The Tax Times

Wednesday, July 22, 2026

Tellock Reinforces the Importance of Filing Compliance in CDP

Don M. Tellock failed to file income tax returns for 2016 and 2017. In response, the IRS prepared a Substitute for Return (SFR) for each year and issued Notices of Deficiency. Because Tellock did not petition the Tax ourt to challenge those notices, he was later barred from disputing the underlying tax liability.

Tellock: Tax Court Sustains Levy in CDP Case

In Tellock, the Tax Court upheld the IRS’s proposed levy after concluding that Appeals did not abuse its discretion in sustaining collection action. The case is a reminder that CDP hearings are not a second bite at the apple; they are a forum to test collection procedure, raise permitted issues, and propose alternatives to enforced collection.

Why the Taxpayer Lost

The court’s reasoning, as summarized by secondary reporting, turned on the taxpayer’s failure to satisfy filing requirements and the resulting conclusion that the levy was properly sustained. That outcome fits the usual CDP framework: if the taxpayer is not current on required compliance or does not present a viable collection alternative, Appeals has a strong basis to sustain enforcement.

For practitioners, the practical point is straightforward. A CDP request should be supported by current filing compliance, financial disclosures, and a realistic collection proposal if the taxpayer wants Appeals to consider alternatives such as an installment agreement or offer in compromise.

Practice Pointers

· Confirm filing compliance before requesting CDP relief, because missing returns can undermine any request for collection relief.

· Build the administrative record carefully, since the Tax Court’s review in these cases is typically deferential.

· If the client wants to challenge the underlying liability, make sure the issue is actually preserved under section 6330’s rules.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

Contact the Tax Lawyers at

Marini & Associates, P.A.

for a FREE Tax HELP Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com
or Toll Free at 888 8TAXAID (888-882-9243)

Sources:

1. https://www.vitallaw.com/news/irs-did-not-abuse-discretion-in-sustaining-levy-additions-to-tax-not-subject-to-challenge-tellock-tcm/ftd01aeb20ead85684fa8954e56ffa4405649

2. https://www.irs.gov/appeals/collection-due-process-cdp-faqs

3. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section6330&num=0&edition=prelim

4. https://pontiustaxlaw.com/speaking-engagements-and-publications/procedures-stop-irs-levy/

5. http://www.smbiz.com/sbtc26.html

6. https://steinsperling.com/february-federal-tax-update-4/

7. https://kpmg.com/kpmg-us/content/dam/kpmg/taxnewsflash/pdf/2026/06/tc-memo-2026-50.pdf

8. https://thinkoutsidethetaxbox.com/articles/tax-court-roundup-june-2026/

9. https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2026/6/23/analysis-of-collection-due-process-and-reasonable-collection-potential-in-tooke-v-commissioner

10. https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/pamphlets/

11. https://www.cadwalader.com/uploads/media/Otay_March_2026.pdf

12. https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/court-documents

13. https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/161_TC_58-112.pdf

14. https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/notices/collection-due-process-cdp/

15. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6330

16. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f12153.pdf

17. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title26/pdf/USCODE-2023-title26-subtitleF-chap64-subchapD-partI-sec6330.pdf

18. https://www.irs.gov/pub/safeguard/cdp deskbook.pdf

19. https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog/fixing-cdp-after-zuch/2026/02/

20. https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/sanctions-list-updates

21. https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/usc26/6330

22. https://irc.bloombergtax.com/public/uscode/doc/irc/section_6330

23. https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2025/sep/supreme-court-tax-court-lacks-jurisdiction-when-levy-is-satisfied/

24. https://www.taxcourtblog.com/news

25. https://www.andrewmitchel.com/blog/2026_07_in-the-tax-court--at-the-irs-last-month-----june-2026/

26. https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/Cases_Commenced_in_the_Courts_of_Appeals_April_2026.pdf

27. https://www.andrewmitchel.com/blog/2026_06_in-the-tax-court--at-the-irs-last-month-----may-2026/

28. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/6104186.pdf?abstractid=6104186&mirid=1

29. https://www.irs.gov/appeals/collection-due-process-cdp-faqs

30. https://www.vitallaw.com/news/irs-did-not-abuse-discretion-in-sustaining-levy-additions-to-tax-not-subject-to-challenge-tellock-tcm/ftd01aeb20ead85684fa8954e56ffa4405649

31. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section6330&num=0&edition=prelim

32. https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/other-documents/treasury-reports/irs-could-better-comply-collection-processes-tigta-says/7l574

33. https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/blog/2026/6/23/analysis-of-collection-due-process-and-reasonable-collection-potential-in-tooke-v-commissioner

34. https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog/fixing-cdp-after-zuch/2026/02/

35. https://steinsperling.com/june-federal-tax-update-3/

36. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54a14f8ee4b0bc51a1228894/t/6a01002aae1992566b3e704b/1778450475383/2026-05-11+Current+Federal+Tax+Developments.pdf

37. https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ARC18_Volume1_MLI_05_AppealsCDP.pdf

38. https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/irs-private-rulings/chief-counsel-notices/irs-issues-guidance-on-handling-collection-due-process-cases/1fctv

39. https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/notices/collection-due-process-cdp/

40. https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/court-documents/court-opinions-and-orders/disallowance-basis-deduction-upheld-not-penalties/7v072

41. https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/court-documents/court-opinions-and-orders/irs-premium-tax-credit-assessment-invalid-levy-cant-proceed/7tvm7

42. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=97541292-38b0-4e40-bac3-6fb838c38feb

43. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/23-296/23-296-2026-06-29.html

44. https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/scotus-irs-levy-abandonment-moots-collection-appeals-in-tax-court/

https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog/tax-court-collection-due-process-refund-jurisdiction-and-the-tas-act/2025/08/

Thursday, July 16, 2026

Siemens Medical Solutions Section 245A Win: Tax Court Invalidates Extraordinary Disposition Rules

Multinational corporate groups claiming the section 245A dividends‑received deduction just received significant support from the U.S. Tax Court in Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc. & Consolidated Subsidiaries v. Commissioner (Dkt. No. 11432‑25; 167 T.C. No. 5 (2026).

In this case, the court held that Siemens was entitled to its full section 245A deduction on qualifying foreign‑source dividends and rejected the IRS’s attempt to deny a substantial portion of that benefit through controversial “extraordinary disposition” rules.

What Was at Stake?

Siemens, a U.S. medical technology company with significant foreign subsidiaries, claimed a large section 245A dividends‑received deduction for foreign dividends received in 2018.

The IRS asserted a deficiency tied to approximately $315 million of foreign‑dividend tax benefit, relying on regulations that recharacterize certain transactions as “extraordinary dispositions” and partially strip DRD eligibility. Siemens challenged both the application and the validity of those rules in the Tax Court.

Section 245A: A Cornerstone of U.S. Territorial Taxation

Section 245A, enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, provides a 100 percent dividends‑received deduction for qualifying dividends paid by certain foreign subsidiaries to their U.S. corporate parents.

Congress designed section 245A as a cornerstone of the modern quasi‑territorial regime, coordinating the DRD with GILTI, subpart F, and other anti‑deferral rules rather than with expansive, open‑ended regulatory clawbacks.

Tax Court’s Key Holdings

The Tax Court sided with Siemens and reached several critical conclusions:

· Section 245A’s statutory text entitles taxpayers to a 100 percent DRD on qualifying dividends from specified foreign subsidiaries, subject to clearly defined statutory limitations.

· Treasury’s extraordinary disposition and excess‑distribution rules went beyond that statutory framework, effectively rewriting eligibility for the deduction and exceeding the agency’s authority.

· The regulations did not satisfy administrative law requirements, rendering them invalid and unenforceable as a basis to disallow Siemens’ dividends‑received deduction.

This reasoning builds on the court’s earlier decision in VarianMedical Systems, where the Tax Court also rejected aggressive attempts to narrow taxpayers’ section 245A benefits through non‑statutory constraints.

Why Siemens Matters for Multinational Taxpayers

For U.S.‑parented groups with foreign subsidiaries, Siemens confirms that section 245A remains a powerful tool for eliminating U.S. tax on qualifying foreign dividends.

The decision signals that courts will closely scrutinize regulatory efforts that effectively override clear statutory DRD entitlements—particularly where Congress already weighed policy trade‑offs when enacting the TCJA.

In practical terms, corporate tax departments should expect:

· Stronger grounds to challenge proposed adjustments that rely on extraordinary‑disposition concepts to limit section 245A benefits.

· Renewed opportunities to revisit prior‑year concessions where exam teams applied these now‑invalid rules to disallow or reduce DRDs.

· Heightened scrutiny of underlying facts—earnings and profits, basis, restructuring steps—even where regulatory authority is successfully challenged.

Audit Defense and Refund Opportunities

In light of Siemens, taxpayers should consider targeted steps in both controversy and planning:

· Audit defense: Reassess section 245A‑related exam positions that depend on extraordinary‑disposition or excess‑distribution theories. Where proposed adjustments rest largely on regulatory overlays, Siemens may support more assertive defense strategies.

· Refund claims: Evaluate open years in which taxpayers accepted limitations on the section 245A deduction primarily because of these rules. Well‑documented refund claims may now be viable where statute‑of‑limitations periods remain open.

· Documentation and governance: Even with favorable case law, taxpayers should continue to document foreign‑subsidiary transactions, distributions, and restructurings carefully, anticipating close IRS review of the factual underpinnings of large DRDs.

Strategic Takeaways for Corporate Tax Planning

Siemens offers several practical lessons for multinational tax planning:

· Section 245A is a statutory benefit; planning should be anchored in the Code and coordinated with GILTI and subpart F, not solely in temporary or aggressive regulatory interpretations.

· Courts are increasingly skeptical of rules that seek to undo clear legislative choices about DRDs and foreign earnings—taxpayers should incorporate this judicial trend into their risk assessments.

· Nonetheless, planning that relies exclusively on the invalidation of regulations may attract future legislative or regulatory attention; prudent structures anticipate possible changes.

How Marini & Associates PA Can Help

Marini & Associates PA advises U.S. and foreign‑based groups on cross‑border tax planning, audit defense, and controversy involving section 245A, GILTI, subpart F, and related international tax rules.

Our team works with clients to:

· Review existing structures and historic distributions in light of the Siemens decision.

· Evaluate audit exposure and develop defense strategies for ongoing and anticipated examinations.

· Identify potential refund opportunities where section 245A benefits were previously curtailed by now‑invalid regulatory concepts.

If your group has significant foreign‑source dividends or is facing IRS scrutiny of section 245A claims, we can help you assess the impact of Siemens and design a tailored response.

Have an IRS Tax Problem?

Contact the Tax Lawyers at