AI platforms and privilege: Tax departments should be wary about what they share

Today’s artificial intelligence (AI) platforms have shown impressive capabilities that keep evolving. As those capabilities improve, tax departments may be inclined to leverage AI’s analytical power. While this technology has led to incredible efficiencies, we’ve been warning in-house tax departments about which platforms they use and what information they share to avoid waiving privilege or creating documents that cannot be protected.

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a criminal defendant’s communications with a publicly open AI platform were not protected by attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine. United States v. Heppner, No. 1:25-cr-00503-JSR (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2026).

In Heppner, the defendant transmitted confidential information to a public AI system and generated various documents that incorporated the information. The district court concluded that the documents created were not protected by attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine. The AI platform was a public and open system that did not provide confidentiality, the documents created by the AI platform were not prepared by or at the direction of counsel (in fact, counsel had no idea the client was using AI), and documents (regardless if created by AI or other means) can never be cloaked with privilege simply because they are later sent to a lawyer.

Practice point:

While the facts of Heppner are probably distinguishable from how tax departments typically use AI platforms, the case serves as a reminder for tax professionals to have good hygiene when using them. All in-house tax professionals should exercise caution when inputting confidential information into AI platforms and, where possible, rely on closed, internal AI systems that are only accessible by relevant persons within their corporation. Even then, Heppner makes clear that AI platforms are not lawyers, and disclosures of privileged information to such platforms risk waiving that privilege.

Given this risk, tax professionals should use great caution when using AI for sensitive legal issues. At a minimum:

  • Do not input any sensitive, confidential, or privileged information into publicly open AI systems.
  • Remember that AI is not a lawyer, so asking AI legal questions is not the same as asking a lawyer for legal advice.
  • For tax issues that are likely to result in a contentious audit or litigation, work with in-house or outside counsel to establish best practices on AI use to maximize attorney-client privilege and work product protection.



Is your ERC claim protected? Keep an eye on litigation deadlines

In February 2026, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that, as of December 31, 2025, it had closed all non-examined Employee Retention Credit (ERC) claims. This development could compel businesses to pursue litigation to secure their ERC refunds. In its announcement, the IRS also noted that approximately 41,000 claims remain under IRS examination or appeal.

The IRS’s announcement brings renewed focus to a risk we have been highlighting for some time: Statutes of limitation can quietly extinguish otherwise valid refund claims. As discussed in our article in Bloomberg on how to litigate and resolve ERC claims, administrative delay does not eliminate judicial deadlines. For taxpayers whose claims have been formally disallowed, Internal Revenue Code Section 6532(a) provides only two years to file a refund suit. A protest to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals (IRS Appeals) does not suspend that deadline. Without filing suit or obtaining a written extension (Form 907), the right to a refund can be permanently lost.

For taxpayers with ERC claims that are pending without action (i.e., those described in the IRS’s announcement), the statute of limitations analysis is more complex. Some courts have dismissed taxpayer suits that were filed more than six and a half years from the time the claim arose.[1] Under the logic of these cases, there may be a six-and-a-half-year limit in effect from the date a refund claim is filed – the six months a taxpayer must wait before filing a refund suit plus six years during which the government is susceptible to suit under a general statute of limitations on civil claims against the government (31 U.S.C. § 3702(b)). For ERC claims submitted in 2020, the end of this possibly applicable six-and-a-half-year period is quickly approaching. To the extent a court will apply this limitation, a taxpayer with an ERC refund claim may be barred from suit even without a formal disallowance by the IRS.

The message for businesses is consistent with our earlier guidance: Protecting the right to an ERC refund requires a proactive strategy. Taxpayers must identify which limitations periods apply to their claims, manage calendar critical deadlines, and evaluate whether protective litigation is necessary to preserve their potential refunds. Businesses facing challenged, delayed, or disallowed ERC claims should evaluate their statute posture urgently. Our tax controversy & litigation team continues to advise clients on navigating ERC audits, IRS Appeals proceedings, and refund litigation to ensure procedural missteps do not foreclose recovery.

__________________________________________________________________________________

[1] See Wagenet v. United States, No. CV 08-01234, 2009 WL 4895363, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009) (dismissing tax refund action as filed outside the six-year statute). See also Bowman Transp., Inc. v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 36, 40–41 (1979) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 2501 and explaining that “[d]espite the fact that the carrier has only two years from the date on which the refund claim is expressly disallowed or apparently the regular six-year period of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § [...]

Continue Reading




IRS roundup: March 3 – March 10, 2026

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for March 3, 2026 – March 10, 2026.

IRS guidance

March 3, 2026: The IRS released Revenue Procedure 2026-15, which provides the inflation-adjusted luxury automobile depreciation limits under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 280F for passenger vehicles, including trucks and vans, placed in service in 2026 and the lease inclusion amounts for vehicles first leased in 2026. The guidance includes separate first-year depreciation caps depending on whether bonus depreciation under Section 168(k) applies.

March 4, 2026: The IRS released Revenue Procedure 2026-16, which provides information for individuals who failed to meet Code Section 911(d)(1) requirements for 2025 due to adverse conditions, listing countries and “date of departure on or after” thresholds (e.g., Haiti, Ukraine, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among others).

March 5, 2026: The IRS released Notice 2026-4, which requests comments on whether to modify requirements for electronic furnishing of certain payee statements, including for brokers and potentially other furnishers.

The IRS also released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums, and Chief Counsel Advice).

Recent court decisions

March 2, 2026: The US Tax Court held that a German parent company had zero basis in a $610 million promissory note that was contributed to a partnership after its wholly owned subsidiary elected to be disregarded for US tax purposes. Because the subsidiary’s retroactive “check-the-box” election caused the transaction to be treated as the parent’s contribution of its own note, the Tax Court concluded that the note had no tax basis since a taxpayer incurs no “cost” in issuing its own obligation, resulting in zero basis both in the partnership interest and in the partnership’s basis in the note.




IRS roundup: February 17 – February 27, 2026

Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for February 17, 2026 – February 27, 2026.

February 17, 2026: The IRS released Revenue Ruling 2026-6, which provides the March 2026 applicable federal rates.

February 18, 2026: The IRS released Notice 2026-7, which provides additional interim guidance and updates existing guidance on the application of the corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Sections 55, 56A, and 59. The notice modifies previously issued CAMT guidance, particularly Notices 2025‑49 and 2025‑46. It also introduces several new updates to adjusted financial statement income regarding intangibles and repairs under Code Section 197 and changes to domestic research amortization expenses based on changes brought by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).

February 19, 2026: The IRS released Notice 2026-14, which provides the 24-month average corporate bond segment rates for February 2026, the yield curve and segment rates for single-employer plans, and the 30-year Treasury securities interest rates.

February 20, 2026: The IRS released Notice 2026-16, which provides interim guidance and announces forthcoming proposed regulations addressing the special depreciation allowance for qualified production property under Code Section 168(n), as created by the OBBBA.

The notice provides interim guidance regarding the definitions of “qualified production property” and “qualified production activity,” how to determine the special depreciation allowance for qualified production property, and how and when an election to treat property as qualified production property is made. Qualified production property generally includes nonresidential real property used as an integral part of a qualified production activity, such as manufacturing, chemical production, agricultural production, or refining, that results in the substantial transformation of a qualified product. The notice also explains how the depreciation recapture rules apply to property that ceases to meet the requirements to be qualified production property. Taxpayers may rely on Notice 2026-16 until proposed regulations are issued. Comments on the interim guidance are requested within 60 days.

February 23, 2026: The IRS released Announcement 2026-7, which states that certain portions of final regulations relating to required minimum distributions under Code Section 401(a)(9) will apply for the distribution calendar year that begins no earlier than six months after the date the final regulations are issued in the Federal Register.

February 25, 2026: The IRS released Notice 2026-17, which announces forthcoming proposed regulations under Code Section 987. The notice allows taxpayers to elect the equity and basis pool method for determining taxable income or loss and foreign currency gain or loss with respect to a qualified business unit.

The IRS also released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums, and Chief Counsel Advice).




Refund claims gain national attention: COVID-19 disaster period may eliminate underpayment interest and penalties

Taxpayers that paid underpayment interest or failure-to-file or failure-to-pay penalties between January 20, 2020, and July 10, 2023, may have viable refund claims. In some cases, the potential recoveries are substantial, but refund statutes of limitation are running and may expire on a rolling basis. National attention has accelerated around this issue, including a recent Wall Street Journal article quoting McDermott Will & Schulte Tax Controversy Partner Shawn O’Brien. O’Brien observed that “[t]here’s potentially a sizable number” of taxpayers who still have opportunities available in seeking refunds and amending tax returns to get money back. However, he also noted, “[e]very day that goes by, it would be a missed opportunity.”

In our prior coverage, we discussed the US Court of Federal Claims’ decision in Kwong v. United States, in which it held that the 2019 version of Internal Revenue Code § 7508A applied to the COVID-19 federally declared disaster, resulting in a mandatory postponement period until the end of that disaster (plus 60 days). Under Kwong, federal income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax payment deadlines falling within the disaster period were effectively extended to July 10, 2023. Because underpayment interest and certain penalties run from the payment due date, a postponement would negate the accrual of interest and penalties during the disaster period.

Taxpayers potentially eligible for refunds include those that:

  • Paid underpayment interest that accrued between January 2020 and July 2023 (the disaster period)
  • Entered installment agreements during the disaster period and paid interest that accrued on those installment payments
  • Incurred failure-to-file or failure-to-pay penalties that accrued during the disaster period
  • Made estimated tax adjustments resulting in interest assessments
  • Are currently under Internal Revenue Service examination where interest computations are at issue.

Given the amounts publicly reported in pending cases, even a partial reduction of assessed interest may result in meaningful recoveries.




EDITOR IN CHIEF

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

jd supra readers choice top firm 2023 badge
US Tax Disputes Firm of the Year 2025
2026 Best Law Firms - Law Firm of the Year (Tax Law)