The post IRS Must Make Those Confusing Math-Error Notices Easier To Understand appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A new law hopes to put an end to confusing tax notices from the IRS. getty Tired of confusing IRS notices? You could see a difference in some notices, thanks to the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), which was signed into law this month. The new law has been widely praised by the National Taxpayer Advocate as a long-overdue step toward clearer and fairer IRS communication with taxpayers. The IRS MATH Act requires the IRS to change the format of millions of “math-error” notices. Although these notices are meant to handle simple errors quickly, they have often been characterized as vague and confusing. The result is that many taxpayers have struggled to understand exactly what the IRS changed on their tax return, or how to contest it. The new law fixes those problems by requiring the IRS to explain exactly what the agency thinks is wrong, why it made the adjustment, and what rights the taxpayer has to challenge that action. Math Errors Math-error notices are authorized under section 6213(b) of the Tax Code, which allows the IRS to immediately assess additional tax without going through the normal deficiency process. By law, that shortcut is allowed only for simple, obvious mistakes—math errors, using the wrong line of the tax table, missing or mismatched Social Security numbers, inconsistent entries between forms, or missing required schedules and forms. The authority does not apply to more complex issues, like verifying whether it’s appropriate to claim dependents, determining whether business expenses can be supported, or determining stock basis. A quick rule of thumb: If the issue requires interpretation, investigation, or document review, it is not a math error. Those matters must follow the standard audit and deficiency procedures. If you disagree with a math-error adjustment, you have 60 days… The post IRS Must Make Those Confusing Math-Error Notices Easier To Understand appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A new law hopes to put an end to confusing tax notices from the IRS. getty Tired of confusing IRS notices? You could see a difference in some notices, thanks to the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), which was signed into law this month. The new law has been widely praised by the National Taxpayer Advocate as a long-overdue step toward clearer and fairer IRS communication with taxpayers. The IRS MATH Act requires the IRS to change the format of millions of “math-error” notices. Although these notices are meant to handle simple errors quickly, they have often been characterized as vague and confusing. The result is that many taxpayers have struggled to understand exactly what the IRS changed on their tax return, or how to contest it. The new law fixes those problems by requiring the IRS to explain exactly what the agency thinks is wrong, why it made the adjustment, and what rights the taxpayer has to challenge that action. Math Errors Math-error notices are authorized under section 6213(b) of the Tax Code, which allows the IRS to immediately assess additional tax without going through the normal deficiency process. By law, that shortcut is allowed only for simple, obvious mistakes—math errors, using the wrong line of the tax table, missing or mismatched Social Security numbers, inconsistent entries between forms, or missing required schedules and forms. The authority does not apply to more complex issues, like verifying whether it’s appropriate to claim dependents, determining whether business expenses can be supported, or determining stock basis. A quick rule of thumb: If the issue requires interpretation, investigation, or document review, it is not a math error. Those matters must follow the standard audit and deficiency procedures. If you disagree with a math-error adjustment, you have 60 days…

IRS Must Make Those Confusing Math-Error Notices Easier To Understand

2025/12/04 11:47

A new law hopes to put an end to confusing tax notices from the IRS.

getty

Tired of confusing IRS notices? You could see a difference in some notices, thanks to the Internal Revenue Service Math and Taxpayer Help Act (H.R. 998), which was signed into law this month. The new law has been widely praised by the National Taxpayer Advocate as a long-overdue step toward clearer and fairer IRS communication with taxpayers.

The IRS MATH Act requires the IRS to change the format of millions of “math-error” notices. Although these notices are meant to handle simple errors quickly, they have often been characterized as vague and confusing. The result is that many taxpayers have struggled to understand exactly what the IRS changed on their tax return, or how to contest it.

The new law fixes those problems by requiring the IRS to explain exactly what the agency thinks is wrong, why it made the adjustment, and what rights the taxpayer has to challenge that action.

Math Errors

Math-error notices are authorized under section 6213(b) of the Tax Code, which allows the IRS to immediately assess additional tax without going through the normal deficiency process. By law, that shortcut is allowed only for simple, obvious mistakes—math errors, using the wrong line of the tax table, missing or mismatched Social Security numbers, inconsistent entries between forms, or missing required schedules and forms.

The authority does not apply to more complex issues, like verifying whether it’s appropriate to claim dependents, determining whether business expenses can be supported, or determining stock basis. A quick rule of thumb: If the issue requires interpretation, investigation, or document review, it is not a math error. Those matters must follow the standard audit and deficiency procedures.

If you disagree with a math-error adjustment, you have 60 days to ask the IRS to reverse it. Missing that deadline generally means the assessment becomes final and you lose the right to appeal to the Tax Court. After that, the only path forward is to pay the tax, submit a claim for refund, and, if necessary, file a refund suit in either the U.S. district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

For years, the National Taxpayer Advocate has warned that these notices often fail to clearly explain the issue—and may even leave out the 60-day deadline information altogether. That means that that taxpayers might note be aware of the right to appeal or what steps to take. The Advocate has repeatedly stressed that clarity and transparency are essential to protecting due process. The goal of the new bill is to allow taxpayers to know what the IRS changed and why.

How The Bill Became Law

H.R. 998 (now Public Law No. 119-39) answers these concerns directly. The bill was introduced in the House in February 2025 by Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) and Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) leading the effort in the Senate. The measure quickly gained broad bipartisan support. The House passed the bill by voice vote, and the Senate approved it unanimously, moving it to the President’s desk where it was signed into law.

What The Law Says

Under the new law, math-error notices must be much clearer and more specific. Each notice must describe the type of error, cite the relevant tax code provision, and identify the exact line or schedule on the return that is impacted. The notice must also explain any adjustments made to the return, including changes to adjusted gross income, taxable income, deductions, credits, and tax liability.

How specific will the notice be? According to the Taxpayer Advocate, instead of a vague message like “There is an error in your Recovery Rebate Credit,” a notice must now say something like: “We adjusted line 30 of your Form 1040 because our records show you already received the full Recovery Rebate Credit amount for which you were eligible. As a result, you are not entitled to claim an additional credit.”

To help taxpayers understand important deadlines, the 60-day window to request abatement or challenge the IRS’s determination must be shown in the notice in bold, size 14 font, immediately next to the taxpayer’s address on the notice’s first page.

The notice must also include IRS contact information.

And, importantly, if the IRS takes action, it must issue a follow-up notice that explains what happened in plain language and provides an itemized computation of the adjustments.

Pilot Program

To make sure taxpayers actually receive these time-sensitive letters, the law also creates a pilot program requiring some math-error notices to be sent by certified or registered mail (the idea is that sending mail by certified or registered mail conveys a sense of urgency). The pilot program should begin in the next 18 months. To track the progress, the law requires the IRS to report to Congress on the pilot program’s impact.

What’s Next

Clearer notices are expected to reduce confusion and anxiety, making it more likely that taxpayers will respond. That’s the good news.

But don’t expect to see a change overnight. The new law gives the IRS has 12 months to make the changes. With a skinnier IRS in place and a potentially complicated tax season in the cards, most tax practitioners don’t expect the agency to act quickly.

ForbesIRS Has Significant Backlogs Following The Shutdown: What’s Moving And What’s Still StuckForbesWatchdog Finds 2025 Tax Filing Season Was A Success, Worries About 2026

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2025/12/03/new-law-requires-irs-to-make-those-confusing-math-error-notices-easier-to-understand/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The Adoption of Web3 in Europe: Current Status, Opportunities, and Challenges

The Adoption of Web3 in Europe: Current Status, Opportunities, and Challenges

How decentralization technologies are advancing in the Old Continent.
Share
The Cryptonomist2025/12/06 15:00
Wang Yongli, former vice president of the Bank of China: Why did China resolutely halt stablecoins?

Wang Yongli, former vice president of the Bank of China: Why did China resolutely halt stablecoins?

Written by: Wang Yongli , former Vice President of Bank of China China's policy orientation of accelerating the development of the digital yuan and resolutely curbing virtual currencies, including stablecoins, is now fully clear. This is based on a comprehensive consideration of factors such as China's leading global advantages in mobile payments and the digital yuan, the sovereignty and security of the yuan, and the stability of the monetary and financial system. Since May 2025, the United States and Hong Kong have been racing to advance stablecoin legislation, which has led to a surge in global legislation on stablecoins and crypto assets (also known as "cryptocurrencies" or "virtual currencies"). A large number of institutions and capital are flocking to issue stablecoins and invest in crypto assets, which has also sparked heated debate on whether China should fully promote stablecoin legislation and the development of RMB stablecoins (including offshore ones). Furthermore, after the United States legislated to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing digital dollars, whether China should continue to promote digital RMB has also become a hot topic of debate. For China, this involves the direction and path of national currency development. With the global spread of stablecoins and the increasingly acute and complex international relations and fiercer international currency competition, this has a huge and far-reaching impact on how the RMB innovates and develops, safeguards national security, and achieves the strategic goals of a strong currency and a financial power. We must calmly analyze, accurately grasp, and make decisions early. We cannot be indifferent or hesitant, nor can we blindly follow the trend and make directional and subversive mistakes. Subsequently, the People's Bank of China announced that it would optimize the positioning of the digital yuan within the monetary hierarchy (adjusting the previously determined M0 positioning. This is a point I have repeatedly advocated from the beginning; see Wang Yongli's WeChat public account article "Digital Yuan Should Not Be Positioned as M0" dated January 6, 2021), further optimize the digital yuan management system (establishing an international digital yuan operations center in Shanghai, responsible for cross-border cooperation and use of the digital yuan; and establishing a digital yuan operations management center in Beijing, responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the digital yuan system), and promote and accelerate the development of the digital yuan . On November 28, the People's Bank of China and 13 other departments jointly convened a meeting of the coordination mechanism for combating virtual currency trading and speculation. The meeting pointed out that due to various factors, virtual currency speculation has recently resurfaced, and related illegal and criminal activities have occurred frequently, posing new challenges to risk prevention and control. It emphasized that all units should deepen coordination and cooperation, continue to adhere to the prohibitive policy on virtual currencies, and persistently crack down on illegal financial activities related to virtual currencies. It clarified that stablecoins are a form of virtual currency , and their issuance and trading activities are also illegal and subject to crackdown. This has greatly disappointed those who believed that China would promote the development of RMB stablecoins and correspondingly relax the ban on virtual currency (crypto asset) trading. Therefore, China's policy orientation of accelerating the development of the digital yuan and resolutely curbing virtual currencies, including stablecoins, is now fully clear . Of course, this policy orientation remains highly debated both domestically and internationally, and there is no consensus among the public. So, how should we view this major policy direction of China? This article will first answer why China resolutely halted stablecoins; how to accelerate the innovative development of the digital yuan will be discussed in another article . There is little room or opportunity for the development of non-USD stablecoins. Since Tether launched USDT, a stablecoin pegged to the US dollar, in 2014 , USD stablecoins have been operating for over a decade and have formed a complete international operating system. They have basically dominated the entire crypto asset trading market, accounting for over 99% of the global fiat stablecoin market capitalization and trading volume . This situation arises from two main factors. First, the US dollar is the most liquid and has the most comprehensive supporting system of international central currencies, making stablecoins pegged to the dollar the easiest to accept globally. Second, it is also a result of the US's long-standing tolerant policy towards crypto assets like Bitcoin and dollar-denominated stablecoins, rather than leading the international community to strengthen necessary regulation and safeguard the fundamental interests of all humanity. Even this year, when the US pushed for legislation on stablecoins and crypto assets, it was largely driven by the belief that dollar-denominated stablecoins would increase global demand for the dollar and dollar-denominated assets such as US Treasury bonds, reduce the financing costs for the US government and society, and strengthen the dollar's international dominance. This was a choice made to enhance US support for dollar-denominated stablecoins and control their potential impact on the US, prioritizing the maximization of national interests while giving little consideration to mitigating the international risks of stablecoins. With the US strongly promoting dollar-denominated stablecoins, other countries or regions launching non-dollar fiat currency stablecoins will find it difficult to compete with dollar-denominated stablecoins on an international level, except perhaps within their own sovereign territory or on the issuing institution's own e-commerce platform. Their development potential and practical significance are limited . Lacking a strong ecosystem and application scenarios, and lacking distinct characteristics compared to dollar-denominated stablecoins, as well as the advantage of attracting traders and transaction volume, the return on investment for issuing non-dollar fiat currency stablecoins is unlikely to meet expectations, and they will struggle to survive in an environment of increasingly stringent legislation and regulation in various countries. The legislation on stablecoins in the United States still faces many problems and challenges. Following President Trump's second election victory, his strong advocacy for crypto assets such as Bitcoin fueled a new international frenzy in cryptocurrency trading, driving the rapid development of dollar-denominated stablecoin trading and a surge in stablecoin market capitalization. This not only increased demand for the US dollar and US Treasury bonds, strengthening the dollar's international status, but also brought huge profits to the Trump family and their cryptocurrency associates. However, this also posed new challenges to the global monitoring of the dollar's circulation and the stability of the traditional US financial system. Furthermore, the trading and transfer of crypto assets backed by dollar-denominated stablecoins has become a new and more difficult-to-prevent tool for the US to harvest global wealth, posing a serious threat to the monetary sovereignty and wealth security of other countries . This is why the United States has accelerated legislation on stablecoins, but its legislation is more about prioritizing America and maximizing American and even group interests, at the expense of the interests of other countries and the common interests of the world. After the legislation on US dollar stablecoins came into effect, institutions that have not obtained approval and operating licenses from US regulators will find it difficult to issue and operate US dollar stablecoins in the United States (for this reason, Tether has announced that it will apply for US-issued USDT). Stablecoin issuers subject to US regulation must meet regulatory requirements such as Know Your Customer (KYC), Anti-Money Laundering (AML), and Counter-Terrorist Financing (FTC). They must be able to screen customers against government watchlists and report suspicious activities to regulators. Their systems must have the ability to freeze or intercept specific stablecoins when ordered by law enforcement agencies. Stablecoin issuers must have reserves of no less than 100% US dollar assets (including currency assets, short-term Treasury bonds, and repurchase agreements backed by Treasury bonds) approved by regulators, and must keep US customer funds in US banks and not transfer them overseas. They are prohibited from paying interest or returns on stablecoins, and strict control must be exercised over-issuance and self-operation. Reserve assets must be held in custody by an independent institution approved by regulators and must be audited by an auditing firm at least monthly and an audit report must be issued. This will greatly enhance the value stability of stablecoins relative to the US dollar, strengthen their payment function and compliance, while weakening their investment attributes and illegal use; it will also significantly increase the regulatory costs of stablecoins, thereby reducing their potential for exorbitant profits in an unregulated environment. The US stablecoin legislation officially took effect on July 18, but it still faces numerous challenges : While it stipulates the scope of reserve assets for stablecoin issuance (bank deposits, short-term Treasury bonds, repurchase agreements backed by Treasury bonds, etc.), since it primarily includes Treasury bonds with fluctuating trading prices, even if reserve assets are sufficient at the time of issuance, a subsequent decline in Treasury bond prices could lead to insufficient reserves; if the reserve asset structures of different issuing institutions are not entirely consistent, and there is no central bank guarantee, it means that the issued dollar stablecoins will not be the same, creating arbitrage opportunities and posing challenges to relevant regulation and market stability; even if there is no over-issuance of stablecoins at the time of issuance, allowing decentralized finance (DeFi) to engage in stablecoin lending could still lead to stablecoin derivation and over-issuance, unless it is entirely a matchmaking between lenders and borrowers rather than proprietary trading; getting stablecoin issuers outside of financial institutions to meet regulatory requirements is not easy, and regulation also presents significant challenges. More importantly, the earliest and most fundamental requirement for stablecoins is the borderless, decentralized, 24/7 pricing and settlement of crypto assets on the blockchain. It is precisely because crypto assets like Bitcoin cannot fulfill the fundamental requirement of currency as a measure of value and a value token—that the total amount of currency must change in line with the total value of tradable wealth requiring monetary pricing and settlement—that their price relative to fiat currency fluctuates wildly (therefore, using crypto assets like Bitcoin as collateral or strategic reserves carries significant risks), making it difficult to become a true circulating currency. This has led to the development of fiat stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies. (Therefore, Bitcoin and similar crypto assets can only be considered crypto assets; calling them "cryptocurrency" or "virtual currency" is inaccurate; translating the English word "Token" as "币" or "币" is also inappropriate; it should be directly transliterated as "通证" and clearly defined as an asset, not currency.) The emergence and development of fiat-backed stablecoins have brought fiat currencies and more real-world assets (RWAs) onto the blockchain, strongly supporting on-chain cryptocurrency trading and development. They serve as a channel connecting the on-chain cryptocurrency world with the off-chain real-world, thereby strengthening the integration and influence of the cryptocurrency world on the real world. This will significantly enhance the scope, speed, scale, and volatility of global wealth financialization and financial transactions, accelerating the transfer and concentration of global wealth in a few countries or groups. In this context, failing to strengthen global joint regulation of stablecoins and cryptocurrency issuance and trading poses extremely high risks and dangers . Therefore, the surge in stablecoin and cryptocurrency development driven by the Trump administration in the United States has already revealed a huge bubble and potential risks, making it unsustainable. The international community must be highly vigilant about this! Stablecoin legislation could severely backfire on stablecoins. One unexpected outcome of stablecoin legislation is that the inclusion of fiat-backed stablecoins in legislative regulation will inevitably lead to legislative regulation of crypto asset transactions denominated and settled using fiat-backed stablecoins, including blockchain-generated assets such as Bitcoin and on-chain real-world assets (RWA). This will have a profound impact on stablecoins. Before crypto assets receive legislative regulation and compliance protection, licensed financial institutions such as banks find it difficult to directly participate in crypto asset trading, clearing, custody, and other related activities, thus ceding opportunities to private organizations outside of financial institutions. Due to the lack of regulation and the absence of regulatory costs, existing stablecoin issuers and crypto asset trading platforms have become highly profitable and attractive entities, exerting an increasing impact on banks and the financial system, forcing governments and monetary authorities in countries like the United States to accelerate legislative regulation of stablecoins. However, once crypto assets receive legislative regulation and compliance protection, banks and other financial institutions will undoubtedly participate fully. Payment institutions such as banks can directly promote the on-chain operation of fiat currency deposits (deposit tokenization), completely replacing stablecoins as a new channel and hub connecting the crypto world and the real world . Similarly, existing stock, bond, money market fund, and ETF exchanges can promote the on-chain trading of these relatively standardized financial products through RWA (Real-Time Asset Exchange). Having adequately regulated financial institutions such as banks act as the main entities connecting the crypto world and the real world on the blockchain is more conducive to implementing current legislative requirements for stablecoins, upholding the principle of "equal regulation for the same business" for all institutions, and reducing the impact and risks of crypto asset development on the existing monetary and financial system. This trend has already emerged in the United States and is rapidly intensifying, proving difficult to stop . Therefore, stablecoin legislation may seriously backfire on or subvert stablecoins ( see Wang Yongli's WeChat public account article "Stablecoin Legislation May Seriously Backfire on Stablecoins" on September 3, 2025 ). In this situation, it is not a reasonable choice for other countries to follow the US lead and vigorously promote stablecoin legislation and development. China should not follow the path of stablecoins taken by the United States. China already has a leading global advantage in mobile payments and the digital yuan. Promoting a stablecoin for the yuan has no advantage domestically, and it will have little room for development and influence internationally. It should not follow the path of the US dollar stablecoin, but should instead focus on promoting the development of stablecoins for the yuan, both domestically and offshore. More importantly, crypto assets and stablecoins like Bitcoin can achieve 24/7 global trading and clearing through borderless blockchains and crypto asset trading platforms. While this significantly improves efficiency, the highly anonymous and high-frequency global flow, lacking coordinated international oversight, makes it difficult to meet regulatory requirements such as KYC, AML, and FTC. This poses a clear risk and has been demonstrated in real-world cases of being used for money laundering, fundraising fraud, and illegal cross-border fund transfers. Given that US dollar stablecoins already dominate the crypto asset trading market, and the US has greater control or influence over major global blockchain operating systems, crypto asset trading platforms, and the exchange rate between crypto assets and the US dollar (as evidenced by the US's ability to trace, identify, freeze, and confiscate the crypto asset accounts of some institutions and individuals, and to punish or even arrest some crypto asset trading platforms and their leaders), China's development of a RMB stablecoin following the path of US dollar stablecoins not only fails to challenge the international status of US dollar stablecoins but may even turn the RMB stablecoin into a vassal of US dollar stablecoins. This could impact national tax collection, foreign exchange management, and cross-border capital flows, posing a serious threat to the sovereignty and security of the RMB and the stability of the monetary and financial system. Faced with a more acute and complex international situation, China should prioritize national security and exercise high vigilance and strict control over the trading and speculation of crypto assets, including stablecoins, rather than simply pursuing increased efficiency and reduced costs . It is necessary to accelerate the improvement of relevant regulatory policies and legal frameworks, focus on key links such as information flow and capital flow, strengthen information sharing among relevant departments, further enhance monitoring and tracking capabilities, and severely crack down on illegal and criminal activities involving crypto assets. Of course, while resolutely halting stablecoins and cracking down on virtual currency trading and speculation, we must also accelerate the innovative development and widespread application of the digital yuan at home and abroad, establish the international leading advantage of the digital yuan, forge a Chinese path for the development of digital currency, and actively explore the establishment of a fair, reasonable and secure new international monetary and financial system . Taking into account the above factors, it is not difficult to understand why China has chosen to resolutely curb virtual currencies, including stablecoins, while firmly promoting and accelerating the development of the digital yuan.
Share
PANews2025/12/06 15:08