setting a judicial precedent on the permissible taxation of dividend income under Pakistani tax law.
No GST Demand Order Within Deadline: Delhi High Court Quashes ADT-03 Audit Notice and DRC-01
The Delhi High Court quashed a GST audit notice (ADT-03) and demand notice (DRC-01) issued against a taxpayer after the statutory deadline for issuing a demand order had expired. The court ruled that tax authorities cannot initiate or continue audit and demand proceedings once the limitation period for passing a final demand order has lapsed. This ruling reinforces taxpayer protections under GST procedural law, clarifying that procedural notices issued beyond permissible timeframes are legally invalid and unenforceable.
France extends audit retention period from six to ten years
France has extended the audit retention period for tax records from six to ten years. This regulatory change significantly impacts businesses operating in France, requiring them to retain financial and tax documentation for a longer period to comply with French tax authority requirements. The extension has implications for corporate record-keeping obligations, audit preparedness, and data storage strategies for companies subject to French tax jurisdiction. Practitioners and businesses will need to update their document retention policies accordingly to ensure compliance with the new ten-year requirement.
Calcutta HC: GST Order U/S 73 Remains Valid If Digitally Signed on or Before the Limitation Deadline
The Calcutta High Court held that a GST demand order issued under Section 73 remains legally valid if it is digitally signed on or before the limitation deadline, even if it is uploaded or communicated to the taxpayer afterward. The ruling clarifies the point at which a GST order is considered 'passed' for limitation purposes, providing important guidance on digital signing procedures and statutory time limits. This decision has significant implications for tax authorities and taxpayers in disputes involving timing of order issuance under GST law.
Section 153C Cannot Be Invoked Mechanically: ITAT Jaipur Quashes Proceedings for Lack of Independent Satisfaction
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur has quashed proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, ruling that the provision cannot be invoked mechanically. The tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must record independent satisfaction before initiating proceedings against a person other than the searched person. The ruling reinforces that satisfaction notes must demonstrate a genuine application of mind to the seized material and its relevance to the third party, rather than being a mere formality. This decision provides important procedural protection for taxpayers facing search-related assessments and clarifies the evidentiary threshold required for valid Section 153C proceedings.
Madras HC: Bank Account Under GST Section 83 Can’t Be Sustained Without Tangible Material
The Madras High Court ruled that a bank account attachment under GST Section 83 cannot be sustained without tangible material evidence. The court held that provisional attachment of a taxpayer's bank account requires concrete, substantive grounds and cannot be based on mere suspicion or without proper justification. This ruling strengthens taxpayer protections against arbitrary provisional attachments by tax authorities during pending proceedings, reinforcing that Section 83 powers must be exercised judiciously and only when supported by credible, tangible material demonstrating a genuine risk to revenue recovery.
Comments on C-158/25: Director Can Challenge Final Tax Assessment in Liability Proceedings
The CJEU case C-158/25 examines whether a company director can challenge a final VAT tax assessment during liability proceedings, even after the assessment has become final against the primary taxpayer. This ruling has significant implications for how liability is attributed to directors and their procedural rights to contest underlying tax debts. The case raises fundamental questions about due process and the extent to which third-party liability proceedings can reopen settled assessments, potentially affecting how tax authorities across EU member states pursue directors and officers for unpaid company tax obligations.
Uttarakhand HC: Minor GST E-Way Bill Typo Can’t Trigger Section 129 Penalty
The Uttarakhand High Court held that a minor typographical error in a GST e-Way Bill does not warrant imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act. The court distinguished between clerical mistakes and intentional tax evasion, ruling that penalties should not be triggered by inadvertent minor errors that do not affect the substance of the transaction or result in revenue loss. This ruling provides important relief to taxpayers facing disproportionate penalties for inconsequential documentation errors during goods transportation, reinforcing a proportionality principle in GST enforcement.
Karnataka HC: Third Parties Cannot Challenge GST Advance Rulings Under Article 226
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that third parties cannot challenge GST Advance Rulings through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The court determined that advance rulings are binding only on the applicant and the concerned tax authorities, meaning competitors or other third parties lack the legal standing to contest these rulings in the High Court. This decision has significant implications for GST litigation, clarifying the limited scope of advance rulings and restricting the avenues through which third parties may seek judicial intervention against rulings that may affect their competitive position.
Section 68 Cannot Be Invoked Mechanically: Gujarat High Court Says One-to-One Matching of Bank Credits with Sales Is Not Mandatory
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with unexplained cash credits, cannot be invoked mechanically by tax authorities. The court held that a one-to-one matching of bank credits with individual sales transactions is not mandatory for taxpayers to explain the source of deposits. The ruling provides relief to businesses where bank credits represent aggregated sales proceeds, clarifying that tax officers must consider the overall nature of business operations and available records rather than demanding a rigid transaction-by-transaction correlation when assessing unexplained credits.
Roadtrip through ECJ VAT Cases – VAT Cases referring to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU
This article explores European Court of Justice VAT cases that reference the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, examining how fundamental rights principles intersect with VAT law. The analysis covers cases where taxpayers or tax authorities have invoked charter provisions—such as the right to an effective remedy, right to property, and ne bis in idem—in VAT disputes. The piece provides a thematic roadmap through ECJ jurisprudence, highlighting how fundamental rights considerations shape VAT assessments, penalties, and procedural protections across EU member states.
ECJ & General Court VAT Cases decided in 2026
This article provides a comprehensive compilation of VAT cases decided by the European Court of Justice and the EU General Court during 2026. It serves as a running reference guide for tax practitioners tracking ECJ VAT jurisprudence throughout the year. The cases cover a broad range of VAT issues including deduction rights, place of supply, exemptions, fraud, and procedural matters. The resource is regularly updated as new judgments are issued, making it a practical tool for monitoring how EU VAT law is being interpreted and applied by the bloc's highest courts.
ECJ C-158/25 (AEDT and État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) – Judgment – Directors’ Joint & Several VAT Liability & the Right to an Effective Remedy
The ECJ has issued its judgment in Case C-158/25 (AEDT v Luxembourg), addressing whether company directors can challenge VAT assessments for which they are held jointly and severally liable without having first received prior notification of those assessments. The case examines the compatibility of Luxembourg's rules on directors' VAT liability with EU fundamental rights, particularly the right to an effective remedy under the Charter. The ruling has significant implications for how member states may enforce secondary VAT liability against directors and the procedural safeguards that must be afforded to them.
Comments on T-268/25: Danish requirement of 100% interest for VAT grouping contrary to EU law
A commentary on Case T-268/25 examines whether Denmark's requirement of 100% ownership interest as a condition for VAT grouping is contrary to EU law. The case challenges the strictness of Denmark's threshold, which may conflict with the EU VAT Directive's provisions on VAT groups, which allow member states flexibility but within certain limits. The analysis suggests Denmark's rigid 100% requirement could be disproportionate and incompatible with EU principles, potentially opening the door for companies with majority but not full ownership stakes to qualify for VAT grouping arrangements.
CIT Issues Order with Specific Updates Related to CAPE Phase 3 Finally Liquidated Entry Eligibility for IEEPA Refunds
The Court of International Trade (CIT) has issued an order with specific updates regarding CAPE Phase 3 and finally liquidated entry eligibility for IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) refunds. This ruling addresses which customs entries qualify for refunds under IEEPA tariff provisions, clarifying eligibility criteria for importers seeking to recover duties paid. The decision has significant implications for companies that have had entries finally liquidated under Customs procedures, affecting their ability to claim refunds on tariffs imposed under IEEPA authority. This development is part of ongoing litigation surrounding IEEPA-based trade measures and associated duty refund claims.
Get the Friday Digest
Every Friday, a curated summary of the week's tax news delivered to your inbox. Choose what you want to hear about — no noise, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Tax heads you care about(select all that apply)
Regions you care about(select all that apply)
Your email is never shared or sold. You can unsubscribe at any time. Built in compliance with GDPR.