The IRS released PLR 202619013 on May 8, 2026. A limited partnership taxed as a partnership had a partner die. The partnership inadvertently failed to make a Section 754 election for the relevant tax year. The partnership then requested late-election relief under Treas. Reg. § 301.9100-3. The IRS granted the partnership 120 days from the date of the letter to make the election effective for that year.

A Section 754 election allows partnership property basis adjustments under Section 734(b), for certain distributions, and Section 743(b), for certain transfers of partnership interests. The election is made by

Federal law generally prohibits candidates from using campaign funds for personal expenses. But under a narrow exception administered by the Federal Election Commission, certain nonincumbent federal candidates may receive compensation from their campaign committees during the course of a campaign.

The rule is intended to make federal office more accessible to candidates who otherwise would lose income by leaving employment or reducing work to campaign full-time. At the same time, the FEC has repeatedly emphasized that campaign salary is not a general living stipend and cannot become a mechanism for converting campaign funds into personal income.

That tension explains why

On April 6, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission. The denial leaves in place an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision allowing the State to tax a Muscogee (Creek) Nation member who works for the Tribe on trust land but resides on unrestricted fee land within the reservation recognized in McGirt.

The question presented was ultimately not whether McGirt recognized a reservation (it did) but instead, whether that recognition carries through to state income taxation. The Oklahoma Supreme Court answered no. The Court declined review.

Arguments Presented on the Petition for Certiorari

The amicus brief filed by

On March 11, 2026, Cheesie’s Wicker Park filed a Petition at the Illinois Independent Tax Tribunal challenging a “Notice of Tentative Denial of Claim” issued by the Illinois Department of Revenue for Sales/Use Tax & E911 Surcharge.

Cheesie’s Wicker Park, LLC alleges it overpaid sales tax for the period January 2021 through November 2021 by including tips in taxable receipts and failing to account for tax already remitted through a marketplace facilitator. The company filed ST-1-X Amended Sales and Use Tax and E911 Surcharge Returns seeking approximately $46,453 in credits.

The Department’s September 2, 2025 Notice of Tentative Denial of

Earlier this week, Lake County Judge Luis A. Berrones ruled that the name of Lake County Board candidate Juan Beto Ruiz (Reynoso) should not be on the ballot. The Lake County Clerk has already printed ballots with the name of candidate Ruiz on them. Ruiz is challenging incumbent Esiah Campos; and his name has been printed as Juan Beto Ruiz. But his full legal name is Juan Beto Ruiz Reynoso. Unless Ruiz appeals, any ballots cast for him will not be counted.

Under the Illinois Election Code, candidates may use given names, initials, or commonly known nicknames when filing nomination

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified an important question in sovereign immunity law: when does a state-created entity qualify as an “arm of the State” entitled to share the State’s immunity from suit? In a unanimous 9–0 decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that the New Jersey Transit Corporation is not an arm of the State of New Jersey and therefore cannot invoke the State’s sovereign immunity in out-of-state lawsuits. Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.

The case arose from two accidents involving New Jersey Transit buses: one happened in New York City, and the

Yesterday the Supreme Court decided GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), holding that the federal contractor doctrine recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940), is a merits defense rather than an immunity from suit. Because it is a defense to liability and not a right to avoid litigation altogether, a district court’s rejection of the defense cannot be immediately appealed under the collateral-order doctrine.

The decision is nominally about government contractors. Its real significance is about appellate timing and litigation leverage. The Court sharpened the line between arguments that defeat