A recent federal decision out of Arizona offers a useful reminder about the tax treatment of settlement payments, as well as risks that arise when settlement agreements fail to address tax characterization clearly.

In Adusei v. Auer, a former nursing student sued a college, its attorneys, and others after Forms 1099 were issued following settlement of earlier litigation. The plaintiff alleged the settlement funds should have been treated as non-taxable educational reimbursements rather than taxable income. She asserted a wide range of claims, including fraudulent tax reporting, malpractice, emotional distress, discrimination, abuse of process, and violations of criminal statutes.

The proposed tax break for the United Center’s 1901 Project has been described as a $55 million subsidy for the owners of the Chicago Bulls and Chicago Blackhawks. That is understandable shorthand, but it is not the precise tax mechanism.

The proposal is a Cook County Class 7(b) property tax incentive. It does not write the owners a check. It would reduce the property’s assessment level for 12 years, which in turn lowers the property tax bill that would otherwise apply to the first phase of the project.

That distinction is key, because Class 7(b) is an existing Cook

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