The Internal Revenue Service’s April 27, 2026, announcement of a streamlined process for filing Form 907 to extend the deadline on Employee Retention Credit (ERC) disallowance challenges was, on its surface, a procedural housekeeping item. But the announcement carried a more substantive message: more than five years after Congress enacted the CARES Act, COVID-19 relief enforcement is not winding down. It is, in many respects, just hitting its stride.

 

• The Supreme Court ruled that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs in a 6-3 decision.
• The Supreme Court did not address how tariffs will be refunded to importers. Resolution of that process will now be in the hands of the lower courts.

 
In a significant ruling on executive power, the Supreme Court has held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. This decision strikes down tariffs that President Trump imposed on imports from Canada, Mexico, China and other trading partners following declarations of national emergencies related to drug trafficking and trade deficits. Critically, the Court did not address how tariffs will be refunded to affected importers.

• Businesses that paid tariffs pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that were imposed by President Trump may be entitled to a refund depending on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.

 

• The United States Supreme Court decision should be provided in the first quarter of 2026. Accordingly, businesses that paid the IEEPA tariffs should take immediate proactive steps to protect their potential refunds.

 

• Businesses that paid IEEPA tariffs are already filing preemptive tariff refund lawsuits in the Court of International Trade (CIT) to facilitate timely and accurate payments of any potential refunds.

 

• Special consideration should be given to businesses that are currently going through or will go through liquidation events in the immediate future and prior to the Supreme Court’s decision.

The longest recorded government shutdown is finally over. As many government agencies return to normal business operations, many small business owners still have one burning question: how do I get my employee retention credit (“ERC”) claims processed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or the “Service”)?   

• If your ERC claim was denied, often through an IRS Letter 105-C, you have two years from the date of disallowance to file a refund suit in federal court to challenge the Service’s decision.

 

• If it has been more than 6 months since you filed your ERC claim and the Service has not responded, you have three years from the date you filed the amended employment tax return to bring a refund suit in federal court.

 

• Based on your specific facts and circumstances, if you do not file by the identified deadline, you will not be entitled to funding. Government shutdowns do not pause the statute of limitations. Moreover, administrative remedies to resolve unpaid funds are quickly becoming unavailable.

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or the “Service”) aggregates, reviews, and analyzes taxpayer data and determines whether to manually or systematically audit the reported information. When the Service audits multiple taxpayers reported under the same preparer tax identification number (“PTIN”), a tax preparer investigation can ensue.
 

In an era of heightened regulatory scrutiny and unforgiving stakeholder expectations, internal investigations conducted on behalf of for-profit and not-for-profit organizations focused on employee embezzlement and financial fraud require a disciplined, defensible approach from the very first moment an irregularity is discovered.

The Paycheck Protection Program was a lifeline for small businesses struggling to keep their employees paid during the COVID-19 pandemic. But for business owners who failed to include all applicable employees in their size determination for First Draw and Second Draw PPP Loan applications, the PPP lifeline that once saved their business could turn into a costly federal False Claims Act investigation.

The Employee Retention Credit (ERC) was introduced as part of the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act to encourage businesses to maintain their workforce during the economic disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Over time, legislative developments—most notably through the December 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act and the March 2021 American Rescue Plan Act—expanded both the eligibility criteria and the potential credit amounts.

On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1-119th Congress (2025-2026), titled as the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” (the “Act”), a budget bill that, among other things, addresses soon to sunset provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “TCJA”) while also making modifications to U.S. tax policy and spending. Commentators and economists estimate the Act, if passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Trump, may have a net cost of $3.8 trillion over 10 years, and would increase the federal statutory debt limit by $4 trillion.

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has intensified civil fraud investigations aimed at borrowers who obtained Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans despite falling outside the class of entities Congress meant to assist. Many non-profit organizations are alleged to have falsely certified PPP eligibility and, as a result, face treble-damages liability under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”) as well as potential criminal exposure for wire- and mail-fraud. The DOJ’s focus on pandemic relief fraud is part of a broader government initiative to recover misallocated federal funds and deter future misconduct. This situation is a reminder that every organization that received—or is contemplating forgiveness of—a PPP loan should reassess its eligibility and the accuracy of the certifications it made to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).