Tax CPE Webinar Recaps

This estate tax session focused on when practitioners should consider Form 706 even when a taxable estate is not obvious, with practical emphasis on the deceased spouse unused exclusion, portability elections, and how estate, gift, and fiduciary filings intersect in real client planning.

• Practitioner takeaway: DSUE should be raised with surviving spouse clients because portability can preserve unused exclusion even when no estate tax is due today.
• Timing point: Rev. Proc. 2022-32 relief can make a late portability election possible within five years of death, so the nine-month deadline is not always the end of the analysis.
• Connections between Form 706, Form 709 gift reporting, Form 1041 fiduciary returns, trusts, and estates
• Client-facing planning questions around exemption amounts, asset control, and whether the filing cost is worthwhile

Audience

Tax practitioners advising surviving spouses, executors, estate clients, and families with transfer tax exposure

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This quarterly update reviewed current IRS notice-season issues, payment matching problems, identity verification letters, deceased taxpayer account locks, refund review flags, and other practical developments that tax offices were seeing after filing season.

• Notice-season reminder: Before calling IRS on a missing-payment notice, confirm the payment cleared and check whether the tax year, form number, or spouse Social Security number caused a misapplied payment.
• Client account issue: A CP01H deceased-taxpayer account lock can stop refunds and notices until the executor or personal representative provides the requested documentation.
• Taxpayer Protection Program identity verification and high-refund fraud-filter triggers
• E-file rejection follow-up, accepted-return status checks, and timing differences between paper and electronic correction windows

Audience

CPAs, EAs, and preparers handling post-filing IRS notices and client account follow-up

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This Form 709 session connected annual gift reporting to broader estate planning, DSUE, trusts, and fiduciary work. The discussion emphasized that Form 709 can look intimidating, but it is a useful planning and documentation tool when clients make taxable gifts, split gifts, or use lifetime transfer tax exclusion.

• Practitioner takeaway: Form 709 may be required even when no gift tax is due because gifts over the annual exclusion reduce the lifetime estate and gift exclusion.
• 2026 planning point: The session discussed the $15 million lifetime estate and gift exclusion for 2026 and why gift reporting should be coordinated with DSUE and Form 706 planning.
• Gift splitting, disclaimers, beneficiary issues, and how gift reporting interacts with Form 706 planning
• Practical reminders around PTIN status, IRS reporting, and keeping Form 709 work connected to the client plan

Audience

Tax professionals preparing or advising on gift tax returns, estate plans, and wealth transfers

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This fiduciary return session broke down how estates and trusts differ, when Form 1041 filing requirements arise, and how income distribution concepts affect the tax result. The session emphasized practical comfort with fiduciary forms so practitioners can support clients after a death or trust administration event.

• Preparation checkpoint: Do not start a fiduciary return without the trust document or will; those documents determine beneficiaries, tax responsibility, and return treatment.
• Deadline trap: Form 1041 extensions run five-and-a-half months, not six months, so fiduciary returns need their own deadline controls.
• Simple trust concepts, distributable net income, income distribution deductions, and beneficiary reporting
• Estate administration, final Form 1040 coordination, probate timing, basis, and capital gain treatment

Audience

Preparers handling estates, trusts, beneficiaries, fiduciaries, and post-death tax administration

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This tax controversy session explored the tension between government information gathering and taxpayer protections when offshore accounts, FBAR enforcement, summonses, and potential criminal exposure are involved. The discussion framed the Fifth Amendment as a practical issue for advisors who may be on the front line before counsel is involved.

• Controversy warning: Do not tell a client to ignore an IRS summons unless there is a good-faith basis to challenge it; possible criminal exposure calls for legal counsel.
• Offshore-specific point: FBAR and foreign-account requests can put tax reporting and Fifth Amendment issues in tension because account information may be incriminating.
• FBAR enforcement, worldwide income reporting, and foreign bank account information requests
• Practitioner coordination points when civil audit work begins to overlap with white collar tax investigation concerns

Audience

Tax professionals working around IRS audits, offshore compliance, summonses, and controversy matters

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This retirement-focused update reviewed Social Security benefit planning, Medicare premium issues, and tax costs that arise when clients combine retirement income, Social Security benefits, and Medicare Parts B and D. The discussion treated Social Security as a pension-style planning asset rather than a simple filing-age question.

• Tax calculation anchor: Provisional income under Internal Revenue Code § 86 includes AGI, tax-exempt income, and one-half of Social Security benefits.
• Planning reminder: Medicare Part B and Part D income-related premiums can turn added retirement income into higher health-care costs; QCDs may help manage taxable income.
• Social Security claiming assumptions, full retirement age changes, and benefit maximization questions
• Medicare Part B and Part D income-related premium adjustments and retirement income planning
• Marriage penalty examples, taxable Social Security benefit thresholds, and retirement-income timing conversations

Audience

Tax professionals advising retirees, near-retirees, and clients managing Social Security and Medicare costs

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This collection session explained Offers in Compromise as an IRS settlement tool for taxpayers who cannot full-pay a liability, while distinguishing OICs from installment agreements and other collection alternatives. The discussion emphasized realistic collection potential, documentation, and when an accepted offer conclusively settles liability.

• Collection takeaway: An Offer in Compromise is not an installment agreement; it asks IRS to settle for less than full liability based on collection potential or other grounds.
• Compliance point: After IRS accepts an offer, the taxpayer must stay current with filing and payment requirements for the next five years.
• Collection information statements, assets, income, expenses, and ability-to-pay analysis
• Doubt as to collectibility, doubt as to liability, penalty issues, and effective tax administration concepts
• Practical cautions around promoted penalty-recovery claims and separating legitimate relief from social media tax schemes

Audience

Tax professionals advising clients with IRS balances, collection pressure, penalties, or settlement questions

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This Form 4797 session focused on the sale of business property, sales price allocation, depreciation recapture, adjusted basis, and how different asset categories can change the character of income. The session treated Form 4797 as a practical problem-solving form for business sales and disposition planning.

• Audit-sensitive detail: Sales allocation matters; purchase agreements, sales contracts, and settlement statements help support the allocation IRS may review first.
• Recapture reminder: § 1245 depreciation recapture is ordinary income, while unrecaptured § 1250 gain can be subject to a different maximum rate.
• Section 1231 lookback issues, depreciation recapture, and how prior losses can change current-year character
• Sales allocation using purchase agreements, sales contracts, and settlement statements
• Repair versus capitalization decisions, depreciation elections, QBI considerations, and practical filing workflow

Audience

Preparers working with business asset sales, real estate dispositions, depreciation, and client tax planning

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This gambling session focused on how wagering income and losses are reported under IRC § 165(d), why itemized-deduction limits still matter for casual gamblers, and how practitioners should navigate the tension between IRS transaction-based thinking and the court-favored session approach. The discussion also connected older guidance, Notice 2015-21 safe-harbor concepts, and newer OBBBA-era changes affecting reporting thresholds and audit posture.

• Most practical takeaway: Record-keeping is what saves the client; without session-level records and supporting casino documentation, gambling loss positions are hard to defend.
• Methodology issue: The presenter emphasized the difference between transaction-by-transaction reporting and session or establishment-based analysis, especially for electronically tracked slot play.
• IRC § 165(d) loss limits, itemized deduction constraints, and why clients can still face phantom-income results
• Notice 2015-21 safe-harbor concepts, slot-machine session rules, and consistency within the same gambling establishment
• W-2G threshold changes, court-versus-IRS interpretation issues, and practical audit-defense considerations for preparers

Audience

Preparers advising clients on gambling winnings, loss substantiation, itemized deductions, and IRS examination support

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This two-hour retirement planning session walked through how SECURE 1.0 and SECURE 2.0 changed the practical design, funding, and tax treatment of retirement plans for individuals, small businesses, and plan sponsors. The discussion tied technical rule changes to real planning conversations around startup credits, late plan adoption, Roth treatment, catch-up contributions, and retirement savings strategy.

• Planning nugget: The speaker highlighted that Treasury and IRS guidance is still developing for 529-to-Roth IRA rollovers, so practitioners may need to stay cautious and work from incomplete guidance in the near term.
• Operational nugget: Catch-up rules for ages 60 to 63 and the 2026 Roth-only catch-up treatment can depend on whether the plan sponsor has actually adopted the optional SECURE 2.0 provisions.
• Small-employer retirement plan startup credits, student-loan matching features, and benefit-package design for attracting and retaining employees
• Retroactive plan adoption rules, including the special solo 401(k) timing rule that can allow a sole proprietor to make late elective deferrals under SECURE 2.0
• SEP, SIMPLE IRA, IRA, and 401(k) comparisons, with practical reminders about Roth treatment, creditor protection, and long-term accumulation strategy

Audience

CPAs, EAs, tax preparers, and advisors helping clients evaluate retirement plan setup, contribution strategy, and SECURE Act compliance questions

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This ethics session focused on how tax practitioners should handle a practice sale, retirement transition, disability event, or succession handoff without violating client confidentiality rules. The discussion centered on Section 7216 consent requirements, client communication, file retention, and the proposed Circular 230 best-practice additions that make transition planning a practical risk-management issue rather than just an ownership issue.

• Most immediate compliance point: A buyer cannot receive full client files, returns, or identifying tax data before each affected client gives separate written consent; silence is not consent.
• Operational planning point: The presenter stressed that the transfer consent should stand on its own rather than being buried in the engagement letter, and that retention and disposition terms should already be addressed in the engagement documents.
• Pre-sale due diligence should be limited to sanitized statistics such as client counts, revenue ranges, return types, and retention rates rather than PII or detailed return data.
• Upcoming Circular 230 best-practice emphasis on data security, mental impairment awareness, and business continuity or succession planning.
• Client notification, state-law overlays, record-retention timelines, and seller-versus-buyer responsibility for remaining files that are not transferred.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners planning a practice transition or managing client confidentiality during staffing, retirement, disability, or sale events

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access their account for replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This ethics session focused on the proposed Circular 230 changes that would modernize practitioner standards for a digital tax practice, tighten the Office of Professional Responsibility's conduct rules, and expand how due diligence applies when a practitioner steps into an IRS matter involving returns prepared earlier or by someone else. The discussion tied those proposed changes to practical engagement-letter drafting, inherited-client review work, and everyday controversy representation decisions.

• Most important proposed change: Once a practitioner represents a client before the IRS, due diligence may apply to the return at issue even if that return was prepared years earlier or by another preparer.
• Operational nugget: The presenter stressed that engagement letters should clearly limit scope and avoid language that appears to adopt or certify prior-year returns automatically.
• Proposed Circular 230 modernization for digital tax practice, renumbered provisions, and broader OPR conduct oversight.
• Removal of registered-tax-return-preparer references after the Loving case, while annual filing season program references remain.
• Contingent-fee guidance, disreputable-conduct revisions, and limits on how non-licensed practitioners can participate in IRS proceedings.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners handling ethics compliance, inherited-client files, IRS representation, and engagement-letter scope decisions

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This 1099 update session focused on the practical filing, solicitation, correction, and compliance issues that keep recurring for Form 1099-NEC and Form 1099-MISC issuers. The discussion connected the latest W-9 draft changes, disregarded-entity TIN rules, backup withholding, electronic filing systems, correction deadlines, and worker-classification edge cases to the day-to-day decisions tax professionals make for clients who issue information returns.

• Most immediate W-9 nugget: The presenter highlighted that the May 15, 2026 draft backed away from forcing sole proprietors to use Social Security numbers instead of EINs, but it still adds visible language reminding filers not to enter the EIN of a disregarded entity.
• Operational deadline reminder: Correction timing still matters; the session flagged August 1 as a key date for reducing or avoiding penalties when 1099 errors are fixed promptly.
• Backup withholding remains a practical enforcement issue, with 24% still the rate to watch when payer documentation and recipient TIN details are not handled correctly.
• Electronic filing workflow now requires practitioners to think in terms of both FIRE and IRIS intake systems rather than treating 1099 e-filing as a single-channel process.
• Worker-classification problems can spill into 1099 reporting, especially when Section 530 relief, overtime treatment, or contractor-versus-employee disagreements create mismatched federal compliance outcomes.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, payroll staff, and tax practitioners handling W-9 collection, 1099 compliance, filing corrections, backup withholding, and contractor reporting questions for clients

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session explained when owner-paid business expenses can still produce a tax deduction and why the answer depends first on the entity's tax classification. Kristy Maitre contrasted partnership-style LLC treatment with S corporation rules, emphasized written reimbursement policies and accountable plans, and highlighted the basis, passive-activity, and documentation limits practitioners need to verify before claiming unreimbursed expenses.

• Entity-classification nugget: An LLC taxed as a partnership may allow deductible unreimbursed owner expenses, but an LLC taxed as an S corporation pushes the discussion toward employee treatment and accountable-plan reimbursement instead.
• Reporting warning: Even when unreimbursed partnership expenses are allowed, the deduction still depends on ordinary-and-necessary business purpose, basis support, and passive-activity limitations before it flows through Schedule E and Schedule 1.
• The session pointed attendees to written LLC/partnership reimbursement-policy templates and S corporation accountable-plan templates so reimbursement expectations are set before expenses are claimed.
• Practitioners were reminded that once an expense is treated as an unreimbursed deductible item, it cannot also be reimbursed by the partnership without creating a mismatch.
• Documentation remains critical: receipts, business-purpose support, and timely substantiation help protect deductions and avoid payroll or audit issues when owners pay expenses personally.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, and tax practitioners advising LLCs, partnerships, and S corporations on owner-paid business expenses, reimbursement policies, accountable plans, basis limits, and Schedule E reporting

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This divorce-focused session explained how tax issues can outlast the emotional dispute and materially change whether a proposed settlement is really fair. The discussion emphasized the hidden costs around health insurance, refinancing, retirement accounts, real estate transfers, beneficiary changes, joint-return decisions, and other practical tax considerations that advisors should surface before a marital settlement agreement is signed.

• Biggest planning warning: The presenter stressed that clients often rush to sign a settlement just to end the conflict, even though the tax effects of that agreement can last for years after the divorce is final.
• Operational nugget: Health insurance changes, refinancing requirements, beneficiary updates, and post-divorce budgeting can all create real economic costs that are easy to ignore if the parties focus only on who gets which asset.
• Retirement account divisions, real estate transfers, and property settlements need tax review instead of being treated as purely legal paperwork.
• Joint-return decisions can become leverage points in negotiation, especially when one spouse has self-employment income, unpaid estimates, or future collection exposure.
• Tax advisors add value by coordinating with attorneys and financial advisors while keeping clients focused on after-tax outcomes rather than purely emotional positions.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, financial advisors, and tax practitioners helping clients and attorneys evaluate divorce settlements, filing status, property transfers, retirement accounts, and post-decree tax exposure

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This EIC session focused on the rules and documentation habits practitioners need before claiming refundable credits and related filing-status benefits. AJ Reynolds walked through eligibility rules for taxpayers with and without qualifying children, special issues for military and clergy taxpayers, Schedule C red flags, and why Form 8867 is only one part of the paid-preparer due diligence file.

• Due diligence warning: The presenter emphasized that Form 8867, credit worksheets, client interviews, and retained notes all work together; a client signature or software prompt does not replace the preparer's own knowledge and questions.
• Practice nugget: For Schedule C EIC cases, practitioners should ask whether the taxpayer is really conducting a trade or business and confirm that all allowable business expenses were considered, not just the income level that produces the largest credit.
• Eligibility review included valid Social Security number requirements, investment-income limits, earned-income rules, and the limited married-filing-separately path created by the American Rescue Plan Act.
• Qualifying-child analysis should cover relationship, age, residency, joint-return, and duplicate-claim issues before the return is filed.
• The session tied EIC due diligence to broader preparer exposure, including documentation for head of household and other credits covered by the paid-preparer due diligence penalty rules.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, and tax preparers responsible for EIC, child tax credit, additional child tax credit, American opportunity credit, or head of household due diligence on individual returns

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This QCD session focused on how qualified charitable distributions work, how they are reported, and where return-preparation errors can trigger IRS notices. Kristy Maitre covered direct IRA-to-charity transfers, age and account restrictions, Form 1099-R coding, line 4 reporting on Form 1040, coordination with RMDs, IRA contribution offsets, and new charitable contribution limitation issues.

• Reporting nugget: A QCD still starts with the gross IRA distribution on Form 1040 line 4A; the taxable amount is reduced on line 4B and the QCD notation or checkbox must be handled correctly.
• Practice warning: The Form 1099-R Y code is helpful but not controlling; practitioners still need client documentation from the financial institution and charity, plus confirmation that the account and taxpayer qualify.
• Eligible transfers generally must go directly from a traditional IRA, or an inactive SEP or SIMPLE IRA, to the charity; donor-advised funds, private foundations, 401(k)s, 403(b)s, and 457 plans do not receive the same treatment.
• The age 70 1/2 rule remains important even when RMD ages differ, including inherited IRA situations where a younger beneficiary cannot create a QCD just because distributions are required.
• QCD planning should be coordinated with RMD timing, recent deductible IRA contributions, Schedule A treatment, and CP2000 response documentation to avoid double benefits or mismatched 1099-R reporting.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, and tax practitioners advising older IRA owners on qualified charitable distributions, required minimum distributions, Form 1099-R reporting, and charitable contribution limits

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This quarterly update covered new midyear federal tax developments and practice reminders for client follow-up. Kristy Maitre reviewed IRS Q&A guidance on Trump accounts, related Social Security rollout issues, 529 and ABLE account coordination, business tax account access to EIN verification letters, withholding and recordkeeping reminders, draft information-reporting changes for overtime compensation, HSA eligibility questions, and upcoming guidance areas for gambling, charitable organizations, and Form W-4.

• Planning nugget: The IRS Trump account Q&A addressed eligibility, contribution mechanics, newborn Social Security coordination, investment lineup information, and how these accounts may sit alongside 529 and ABLE accounts while later rollover guidance remains incomplete.
• Practice reminder: Business tax account users who are designated officials can now retrieve EIN verification letters digitally, with the CP575 format replacing the older 147C letter process for that access path.
• Midyear client check-ins should cover adequate withholding, filing-status changes, address updates, and records before small payroll jobs or changed circumstances turn into balance-due surprises.
• Draft information-reporting changes include a Form 1099-NEC overtime compensation box, which the presenter flagged as an area where IRS is already watching for implementation and fraud concerns.
• The session also previewed follow-up guidance areas practitioners should watch, including gambling issues, charitable organization changes, Form W-4 updates, HSA eligibility administration, and school scholarship granting organization credits.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, and tax practitioners tracking midyear IRS guidance, client withholding issues, information reporting changes, Trump accounts, and other federal tax update items

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This two-hour LLC session focused on what happens when an LLC changes its tax posture, ownership, or classification. AJ Reynolds covered the tax consequences of moving between single-member and multi-member LLC status, partnership liquidation concepts, Revenue Rulings 99-5 and 99-6, EIN questions, check-the-box classification rules, S corporation elections, self-employment tax planning, basis tracking, capital accounts, guaranteed payments, and operating agreement language that can create unexpected S election problems.

• Entity-change nugget: Adding an owner to a disregarded single-member LLC can create a partnership for tax purposes, while moving from a multi-member LLC to one owner is generally analyzed as a partnership liquidation under the Revenue Ruling 99-6 framework.
• Election warning: The presenter cautioned that Form 8832 is often unnecessary for common LLC classification changes, but Form 2553 and S corporation treatment require careful attention because operating agreement provisions can inadvertently conflict with S election requirements.
• Clients need to understand that an LLC is a state-law entity, while federal tax treatment may be disregarded entity, partnership, C corporation, or S corporation depending on ownership and elections.
• Basis, capital accounts, liabilities, holding periods, guaranteed payments, hot assets, and self-employment tax exposure can all change the tax result when ownership interests are sold, redeemed, contributed, or consolidated.
• Practical cleanup points include whether a new EIN is required, whether final partnership returns are needed, and whether attorney-prepared LLC documents actually match the intended federal tax classification.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, and tax practitioners advising business owners on LLC ownership changes, partnership tax consequences, S corporation elections, EIN questions, basis tracking, and self-employment tax planning

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This S corporation basis session focused on how shareholder basis is calculated at the 1040 level and why that calculation controls loss deductions, taxable distributions, and future gain or loss on the ownership interest. Jason Dinesen walked through stock basis versus loan basis, the ordering rules for annual basis adjustments, when suspended losses move forward, how debt basis is restored, and practical ways to rebuild basis when historical records are incomplete.

• Core calculation nugget: Shareholder stock basis starts with what the owner paid in, then moves each year for income, contributions, distributions, nondeductible expenses, and loss items in a required order that determines whether basis ever hits zero.
• Loss-limitation warning: Basis is only the first hurdle; even after a shareholder clears basis, practitioners still need to test at-risk, passive-activity, and excess-business-loss limits before treating a K-1 loss as currently deductible.
• Distributions reduce stock basis before loss items, and if basis reaches zero at the distribution step, the excess becomes taxable to the shareholder instead of being absorbed later by debt basis.
• Loan basis only applies when the shareholder directly loans money to the S corporation, and it can absorb otherwise suspended losses but does not protect excess distributions from becoming taxable.
• When historical basis records are missing, the presenter recommended rebuilding from prior K-1s and balance-sheet items such as capital stock, additional paid-in capital, AAA, and OAA rather than guessing from current-year results.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, and tax practitioners preparing shareholder returns, reviewing K-1 loss limitations, handling distributions, or rebuilding S corporation stock and debt basis records

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session showed how tax practitioners can use ChatGPT as a practical research and drafting aid without treating its output as authority. Kristy Maitre focused on prompt quality, verification of facts and citations, IRS expectations around AI use, and the need to avoid entering client-identifying information while using generative AI in a tax practice.

• Research safeguard: ChatGPT output should be treated as a starting draft, not a final answer, because responses can be outdated, incomplete, or wrong unless practitioners verify the facts, dates, and cited authority.
• Prompting nugget: Better prompts produce more useful results, and follow-up questions can refine the answer when the first response is too generic for the actual research issue.
• The session walked through practical use cases such as research support, resume tailoring, checklists, document summaries, client emails, newsletters, and marketing drafts.
• IRS governance and confidentiality rules still apply when AI is involved, so practitioners should avoid entering sensitive client data or personal identifying information into these tools.
• Professional judgment remains central: AI can speed up drafting and idea generation, but the practitioner is still responsible for accuracy, relevance, and the final client-facing work product.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners using AI tools for tax research, drafting, checklists, client communications, and internal workflow support

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session explained how the IRS develops evidence when a civil exam starts to look like a fraud or criminal-tax case. Michael DeBlis walked through the IRS summons power, when taxpayers are entitled to notice, how summons enforcement and motions to quash work, and why international evidence-sharing tools changed the government's leverage in offshore and cross-border investigations.

• Procedure nugget: The presenter stressed that summonses are not self-enforcing, which means a taxpayer can challenge an overbroad or improper summons in court before the IRS compels production.
• Practice warning: Notice rights depend on who issued the summons and who received it, so practitioners need to distinguish ordinary examination summonses from criminal-investigation and third-party-record-keeper exceptions.
• The session tied IDRs, summonses, fraud-technical-advisor referrals, and CI involvement into one escalation path so practitioners can spot when a routine exam is becoming more serious.
• John Doe summonses, Powell enforcement factors, and motions to quash were covered as practical tools and defenses when the IRS seeks records from banks or other third parties.
• International evidence gathering now reaches far beyond domestic summons practice, including FATCA-era information sharing, treaty requests, and MLAT-style cooperation in offshore cases.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners handling audits, fraud referrals, criminal tax exposure, offshore-account issues, or document-demand strategy

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session explained how federal tax statutes of limitation control the IRS's time to assess tax, a taxpayer's time to claim a refund, and the government's collection window. Kristy Maitre used filing and payment examples to show how original returns, amended returns, substitute returns, extensions, and tolling events change those deadlines.

• Deadline nugget: Filing an amended return generally does not restart the three-year assessment period or extend the refund statute, although an amended return submitted near the assessment deadline can give the IRS a limited additional 60-day assessment window.
• Refund nugget: A timely refund claim can still be limited by the separate three-year or two-year lookback rules, so practitioners need to identify when each payment was made before promising a refund or credit.
• Substitute-for-return filings do not start the assessment, refund, or collection statutes; filing a valid original return is essential for nonfiler resolution strategy.
• The ordinary three-year assessment period can expand to six years for certain substantial omissions of income, basis overstatements, and foreign-asset reporting failures, while fraudulent or invalid returns may leave the year open indefinitely.
• Bankruptcy, offers in compromise, collection due process proceedings, disasters, combat-zone relief, and agreed extensions can suspend or alter limitation periods, making transcript review and date-by-date documentation critical.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners handling amended returns, refund claims, nonfilers, IRS examinations, collections, or transcript-based deadline analysis

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session examined the ethical and practical responsibilities involved in representing non-filers. Kristy Maitre connected Circular 230 due diligence and competence standards with the initial client interview, transcript review, substitute-for-return analysis, delinquent-return strategy, and a carefully limited engagement letter.

• Intake nugget: A detailed initial interview and transcript review help establish which federal, state, business, payroll, and information returns are missing before the practitioner agrees to a scope of work.
• Statute nugget: An IRS substitute for return generally does not start the ordinary limitation periods; filing a valid original return can start the applicable statutes and may replace assumptions that produced an overstated assessment.
• The IRS generally applies a six-year delinquent-return enforcement period, but facts such as bankruptcy, prior filing history, and other case circumstances can require a different compliance window.
• A separate non-filer engagement letter should define the returns and representation included, document known omissions outside the engagement, allocate record-reconstruction responsibilities, and explain client deadlines and cooperation duties.
• Practitioners must consider Circular 230 competence and diligence, refund-claim limits, reconstructed records, filing-status and dependent support, and the separate time limit for receiving Social Security earnings credit from late-filed returns.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners evaluating or representing non-filers, reconstructing records, addressing substitute returns, or defining the scope of delinquent-return engagements

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session examined the ethical responsibilities that shape IRS audit representation from the first notice through a possible appeal. Kristy Maitre connected Circular 230 competence and due diligence with pre-audit preparation, document control, client interviews, error disclosure, engagement scope, and the practitioner’s duty to advocate truthfully within current law.

• Preparation nugget: A disciplined pre-audit should reconcile source documents to the return, identify unexplained deposits or inconsistencies, and prepare the representative to answer likely questions before the examiner issues follow-up requests.
• Document-control nugget: Practitioners should provide only the records formally requested, keep copies rather than surrender originals, and use Form 4564 or another written receipt to preserve a clear history of what the IRS requested and received.
• Circular 230 permits strong advocacy and favorable presentation of truthful facts, but it prohibits misleading statements, concealed information, altered records, false evidence, and positions that lack a reasonable basis.
• When a practitioner discovers an error or omission, the client should be promptly advised-preferably in writing-of the issue and correction options; tax evasion, obstruction, fraudulent conduct, or altered records may require withdrawal.
• The audit engagement letter should define the client’s responsibility for complete and accurate facts, the firm’s reliance and scope, the absence of a guaranteed outcome, client approval of submissions, and the practitioner’s right to suspend or withdraw.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners preparing clients for IRS correspondence, office, or field examinations and representing them through document requests, interviews, proposed adjustments, or appeals

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session explained how the IRS distinguishes employees from independent contractors and what happens when a classification is challenged. Jason Dinesen connected the behavioral-control, financial-control, and relationship tests with Form SS-8, audit documentation, Section 530 safe-harbor relief, and the reduced employment-tax assessments available under Section 3509.

• Classification nugget: The IRS framework looks at the full relationship through behavioral control, financial control, and the nature of the parties' relationship; a contract label by itself does not decide the result.
• Relief nugget: Section 530 can prevent federal tax reclassification even when the common-law factors lean toward employee status, but the business must satisfy substantive consistency, reporting consistency, and a reasonable-basis requirement.
• Form SS-8 can help practitioners document the classification analysis, but either the business or the worker can request a determination and the resulting IRS review may expose weak facts or inconsistent reporting.
• If Section 530 is unavailable, Section 3509 may reduce the employer's income-tax withholding and FICA exposure, with the result depending in part on whether required Forms 1099 were timely filed.
• Strong contemporaneous documentation matters in an examination, including how work is directed, who bears financial risk, whether benefits and permanence resemble employment, and why the business had a reasonable basis for contractor treatment.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, payroll professionals, and tax practitioners advising businesses or workers on employee-versus-contractor classification, payroll reporting, and IRS examination exposure

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session examined how federal tax rules distinguish employees from independent contractors and how businesses can correct classification problems before or during an IRS examination. AJ Reynolds connected the IRS control framework with Section 530 relief, the Classification Settlement Program, and the Voluntary Classification Settlement Program so practitioners can evaluate both classification facts and available resolution paths.

• Classification nugget: Worker status follows the substance of the relationship, not the label in a contract; behavioral control, financial control, and the relationship of the parties must be evaluated together.
• Timing nugget: VCSP is a proactive option that must be pursued before an employment-tax audit begins, while CSP is an examination-stage settlement path when full Section 530 relief is unavailable.
• Section 530 relief depends on reporting consistency, substantive consistency, and a reasonable basis for treating workers as independent contractors.
• Form SS-8, Revenue Ruling 87-41, written agreements, benefits, investment, profit-or-loss opportunity, and day-to-day instructions all inform the classification analysis.
• Early file review and documentation can reduce employment-tax, penalty, and reclassification exposure before an IRS or state inquiry limits the available correction options.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, payroll professionals, and tax practitioners advising businesses on worker classification, employment-tax exposure, corrective filings, and IRS examination strategy

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session provided a practical roadmap for managing an IRS examination from pre-filing risk review through audit closure and appeal. AJ Reynolds emphasized disciplined client interviews, transcript and statute checks, organized responses, and a strategy tailored to the type and scope of the examination.

• Response nugget: Practitioners should answer the issues actually under examination with organized, supportable documentation, retain proof of delivery or use the IRS upload tool, and avoid handing over an unfocused file dump.
• Preparation nugget: IRS Audit Technique Guides reveal how examiners approach particular industries and issues, making them useful preparation tools even though they are not themselves substantial authority.
• Correspondence, office, and field examinations differ in scope, staffing, and expansion risk, so the representation plan should match the audit type.
• Transcript review, assessment-statute monitoring, and a deliberate decision about any request to extend the limitations period should remain part of the working file.
• If disputed adjustments remain, practitioners should preserve the factual and legal record, request the group-manager conference, and evaluate a timely administrative appeal against the client's economics and objectives.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners preparing clients for correspondence, office, or field examinations and evaluating IRS appeals options

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session compared the federal reporting systems used to identify significant cash activity and suspicious financial transactions. Michael DeBlis explained who files Form 8300, Currency Transaction Reports, and Suspicious Activity Reports; how aggregation and structuring rules operate; and why accurate, timely reporting matters in civil and criminal enforcement.

• Form 8300 nugget: A trade or business generally must report more than $10,000 in cash received in one transaction or related transactions, including aggregated payments that are connected or that the recipient knows or has reason to know are connected.
• Structuring nugget: Breaking a larger cash transaction into smaller payments does not avoid scrutiny; patterns designed to evade reporting can create separate civil or criminal exposure even when each individual payment falls below the threshold.
• Currency Transaction Reports are generally filed by financial institutions for qualifying cash transactions, while Suspicious Activity Reports focus on activity that may indicate money laundering, fraud, or another violation.
• Form 8300 filers must track the filing deadline, furnish the required customer statement, retain supporting records, and document reasonable efforts when identifying information cannot be obtained.
• Practitioners should distinguish privileged legal advice from routine return-preparation or accounting work and should carefully manage client communications when reporting duties intersect with a potential investigation.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners advising businesses, financial institutions, or clients whose cash transactions may trigger Form 8300, CTR, or SAR obligations

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session examined how federal tax rules apply to the varied income streams and business expenses of influencers and digital content creators. Marit Burmood connected cash and noncash compensation, hobby-versus-business analysis, QBI, substantiation, and audit risk with practical questions practitioners can use to organize creator records and defend return positions.

• Income nugget: Products, services, trips, and other property received for promotional work generally enter gross income at fair market value even when no Form 1099 is issued, so practitioners need to reconcile platform dashboards, payment processors, contracts, and in-kind arrangements.
• Deduction nugget: A creator's public-facing use of clothing, travel, fitness, or a home does not automatically make the cost deductible; the business purpose, personal benefit, substantiation, and allocation rules still control.
• Platform revenue, sponsorships, affiliate commissions, subscriptions, appearances, royalties, merchandise, and gifted products can create multiple reporting streams that should be mapped before return preparation begins.
• Hobby-versus-business factors and the creator's profit motive affect how income and expenses are reported, while good contracts, separate accounts, books, and recurring review support business treatment.
• QBI and SSTB analysis can change when a creator earns from personal reputation, endorsements, licensing, product sales, or several related activities, making revenue classification and documentation especially important.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners advising influencers, content creators, digital entrepreneurs, and other clients with platform, sponsorship, affiliate, or in-kind income

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session examined the ethical and operational steps involved in selling or transitioning a tax practice. Kristy Maitre connected IRC Section 7216 consent rules with client communication, due diligence, record retention, data security, succession planning, and the practical handoff of IRS authorizations and firm responsibilities.

• Consent nugget: A buyer cannot simply receive client tax-return information as part of the sale; the seller needs a compliant, voluntary Section 7216 consent that identifies the information, purpose, recipient, duration, and required taxpayer acknowledgment.
• Transition nugget: The practice's EIN and existing powers of attorney do not automatically transfer to a buyer, so the closing plan should separately address IRS accounts, authorizations, client notices, engagement terms, and responsibility for retained records.
• Circular 230 best practices emphasize clear client communication, documented research and advice, integrity, conflict management, and checking the separate conduct rules that apply to attorneys, CPAs, enrolled agents, and other credentialed professionals.
• A sale or emergency succession plan should cover business continuity, data security, staff and client communication, retention and destruction policies, return of files, and what happens when a client declines consent to transfer information.
• Buyer and seller due diligence should address conflicts, valuation and payment terms, cybersecurity and insurance, leases and software, employees, restrictive covenants, pending work, complaints, and responsibility for prior returns or future claims.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners planning a practice sale, succession, disability transition, or transfer of client relationships and records

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This ethics session focused on the proposed Circular 230 changes that would modernize practitioner standards for a digital tax practice, tighten the Office of Professional Responsibility's conduct rules, and expand how due diligence applies when a practitioner steps into an IRS matter involving returns prepared earlier or by someone else. The discussion tied those proposed changes to practical engagement-letter drafting, inherited-client review work, and everyday controversy representation decisions.

• Most important proposed change: Once a practitioner represents a client before the IRS, due diligence may apply to the return at issue even if that return was prepared years earlier or by another preparer.
• Operational nugget: The presenter stressed that engagement letters should clearly limit scope and avoid language that appears to adopt or certify prior-year returns automatically.
• Proposed Circular 230 modernization for digital tax practice, renumbered provisions, and broader OPR conduct oversight.
• Removal of registered-tax-return-preparer references after the Loving case, while annual filing season program references remain.
• Contingent-fee guidance, disreputable-conduct revisions, and limits on how non-licensed practitioners can participate in IRS proceedings.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners handling ethics compliance, inherited-client files, IRS representation, and engagement-letter scope decisions

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session examined how the Kovel doctrine can extend attorney-client privilege to an accountant engaged by counsel in a sensitive tax matter. Michael DeBlis traced United States v. Kovel, the limits of Internal Revenue Code Section 7525, the work-product doctrine, and practical steps for structuring a forensic-accountant engagement when a civil audit may carry criminal exposure.

• Engagement nugget: The attorney-not the taxpayer-should retain the Kovel accountant, direct the work, and approve or pay the accountant's invoices so the accountant functions as part of the legal team.
• Privilege warning: Section 7525 is narrower than attorney-client privilege: it generally covers qualifying tax advice in noncriminal federal tax matters, not ordinary return preparation, business advice, tax-shelter promotion, or communications after a matter turns criminal.
• In an eggshell audit, using a new forensic accountant can help keep the original preparer's historical records and testimony distinct from work performed prospectively under counsel's direction.
• Courts examine the purpose of each communication, and circuit-level differences can determine whether advice about a return position is treated as legal advice or unprotected return-preparation work.
• Work-product protection requires reports, models, notes, or analyses to be prepared under legal direction in anticipation of litigation; copying an attorney or applying a generic engagement label is not enough.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, forensic accountants, and tax practitioners handling sensitive examinations, potential criminal referrals, subpoenas, reporting-position advice, or privilege questions

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session provided a practical introduction to IRS Offers in Compromise, with primary emphasis on doubt as to collectibility and the financial analysis reported on Form 433-A (OIC). Kristy Maitre explained how asset equity, allowable living expenses, collection statutes, payment options, and post-acceptance compliance affect whether an offer is realistic and sustainable.

• Qualification nugget: Doubt as to collectibility generally depends on whether the taxpayer's net realizable equity plus future disposable income can full-pay the liability before the collection statute expires; transcript and statute verification should come before offer calculations.
• Valuation nugget: Form 433-A (OIC) commonly starts with an asset's quick-sale value-often 80% of fair market value-then subtracts secured debt and applicable exclusions without allowing one asset's negative equity to offset another asset.
• The three OIC grounds-doubt as to liability, doubt as to collectibility, and effective tax administration-serve different situations and do not all require the same financial disclosures.
• Reasonable collection potential combines asset equity and monthly disposable income after IRS-allowable expenses, making complete documentation of cash, investments, real estate, vehicles, business interests, transfers, and household finances essential.
• Lump-sum and periodic-payment offers have different payment requirements, and an accepted taxpayer must remain current with filing and payment obligations for five years or risk default and reinstatement of the liability.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, and tax practitioners evaluating collection alternatives and preparing individual, sole-proprietor, or single-member LLC Offers in Compromise

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.

This session examined employment-tax withholding and the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty as a separate collection mechanism under Internal Revenue Code Section 6672. Michael DeBlis explained who may be treated as a responsible person, how civil willfulness is evaluated, which payroll-tax components are included, and why procedural deadlines and evidence of financial control matter when challenging an asserted penalty.

• Liability nugget: Section 6672 can reach any person who had meaningful authority to collect, account for, or pay over trust-fund taxes and willfully failed to do so; title alone is less important than actual control over financial decisions during the quarters at issue.
• Willfulness nugget: Civil willfulness is broader than the criminal standard and may be inferred when a responsible person knew payroll taxes were due yet preferred other creditors, acted with plain indifference, or deliberately avoided learning the facts.
• Employee income-tax and employee FICA withholding are trust-fund taxes, while the employer's matching FICA share, separate penalties, and pre-assessment interest are not part of the Trust Fund Recovery Penalty itself.
• More than one responsible person may be assessed, but the government may collect the underlying trust-fund amount only once; contribution disputes among responsible persons are separate from the IRS collection case.
• Practitioners should distinguish an IRS assertion from a final assessment, preserve protest and appeal deadlines, document the client's actual authority and payment decisions, and identify legally restricted funds or other responsible parties without assuming those facts automatically eliminate liability.

Audience

CPAs, EAs, attorneys, payroll professionals, and tax practitioners advising employers or individuals facing delinquent payroll-tax and Trust Fund Recovery Penalty exposure

Credit context

Live webinar; CPE/CE credit requires completion of the eligible course requirements

Replay access

Paid attendees can use the “Need Help?” button to access replay links, session PDFs and handouts, certificates, or upcoming registration changes.