- Who the advisers are
- How to read an outcome
- The topics
- W-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
- Backup withholding, Form 945 and the notices
- IRIS, FIRE and the e-file mandate
- Forms, due dates and lead time
- Form 1099-K
- Penalties and reasonable cause
- Identity theft and address fraud
- Foreign payees and Forms 1042 and 1042-S
- States and the Combined Federal/State program
- Workers and withholding on contractors
- Questions people ask
Who the advisers are
Each body is a federal advisory committee of practitioners, industry filers, software companies and state tax officials appointed by the IRS (or, for the Taxpayer Advocate, an independent office inside it). They meet with IRS executives through the year and publish a report each fall: IRSAC in November (as Publication 5316), ETAAC in June (Publication 3415, addressed to Congress), the Taxpayer Advocate in January (the Annual Report to Congress and the Purple Book of legislative recommendations). IRPAC, created in 1991 as the information reporting committee, published its own report each October until it was folded into IRSAC as the Information Reporting Subgroup in 2019; its 2015 to 2017 reports are no longer on irs.gov, so those entries rest on the IRS news releases and the 2016 table of contents.
| Body | Reports used | What it covers for payers |
|---|---|---|
| IRPAC | 2015 to 2018 (4) | Forms W-9 and 1099 design, TIN Matching, the 972CG and CP2100 processes, FIRE, the Combined Federal/State program, FATCA and QI rules. |
| IRSAC | 2019 to 2025 (7) | Everything IRPAC did, through its Information Reporting Subgroup, plus the e-file mandate, IRIS, Form 945, penalties, identity theft and digital assets. |
| ETAAC | 2016 to 2026 (5 of 11 had information reporting content) | Electronic filing: the e-file threshold, the 1099 portal that became IRIS, due dates, data to states, fraud and authentication. |
| National Taxpayer Advocate | 2026 Purple Book; 2025 Annual Report | Legislative proposals on penalties, withholding on contractors and ITINs; the yearly Most Serious Problems, including international withholding relief in 2025. |
How to read an outcome
The advisers grade themselves: each IRSAC report opens with a 'progress on last year's recommendations' section, ETAAC carries a status table, and the Taxpayer Advocate publishes the IRS's written response to every recommendation. Where those say a recommendation was implemented, this page says 'adopted'. Where the ask has been repeated in a later report without an IRS answer, it says so. 'No response on the public record' means exactly that: the recommendation appears, no later adviser report records an answer, and the form, publication or regulation it concerned is unchanged as of October 3, 2026. It does not mean the IRS rejected it; many were never answered in writing.
Counts are entries on this page; the reports are the source for every outcome.
Three patterns stand out. Recommendations that cost the IRS nothing and help its own matching (reinstate the 1099-NEC, require one EIN on the 945 and the 1099s, fix the 28 percent on the W-9) were adopted within a year. Recommendations that need a regulation or a statute (TIN Matching for every form, e-signatures, deficiency procedures for penalties, voluntary withholding on contractors) have been asked for a decade or more. And the recommendations that would make the payer's life easiest (electronic CP2100 and 972CG delivery, a good-faith safe harbor for the e-file mandate, a one-page filing reference) are the ones with no answer at all.
The topics
Select a topic above or follow a link here; the counts are entries in each.
- W-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures8
- Backup withholding, Form 945 and the notices7
- IRIS, FIRE and the e-file mandate6
- Forms, due dates and lead time8
- Form 1099-K4
- Penalties and reasonable cause5
- Identity theft and address fraud4
- Foreign payees and Forms 1042 and 1042-S6
- States and the Combined Federal/State program2
- Workers and withholding on contractors2
W-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
Penalty relief for payers shut out of TIN Matching
IRPAC 2015No response on the public recordW-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
The ask: Relief from name/TIN mismatch penalties for filers whom Publication 2108A does not allow into the TIN Matching Program, and a new checkbox on Forms W-9 and W-4P authorizing the payer to run the payee's name and TIN through the program.
What happened: The news release lists the asks; no later IRSAC report records an IRS answer, Publication 2108A still limits the program to payers of the backup-withholding forms, and the W-9 has no authorization box.
For payers: If you cannot TIN-match a form type, say so in a 972CG response: the IRS's own advisers have called the exclusion a reasonable cause problem since 2015.
Require a certified TIN for every 1099-MISC payee
ETAAC 2016No response on the public recordW-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
The ask: Make payers collect a signed W-9 (a TIN certified under penalties of perjury) from every contractor paid nonemployee compensation, as banks must for interest; the W-9 instructions let 'other payments' payees skip the signature.
What happened: No change: the Form W-9 instructions (Rev. March 2024) still say a payee giving a TIN for 'other payments' need not sign the certification unless notified of an incorrect TIN.
For payers: A signed W-9 is still optional for vendor payments by law, but it is the only document that supports the certified-W-9 due diligence safe harbor in Reg. 301.6724-1(g)(2). Collect the signature anyway.
Open TIN Matching to every information return filer
ETAAC 2016Repeated in later reportsW-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
The ask: Extend the TIN Matching Program beyond the Forms 1099 subject to backup withholding (B, DIV, INT, K, MISC, OID, PATR) to any return that can draw a penalty; the IRS had said section 6103 makes that a question for Congress. ETAAC noted IRPAC had asked since 2002.
What happened: Not adopted. Form 1099-NEC was added when it was reinstated (IRSAC 2019 asked for it), but the program remains tied to backup-withholding forms; the W-2 and 1042-S are still outside it.
For payers: TIN Matching covers the forms most payers file, but a 1042-S or W-2 filer still has no IRS check before filing, which is why name-control rules matter more for those forms.
Remove the barriers to TIN Matching enrollment
ETAAC 2016Partly adopted or under wayW-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
The ask: Stop requiring a payer's employee to register with personal SSN and prior-year adjusted gross income and wait for a PIN by mail, which foreign-based U.S. withholding agents could not do at all; use a modern authentication system instead.
What happened: E-Services moved to Secure Access and then to ID.me identity verification; the enrollee still verifies personally, and IRSAC 2021 noted the FIRE and TCC changes made the same point for e-filers.
For payers: Enroll before you need it: the responsible official still has to verify an identity, and the 1099 filing history requirement means a new payer may wait a season.
Make TIN Matching proof part of reasonable cause
ETAAC 2016No response on the public recordW-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
The ask: Issue penalties automatically for every missing or incorrect TIN and require proof that the payee was run through TIN Matching before accepting a reasonable cause argument.
What happened: No change in the regulations or Publication 1586: the reasonable cause rules still rest on solicitation, not on matching, and TIN Matching remains voluntary.
For payers: Voluntary, but examiners ask. A match log dated before filing is the quickest way to show you acted in a responsible manner.
Electronic signatures on Form W-9
IRPAC 2017Partly adopted or under wayW-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
The ask: Let payers accept a W-9 signed electronically the way withholding agents may accept an e-signed W-8, instead of requiring the payer to build its own electronic system first. Repeated in 2018 (IRPAC) and 2022 (IRSAC, which asked for the W-8 rule: a name, a time and date stamp and a statement that the form was electronically signed).
What happened: The IRS allows e-signed W-9s received through an electronic system the payer establishes (Announcements 98-27, 2001-91 and the W-9 requester instructions). IRSAC 2022 reported Chief Counsel saying W-9 e-signature 'is an issue for the Service'; no guidance aligning the W-9 with the W-8 rule has appeared.
For payers: A W-9 signed in DocuSign and emailed to you is accepted in practice by most payers but is not squarely blessed; the e-signature guide sets out what the IRS has actually said.
Put Form 1099-NEC in Publication 2108A
IRSAC 2019AdoptedW-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
The ask: Add the reinstated 1099-NEC to the TIN Matching form list, to Form 1096, the Form 945 instructions, Publication 6961 and the Publication 1220 layouts.
What happened: Adopted: Publication 2108A and the 1220 layouts carry the 1099-NEC from tax year 2020.
For payers: Nonemployee compensation has been matchable since the NEC returned; a payer who stopped matching when box 7 disappeared has no excuse in the record.
Source: IRSAC 2019 Public Report
Raise the one-EIN-a-day limit
IRSAC 2022No response on the public recordW-9s, TIN Matching and e-signatures
The ask: Let a responsible party obtain ten EINs a day instead of one; the daily cap, imposed to stop abuse of the online application, delays legitimate multi-entity formations. The IRS issues about four million EINs a year, 90 percent online.
What happened: No change reported; the Form SS-4 instructions still limit issuance to one per responsible party per day.
For payers: Plan entity formation around the cap: a new EIN for each state entity means one business day each.
Source: IRSAC 2022 Public Report
Backup withholding, Form 945 and the notices
A 1099 indicator for presumed-U.S. payees
ETAAC 2016No response on the public recordBackup withholding, Form 945 and the notices
The ask: Add a box a payer can check when it is already backup withholding on an undocumented payee presumed to be a U.S. person (an expired W-8, for example), so the IRS stops sending B-Notices for a payee who has no TIN to give; the second-B-Notice box added to the 1099-MISC for 2015 was the precedent.
What happened: Not adopted: the 1099 forms carry the second-TIN-notice box only, and CP2100 listings still include every missing-TIN account.
For payers: Expect a CP2100 line for every presumed-U.S. payee you withhold on; the required response is to document the withholding, not to find a TIN that does not exist.
Fix the Notice 972CG response process
IRPAC 2017Partly adopted or under wayBackup withholding, Form 945 and the notices
The ask: Acknowledge 972CG responses and answer them faster; IRPAC's 2017 report covered penalties, abatement requests and levies.
What happened: IRPAC 2018 credited the 972CG team with 'substantially improved' acknowledgement and response time, then said wrong-address mailings (below) threatened the gain.
For payers: The IRS does acknowledge a 972CG response; if you have not had Letter 854C or an acknowledgement within a few months, the calling guide says where to ask.
Fix the 28 percent on Form W-9 and the CP2100
IRPAC 2018AdoptedBackup withholding, Form 945 and the notices
The ask: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut backup withholding to 24 percent from 2018, but the W-9 still printed 28 percent until October 2018; IRPAC asked for a revised W-9 and CP2100, and for the IRS to confirm that payers who withheld 28 percent early in 2018 need not refund the difference.
What happened: Adopted: IRSAC 2019 lists the updated W-9 and CP2100/CP2100A among IRPAC's implemented 2018 recommendations; the September 2018 notices already used 24 percent.
For payers: A payee who was over-withheld claims the excess on their return; the payer does not refund it. The rule has not changed since.
One EIN on the 1099s and the Form 945
IRSAC 2019AdoptedBackup withholding, Form 945 and the notices
The ask: Require the EIN on Forms 945 and 945-A to match the EIN on the related 1099s, W-2Gs and 1099-Rs (PMTA 2019-010 said the IRS has the authority), with a payor awareness campaign, training for IRS staff, a possible Schedule R for Form 945, and a warning letter a year or two before penalties.
What happened: Adopted in substance: the IRS's Form 945 matching program (TIGTA 2019-40-028 drove it) compares box 4 withholding to the 945 by EIN, and the backup withholding compliance group IRSAC describes (13 to 15 staff in Cincinnati) runs the letters. The IRSAC noted the IRS planned the form and instruction changes for tax year 2021.
For payers: File the 945 under the EIN that appears on the 1099s. A subsidiary that files 1099s under its own EIN and deposits under the parent's is exactly the mismatch the program was built to find; see the 945 compliance check.
Source: IRSAC 2019 Public Report
Let a payer stop filing under a stolen TIN
IRSAC 2020No response on the public recordBackup withholding, Form 945 and the notices
The ask: Give 1099 filers a way to report that a payee is an identity theft victim: a checkbox on the 1099, instruction language telling the recipient the payer 'may not issue a new Form 1099', the same language in CP2000 notices, and legislation for backup withholding at the top rate on known bad actors.
What happened: Not adopted; IRSAC returned to the subject in its 2025 report, asking again for a filer-side indicator on Forms 1099-B, 1099-DA and W-2G.
For payers: You must file under the TIN the payee gave you even after a theft claim. Keep the payee's Form 14039 or affidavit with the account; the identity theft guide covers the payer side.
Source: IRSAC 2020 Public Report
Deliver CP2100 and 972CG electronically
IRSAC 2022Repeated in later reportsBackup withholding, Form 945 and the notices
The ask: Replace paper and encrypted CDs (sent when a CP2100 lists more than 250 error documents) with a secure portal or e-mail for the notices, the responses and the supporting documents; IRSAC said a single 972CG exchange on paper can take 18 months. Repeated as recommendation 18 of the 2025 report, which asked for delivery through the business online account with an alert.
What happened: Not adopted as of the January 2026 report: both notices still go by mail or CD, and the IRSAC 2025 report documents CP2100s and a Form 945 refund check delivered to strangers' addresses.
For payers: Watch the calendar rather than the mailbox: the spring and fall CP2100 runs are on the compliance calendar, and a payer that filed bad TINs and received nothing should call.
Source: IRSAC 2022 Public Report
E-file Forms 941-X and 945-X
IRSAC 2022No response on the public recordBackup withholding, Form 945 and the notices
The ask: Add the amended employment tax returns to Modernized e-File; both were paper only, and the IRS told IRSAC it was considering 941-X but had no plans for 945-X.
What happened: ETAAC's June 2026 report still lists every 94X amendment as paper-only, so the 945-X remains a mailed form.
For payers: A 945-X is paper, slow and easy to mis-sequence; the 945-X guide explains how to label it so the campus processes the right version.
Source: IRSAC 2022 Public Report
IRIS, FIRE and the e-file mandate
Cut the e-file threshold to 20 and build a fill-in portal
ETAAC 2016Overtaken by legislationIRIS, FIRE and the e-file mandate
The ask: Phase the mandatory e-file threshold for 1099-MISC down from 250 to 20 returns (65.3 percent of 1099-MISC were e-filed in 2014), require e-filed corrections, and build an SSA-style online fill-in service for filers under the threshold.
What happened: Congress went further: the Taxpayer First Act (2019) set 100 then 10 returns, aggregated across all types, which T.D. 9972 (February 2023) made effective for returns filed from 2024; section 2102 of the same Act ordered the portal that became IRIS, launched January 2023.
For payers: Every recommendation here is now law or built. The IRIS hub covers the portal; the 10-return aggregate rule is on the figures page.
Make FIRE able to handle the January peak
IRPAC 2018AdoptedIRIS, FIRE and the e-file mandate
The ask: Add capacity to the FIRE system, which slowed to three to five minutes per click around January 31 and March 31 and took up to 11 days to return acknowledgements; January 2017 volume was more than 500 percent of the estimate.
What happened: Adopted: IRSAC 2019 lists 'improvements to the FIRE system' among the IRPAC 2018 recommendations implemented. FIRE itself is now being retired in favor of IRIS (IRSAC 2025).
For payers: The January crunch moved to IRIS. File test files in December and do not wait for January 31 to transmit the NECs.
Build the 1099 portal with filers, then phase the mandate
IRSAC 2020Partly adopted or under wayIRIS, FIRE and the e-file mandate
The ask: SB/SE asked IRSAC which forms and features the Taxpayer First Act portal should have; IRSAC listed the forms (MISC, NEC, INT, B, S, 1098-T, DIV, R, G and on through 1042-S and 1099-K), asked for user testing and APIs, and recommended delaying the threshold cut until a year after the portal launched (then expected January 1, 2023), with a step-down rather than a jump to 10.
What happened: IRIS launched in January 2023 with the 1099 series; Form 1042-S stayed in FIRE. W&I told IRSAC in 2021 that it meant to line the drop to 10 returns up with the portal; in the event IRIS opened in January 2023 and the 10-return rule applied to returns filed from January 2024.
For payers: The IRSAC's form list is roughly the order IRIS added forms. If you file a type IRIS does not take, FIRE is still the route until the IRS says otherwise.
Source: IRSAC 2020 Public Report
A good-faith safe harbor for the first e-file mandate years
IRSAC 2021No response on the public recordIRIS, FIRE and the e-file mandate
The ask: Put a safe harbor in the final e-file regulations so a payer that tried in good faith to meet the new 100-return and 10-return thresholds is not penalized under 6721 during the transition, for example a filer that could not get a TCC in time for the January 31 NEC deadline. Repeated in 2022 with a request for automatic approval of Form 8508 waivers and a 'soft letter' instead of a penalty for 2022 paper filers.
What happened: T.D. 9972 contains no transition safe harbor; it relies on the existing Form 8508 waiver and reasonable cause. The IRS did delay the rule a year (to returns filed in 2024), which was the other half of the ask.
For payers: A paper filing over the threshold is a failure to file electronically; the penalty is the full 6721 amount, defended only through reasonable cause or a timely Form 8508. The waiver guide explains how the IRS decides.
Source: IRSAC 2021 Public Report
One snapshot of every information return filing rule
IRSAC 2021No response on the public recordIRIS, FIRE and the e-file mandate
The ask: Publish a single 'go-to' reference that puts the W-2, 1099 and other information return filing requirements and penalties in one place, since the rules are spread across publications; and use EFTPS, social media and payroll software to reach the small businesses the mandate would hit. The IRS's own table projected 629,000 to 751,000 payers and 24.3 million paper returns moving to e-file at the 10-return threshold.
What happened: The IRS published outreach on the mandate and IRIS, but no single consolidated reference; the General Instructions for Certain Information Returns remain the closest thing.
For payers: The figures page is this site's version of the one-page reference IRSAC asked the IRS for.
Source: IRSAC 2021 Public Report
Penalty relief for name/TIN mismatches during the FIRE-to-IRIS move
IRSAC 2025Repeated in later reportsIRIS, FIRE and the e-file mandate
The ask: FIRE is being decommissioned in 2026 in favor of IRIS. The IRIS schema wants first, middle and last name where FIRE took name lines, so filers must parse names out of their systems; parsing errors will produce name/TIN mismatch notices and 6721 penalties. IRSAC asked for penalty relief during the transition, more 'IRIS 101' sessions (the 2025 ones filled up), training aimed at former FIRE filers and states, and the ability to extract XML from the fillable PDF forms.
What happened: Open: the report is the newest one on the page (January 2026) and records no IRS answer. IRSAC also reported that e-file fraud filters reject some correct records, which must then be filed on paper and can draw a failure-to-e-file penalty.
For payers: Test the name parsing against TIN Matching before the first IRIS season: a last name that lands in the wrong field will match in your system and fail at the IRS. The name control calculator shows what the IRS keys on.
Forms, due dates and lead time
Bring back Form 1099-NEC
IRPAC 2018AdoptedForms, due dates and lead time
The ask: Reinstate the 1099-NEC (retired after 1982) so nonemployee compensation, due January 31 since the PATH Act, is no longer on the same form as payments due March 31; Notice 2017-51 had exposed filers who mixed them to 6721 penalties.
What happened: Adopted: the IRS reinstated the 1099-NEC for tax year 2020 (IRSAC 2019 lists it among IRPAC's implemented recommendations).
For payers: The NEC exists because advisers asked for it. Its January 31 date has no automatic extension, which is the deadline that drives most late-filing penalties on this site.
Take the consumer-sales checkbox off the 1099-NEC
IRSAC 2019AdoptedForms, due dates and lead time
The ask: Remove the 'direct sales of $5,000 or more' box from the draft 1099-NEC (keep it on the 1099-MISC), drop the fishing-boat language from box 1, and give the NEC complete instructions rather than a pointer to the general instructions.
What happened: Adopted for one year: the 2020 Form 1099-NEC shipped without the box, then the 2021 revision put the direct-sales checkbox back as NEC box 2 alongside MISC box 7, so it now appears on both forms. The NEC has had its own instructions since 2020.
For payers: If a payee both sells your products and provides services, the $5,000 direct-sales box can go on either form; use the one you already file for that payee.
Source: IRSAC 2019 Public Report
Move Forms 1099-R and 1099-K to January 31
ETAAC 2021Repeated in later reportsForms, due dates and lead time
The ask: Ask Congress to accelerate the IRS due date for Forms 1099-R (102 million a year) and 1099-K (9.8 million) from March 31 to January 31, as the PATH Act did for W-2 and NEC in 2016; 80 million returns are filed before the current date, and 1099-R fraud was 45 percent of the 2020 ISAC scheme alerts. Repeated in ETAAC's 2023 and June 2026 reports.
What happened: Not enacted: the IRS due dates for the 1099-R and 1099-K remain February 28 (paper) and March 31 (electronic). ETAAC's 2026 report makes the same recommendation and adds Forms 1099-NEC, 1099-DA and 1099-R data to states on an expedited basis.
For payers: The gap between the January 31 recipient copy and the March 31 IRS copy is the window in which a payee's return is matched against nothing; a payer that files in January closes it voluntarily.
Include every information return in disaster relief
IRSAC 2021No response on the public recordForms, due dates and lead time
The ask: Expand Revenue Procedure 2018-58 so a section 7508A postponement covers all information returns, and consider business filing deadlines when granting relief; in 2020 the IRS postponed individual returns to July 15 but not the 30-plus information returns due in March, and moved Form 5498 twice (Notices 2020-23 and 2020-35) after filers complained.
What happened: The revenue procedure has not been rewritten; disaster relief continues to be granted by news release and does not always name information returns.
For payers: Read each disaster notice for the words 'information returns'; if they are absent, the 1099 deadline stands. The disaster relief guide explains how to tell.
Source: IRSAC 2021 Public Report
Fix Form 15397 and say whether silence is approval
IRSAC 2024Partly adopted or under wayForms, due dates and lead time
The ask: The new application for an extension to furnish recipient statements (November 2023) listed too few reasons, was fax-only, and promised 'approved extensions' the IRS never actually sends; IRSAC asked for a free-text reason, submission through FIRE and IRIS, and a statement of whether no answer means a 30-day extension.
What happened: Partly adopted: the August 2024 revision replaced the reason checkboxes with a description box, which IRSAC said matched its advice. Submission is still by fax and the response question is unanswered; IRSAC 2025 raised the form again.
For payers: Fax the 15397 before the recipient due date, keep the transmission report, and treat silence as the extension the instructions describe; Reg. 1.6081-1(b)(1) also accepts a letter with the same information.
Source: IRSAC 2024 Public Report
Say when a new Form W-9 must be used
IRSAC 2025No response on the public recordForms, due dates and lead time
The ask: Publish, with each W-9 revision, the date from which the new version is required (Announcement 2001-15 is the model), and do the same for Form 15397, which arrived without saying whether the old letter method still worked.
What happened: No announcement accompanied the March 2024 W-9; the requester instructions say earlier versions on file remain valid.
For payers: Keep accepting older W-9s already on file; ask new payees for the current revision, and date-stamp what you receive.
Eighteen months' notice for any form change
IRSAC 2025Repeated in later reportsForms, due dates and lead time
The ask: Give filers at least 18 months to implement a moderate form change, publish inflation-adjusted thresholds before the year starts (window transactions such as a W-2G at 12:01 a.m. on January 1 need the new figure programmed), avoid look-back requirements when a rule arrives mid-year, release IRIS, FIRE and MeF specifications earlier so states can follow, and have systems open by January 2. The 1099-R code Y for qualified charitable distributions, added in April 2025 instructions, was the example: the IRS made it optional for 2025 only in October.
What happened: The IRS made code Y optional for tax year 2025 (irs.gov, October 16, 2025) and said section 6050AA auto-loan interest reporting is not mandatory for 2025. The 18-month rule itself is a standing IRSAC ask, not an IRS commitment.
For payers: Assume mid-year form changes will be optional for that year only if the IRS says so in writing; otherwise program them. The what's coming page tracks the changes already announced.
Default electronic delivery of Forms W-2
ETAAC 2026No response on the public recordForms, due dates and lead time
The ask: Let employers furnish W-2s electronically by default, with paper only for employees who ask (revise Reg. 31.6051-1(j) or legislate), and end the Form 8948 'taxpayer prefers paper' exception to preparer e-filing.
What happened: Open: the June 2026 report is the newest on this page and records no IRS answer. Recipient consent is still required for electronic W-2s and 1099s (Publication 1179 section 4.6), a rule IRSAC 2024 also asked the IRS to relax for Form 1099-DA.
For payers: Until the consent rule changes, an electronic 1099 or W-2 without the payee's affirmative consent is a statement not furnished, and a 6722 penalty. Keep the consent log with the W-9.
Form 1099-K
Report an adjusted gross amount on the 1099-K
IRPAC 2018No response on the public recordForm 1099-K
The ask: Add a box for the adjusted gross amount of payment card and third-party network transactions, net of refunds, fees and chargebacks, since the statutory gross amount 'may or may not represent taxable income'. IRSAC 2019 asked for a definition of 'gross amount' excluding discounts, returns and sales tax, or a voluntary adjustment box.
What happened: Not adopted: section 6050W and Reg. 1.6050W-1(a)(6) still require the unadjusted gross amount and the form has no adjustment box. ETAAC 2023 asked instead for W-2-style codes on the 1099-K.
For payers: Your 1099-K will never tie to your books. Reconcile it to gross receipts, keep the fee and refund schedules, and expect the CP2000 if the difference is large.
Define 'account', 'substantial number' and 'guarantee' in the 6050W regulations
IRSAC 2023Overtaken by legislationForm 1099-K
The ask: With the American Rescue Plan's $600 threshold about to apply, clarify who is a third-party settlement organization: what an 'account' is, how many providers are 'substantial' (a 2021 letter ruling had used 50), what a 'guarantee of payment' is, and which of several payment settlement entities files when more than one touches the transaction. Zelle issued no 1099-Ks; Cash App issued them only for business accounts.
What happened: No regulatory definitions were issued. Pub. L. 119-21 (July 4, 2025) repealed the $600 threshold retroactively and restored $20,000 and 200 transactions, which removed the volume pressure behind the request; the definitional gaps remain.
For payers: Whether a platform is a TPSO is still a facts-and-circumstances call, and PLR 202112002 is the only public number for 'substantial'. If you run a marketplace, get the question answered before the first season, not after.
Source: IRSAC 2023 Public Report
A 1099-K reconciliation schedule for Form 1040
IRSAC 2023Overtaken by legislationForm 1099-K
The ask: Create a form on which an individual reconciles 1099-K amounts to what is actually reported (personal items sold at a loss, friends' reimbursements, amounts spread across Schedules C, D, E and F), so the IRS can stop the CP2000 before it is generated; FS-2022-41 and FS-2023-06 had routed these through Schedule 1 lines 8z and 24z.
What happened: Not built; the 2025 law's restoration of the $20,000 and 200-transaction threshold cut the number of individuals receiving a 1099-K for personal transactions, and the IRS kept the Schedule 1 workaround.
For payers: The Schedule 1 'Form 1099-K received in error' entry is still the only way a recipient of an erroneous 1099-K avoids a notice without a corrected form from you; issuing the correction is the better answer.
Source: IRSAC 2023 Public Report
Put codes on the 1099-K like W-2 box 12
ETAAC 2023No response on the public recordForm 1099-K
The ask: Code the gross amount by type (marketplace sales, fees, refunds, reimbursements) so software can place each on the right line, drop the monthly boxes from recipient copies, and publish line-by-line guidance in several languages.
What happened: Not adopted: the 1099-K layout is unchanged.
For payers: A payer can still help: a year-end statement to payees that breaks the gross amount into sales, fees and refunds does what the IRS form does not.
Penalties and reasonable cause
Let a taxpayer choose reasonable cause over first-time abate
IRSAC 2019Partly adopted or under wayPenalties and reasonable cause
The ask: When the IRS applies first-time abate automatically, tell the taxpayer and let it substitute a reasonable cause abatement within 30 to 60 days so the first-time abate is preserved for later.
What happened: Under way: the IRS told the National Taxpayer Advocate it would systemically apply first-time abate to all eligible taxpayers by January 1, 2026 and was building the process for substituting reasonable cause (IRSAC 2024, quoting the NTA blog of July 16, 2024).
For payers: First-time abate does not apply to 6721 penalties at all; the relief order guide explains why information return penalties are argued on reasonable cause from the start.
Source: IRSAC 2019 Public Report
Read the reasonable cause statement before assessing international penalties
IRSAC 2021Partly adopted or under wayPenalties and reasonable cause
The ask: Stop systemically assessing 6038 and 6038A penalties on late Forms 5471 and 5472 and consider the attached reasonable cause statement first, with a 90-day grace period; the NTA's 2020 report showed 9,889 penalties ($253 million) assessed in 2018 and 5,468 ($180 million) abated. IRSAC 2025 asked again for pre-assessment screening.
What happened: Partly: the IRS moved Form 3520 and 3520-A penalties to pre-assessment reasonable cause review (NTA blog, October 2024). Forms 5471 and 5472 are still assessed systemically; TAS found 73 percent of those penalties abated by count and 81 percent by dollars for 2020 to 2023 (2026 Purple Book).
For payers: The same systemic-assessment pattern applies to 6721: the 972CG is proposed from the master file without anyone reading your file. The response is where the reasonable cause statement gets read.
Source: IRSAC 2021 Public Report
Publish information return penalty statistics in the Data Book
IRSAC 2024No response on the public recordPenalties and reasonable cause
The ask: The Data Book reports civil penalties by type of tax but folds information return penalties into a 'nonreturn penalties' line with preparer, trust fund and other penalties; IRSAC asked for separate figures for commonly asserted penalties and enforcement priorities, and learned the international information return statistics exist but are not published.
What happened: Not adopted: the 2025 Data Book (Table 4-2) still shows one nonreturn penalty line, $5.0 billion assessed and $2.4 billion abated in fiscal year 2025, with no 6721 or 6722 breakout.
For payers: There is no public count of 972CG penalties; the figures guide shows what the Data Book does disclose.
Source: IRSAC 2024 Public Report
A Director of Civil Penalties and a penalty study
IRSAC 2024No response on the public recordPenalties and reasonable cause
The ask: Create a Director of Civil Penalties under the Chief Tax Compliance Officer, commission the first penalty study since the 1999 report required by RRA 98, issue section 6651 reasonable cause regulations, update the penalty policy statements (last revised 2004 and 1981), make sure the Reasonable Cause Assistant software covers every IRM reason, and recognize reliance on a preparer to e-file as reasonable cause (the Boyle cases: Lee, Oosterwijk, Intress).
What happened: No action on the record. The NTA's 2026 Purple Book (recommendation 31) asks Congress for the e-file reliance rule directly.
For payers: Reasonable cause for a 972CG is judged under Reg. 301.6724-1, not the IRM's failure-to-file list, so none of this changes your 972CG response; it does explain why first-time abate never reaches 1099 penalties.
Source: IRSAC 2024 Public Report
Make assessable penalties subject to deficiency procedures
NTA 2026No response on the public recordPenalties and reasonable cause
The ask: Amend section 6212 so assessable penalties, including international information return penalties, are reviewable in the Tax Court before assessment and payment; Farhy (reversed by the D.C. Circuit) and Mukhi show the courts split on whether the IRS may assess them at all.
What happened: Legislative recommendation to Congress; no bill enacted as of the report (January 2026).
For payers: Section 6721 penalties are assessable too: no Tax Court petition, pay and sue for refund, or a collection due process hearing. The after-denial guide sets out the routes that do exist.
Identity theft and address fraud
Stop changing a business's address without asking
IRPAC 2017Partly adopted or under wayIdentity theft and address fraud
The ask: Require a Form 8822-B, or positive confirmation, before the IRS updates a corporate filer's address; filers' addresses were being changed from information on other returns, sending B-Notices and 972CGs full of payee data to strangers. Repeated in 2018 and, as 'Address changes for large businesses', in the IRSAC 2025 report.
What happened: Partly: the IRS added Notices CP148A and CP148B, sent to the old and new address when a business address changes, and has placed locks on accounts after suspected fraud (IRSAC 2025). Addresses are still updated from filed returns and 8822-Bs accepted on their face; the 2025 report lists CP2100s and a Form 945 refund check that went to a customer's home and a storage unit.
For payers: Watch for a CP148A you did not expect; it is the only warning you get. If a CP2100 or 972CG is overdue, call, because it may be in someone else's mail. The address and name change checklist covers Form 8822-B.
A form businesses can use to report identity theft
IRSAC 2020AdoptedIdentity theft and address fraud
The ask: Repurpose the internal Form 14039-B so a business can proactively report business identity theft, and give it a digital channel.
What happened: Adopted: the IRS released the revised Form 14039-B for taxpayer use in 2020 after working sessions with IRSAC; the digital channel did not follow.
For payers: A business whose EIN has been used on W-2s or 1099s it did not file reports it on Form 14039-B; the identity theft guide walks through it.
Source: IRSAC 2020 Public Report
Let filers flag income-related identity theft, and tell victims they may file Form 14039
IRSAC 2025No response on the public recordIdentity theft and address fraud
The ask: Add an indicator to Forms 1099-B, 1099-DA and W-2G for a recipient the filer's fraud team has found to be an identity theft victim; study extending the 1099-C rule (no form for debt incurred by an identity thief) to other forms; fix Fact Sheet 2022-25, which tells victims of non-tax identity theft not to file Form 14039; and issue account-takeover guidance so a restored account produces no information return.
What happened: Open: the January 2026 report records no IRS answer. The NTA's 2025 report separately recommended stronger authentication for electronic W-2 and 1099 submissions and an 'EIN equivalent of an IP PIN'.
For payers: Only the 1099-C instructions let a filer leave out income that belongs to a thief. For every other form you file what the account shows and let the payee fight the CP2000.
Harden electronic W-2 and 1099 submissions against fake employers
NTA 2026No response on the public recordIdentity theft and address fraud
The ask: Strengthen authentication for electronic W-2 and 1099 filing, and offer employers usage alerts, filing locks or an EIN-level identity protection PIN, because fraudsters file fictitious wage forms under shell or compromised employer accounts and then claim refunds on them.
What happened: Administrative recommendation in the 2025 Annual Report to Congress (January 2026); the IRS response is published later in the year.
For payers: Your TCC and EIN are the credentials a fraudster wants. Review the TCC lifecycle guide for who holds yours and how to revoke access.
Source: National Taxpayer Advocate 2025 Annual Report to Congress
Foreign payees and Forms 1042 and 1042-S
Relief for foreign payors swept in by the 958(b)(4) repeal
IRSAC 2019AdoptedForeign payees and Forms 1042 and 1042-S
The ask: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act's repeal of section 958(b)(4) turned many foreign subsidiaries of foreign parents into controlled foreign corporations, and therefore U.S. payors required to file 1099s and backup withhold on their non-U.S.-source payments; IRSAC asked for retroactive relief or guidance.
What happened: Adopted before the report was published: Rev. Proc. 2019-40 and proposed Reg. 1.6049-5(c)(5)(i)(C) (October 1, 2019) define a U.S. payor to include only a CFC that is one without downward attribution from a foreign person.
For payers: A foreign affiliate that is a CFC only because of downward attribution is not a 1099 filer. The foreign vendor guide covers which entity files what.
Source: IRSAC 2019 Public Report
Let partnerships file 1042-S by September 15 under the modified lag method
IRSAC 2020Partly adopted or under wayForeign payees and Forms 1042 and 1042-S
The ask: Revise the proposed lag-method regulations so a partnership reporting undistributed income from the prior year can file its Forms 1042-S by September 15 regardless of when the income was allocated or whether it was subject to withholding.
What happened: The Form 1042-S instructions allow the September 15 date for undistributed amounts allocated after March 15; the IRSAC had asked for it to apply to all undistributed income regardless of allocation date.
For payers: If your partnership withholds on prior-year income under the lag method, the 1042-S deadline depends on the allocation date; the chapter 3 guide has the rule.
Source: IRSAC 2020 Public Report
Teach payers that they are 1042-S filers
ETAAC 2023No response on the public recordForeign payees and Forms 1042 and 1042-S
The ask: Run an education campaign for payers who file many 1099s but no 1042-S, since most are unaware of the W-8, withholding and 1042-S rules for non-U.S. payees; the IRS projected a 47 percent increase in 1042-S volume over ten years. Identify them from the filing data.
What happened: ETAAC pointed to the LB&I compliance campaign on Forms 1042 and 1042-S as the enforcement end; no payer education campaign of the kind described has appeared.
For payers: A payer with a large 1099 file and no 1042-S is a visible outlier in the IRS's own data. The W-8 selector and foreign vendor exam guide are where to start.
Suspend or simplify the Form 1042 e-file mandate
IRSAC 2024No response on the public recordForeign payees and Forms 1042 and 1042-S
The ask: Form 1042 must be e-filed through Modernized e-File from 2025 (for 2024) under T.D. 9972; MeF needs XML, a schema delivered through the Secure Object Repository, and annual Assurance Testing. One IRSAC member paid $2,000 a year to a vendor to file a single 1042; another spent 13 months building it. IRSAC asked to suspend the mandate until an IRIS-style interface exists, or exempt non-professional filers.
What happened: Not adopted on the record; the mandate took effect. The IRS did publish the 1042 schema and business rules, which this site's reject rules guide and EFIN guide describe.
For payers: If you file one Form 1042 a year, the practical choices are a provider or an EFIN of your own; neither is quick, so start before the fall.
Source: IRSAC 2024 Public Report
A de minimis tolerance for reconciling Forms 1042 and 1042-S
IRSAC 2025Repeated in later reportsForeign payees and Forms 1042 and 1042-S
The ask: Accept unexplained differences below a threshold (a percentage of gross income and tax withheld) between a qualified intermediary's Form 1042, the 1042-S forms it filed and the 1042-S forms it received, instead of multi-year reconciliation inquiries; failing that, give the filer the IRS's own 1042-S data or accept a reconciliation spreadsheet.
What happened: Open as of January 2026.
For payers: The Form 1042 instructions tell every withholding agent to reconcile to its 1042-S forms 'to avoid unnecessary correspondence'; do it before filing, because the IRS does it after.
E-file and portals for FIRPTA, residency certification and Form 8233
NTA 2026No response on the public recordForeign payees and Forms 1042 and 1042-S
The ask: Build e-filing and status portals for Forms 8288 and 8288-B (FIRPTA withholding certificates take nine to twelve months against a 90-day statute), Form 8802 residency certificates (10 to 16 weeks; about 75,000 applications a year) and Form 8233 (about 35,000 a year); publish processing times; and analyze why FIRPTA failure-to-file penalties are abated at 84 percent.
What happened: Most Serious Problem 10 of the 2025 Annual Report to Congress; the IRS had put Forms 8288 and 8288-B on its electronic development list with no date, and launched a digital Form 8802 application in September 2025.
For payers: A buyer of U.S. real estate from a foreign seller is a withholding agent with a 20-day deadline and no e-file; the FIRPTA guide covers the forms.
Source: National Taxpayer Advocate 2025 Annual Report to Congress
States and the Combined Federal/State program
Send Combined Federal/State data to states earlier
IRPAC 2018Repeated in later reportsStates and the Combined Federal/State program
The ask: Forward CF/SF information returns to participating states earlier and more often than the first drop in April (W-2s and NECs are due January 31), because states were leaving the program (31 in tax year 2017, down from 33 in 2014) and imposing their own direct filing. IRSAC 2023 and ETAAC 2023 and 2026 repeated the ask, ETAAC specifically for real-time 1099-NEC data.
What happened: Not adopted: ETAAC 2021 wrote that the IRS 'does not transmit Form 1099 data to states until the filing season is over', and the 2026 report repeats the recommendation. Publication 1220 listed 30 participating states in its October 2022 edition.
For payers: CF/SF does not satisfy a state that wants its copy in January, and most of the states with their own 1099-NEC mandates want exactly that. The state 1099 requirements pages say which.
Accept state-only corrections through CF/SF
IRSAC 2023No response on the public recordStates and the Combined Federal/State program
The ask: Let a filer send a correction that changes only state fields (state income, state tax withheld) through the Combined Federal/State program instead of registering with each state to file it directly, add Forms 1098, 1098-E, W-2G and 1099-C to the program, and forward all corrections to states.
What happened: Not adopted: Publication 1220 still instructs filers to send state-only corrections directly to the state.
For payers: A state-withholding correction means a direct state filing even for a CF/SF participant; build the state registration before you need it.
Source: IRSAC 2023 Public Report
Workers and withholding on contractors
Let the IRS publish worker classification guidance
IRSAC 2024No response on the public recordWorkers and withholding on contractors
The ask: Work with the Department of Labor (the December 2022 referral MOU) to reconcile the IRS, DOL and state tests, and ask Congress to lift the Section 530(b) bar that stops the IRS from issuing worker classification guidance, as the 2017 Treasury Greenbook proposed, along with notice to workers of how they are classified.
What happened: No legislative change; Section 530 still prohibits IRS guidance on the common law test.
For payers: The IRS cannot tell you whether your contractor is an employee except through an SS-8 ruling on that worker; the Section 530 guide explains why timely 1099s are the price of the relief.
Source: IRSAC 2024 Public Report
Voluntary withholding agreements with independent contractors
NTA 2026No response on the public recordWorkers and withholding on contractors
The ask: Amend section 3402(p) so a business and a contractor may agree to withhold income tax from nonemployee payments without the agreement counting against the business in a worker classification dispute or Section 530 relief; the only guidance under the existing authority is Notice 2013-77 on Alaska Native Corporation dividends. The Senate Finance Committee's 2025 TAS Act discussion draft (section 901) contains the language.
What happened: Legislative recommendation; not enacted as of January 2026.
For payers: Today the only withholding a payer may take from a contractor is backup withholding, and only for the statutory reasons. A contractor who asks you to withhold voluntarily is asking for something the Code does not yet permit.
Questions people ask
Is an adviser's recommendation worth anything in a penalty dispute?
Not as authority. It is useful as evidence of what reasonable payers do and what the IRS's own advisers consider a gap: a 972CG response can fairly say that the form type at issue is one the IRS does not allow into TIN Matching, and that its advisory council has called that a reasonable cause problem since 2015. Examiners know the reports; some sit on the committees.
Why are the 2015 to 2017 IRPAC reports missing?
The IRS removed them from irs.gov when IRPAC was merged into IRSAC. The news releases that announced them (IR-2015-121, IR-2016-140, IR-2017-179) and the 2016 report's table of contents survive and are the sources here; the 2018 report (Publication 5315) is still posted.
Does the IRS have to answer these recommendations?
It has to answer the Taxpayer Advocate (section 7803(c)(3) requires a response to each recommendation) and it reports annually to Congress on ETAAC. IRSAC and IRPAC recommendations are answered informally, through the 'progress' section of the next report and through the IRS liaisons who sit in on the subgroups.
How current is this page?
Through the IRSAC report of January 2026, the ETAAC report of June 2026 and the Taxpayer Advocate's January 2026 reports. The next IRSAC report is due in November 2026 and the next Advocate report in January 2027; the page is refreshed when they appear.