EPA Reconsiders Air Regulations Amid a Major Reorganization of the Air Office
The EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (“OAR”), responsible for most of the EPA’s major air regulatory and policy efforts, will be restructured in the months to come. This shakeup comes on the heels of the EPA’s announcement in March that it will be reconsidering over a dozen significant air regulations. We trace these changes in the EPA landscape through their potential impacts on three important issues named in EPA’s reconsideration announcement:
Regulation of hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”) in refrigeration;
New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines for oil and gas; and
Regional Haze planning.
Regulation of HFC Refrigerants:
Since Congress passed the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act in 2020, the EPA has issued a suite of regulations addressing commonly used HFC refrigerants. These regulations affect retail refrigeration, comfort cooling, and refrigerated transport, among various other industries. The EPA has been busy implementing measures to phase down HFC imports and production, manage the use (including leaks) of HFCs, and force transitions in technology through, for instance, limits on the global warming potential of refrigerants that can be used in various systems and appliances.
It’s this last measure, the Technology Transition Rule, that the EPA has announced it will be reconsidering. As of now, the EPA has not mentioned plans for its rules addressing the HFC phasedown or the Management Rule, which mandates leak detection and repair for HFC systems, among other requirements.
All of these regulations were originally prepared by the EPA’s Stratospheric Protection Division, the same office that regulated HFC’s predecessors, ozone depleting substances. The Stratospheric Protection Division is part of the Office of Atmospheric Protection, which the EPA reportedly intends to eliminate. This office also houses EPA’s divisions of Clean Air and Power, Climate Protection Partnerships, and Climate Change.
The EPA has not said where this HFC work will go with the potential elimination of the Office of Atmospheric Protection, but its March reconsideration suggests it will not disappear. In the meantime, the EPA’s HFC regulations remain on the books and compliance deadlines are in force and approaching.
Standards for Oil and Gas:
Other regulations on the EPA’s March reconsideration list include new source performance standards regulating greenhouse gas and other emissions from the oil and gas industry (“NSPS OOOOb”) and emission guidelines for states to develop plans to address emissions from existing oil and gas sources (“EG OOOOc”). These regulations address various potential sources of emissions across the industry from well sites to gas plants and transmission compressor stations.
To date, these regulations have come out of the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, another office the EPA reportedly intends to disband. Many of the staff who have worked on these regulations have deep institutional knowledge of oil and gas regulations, dating back to the promulgation of NSPS OOOO over a decade ago, and other similar regulations. Where this reorganization will leave this institutional knowledge and these rules are open questions.
These changes come in the middle of the EPA’s reconsideration of certain issues in these standards as described in a rule the EPA proposed in January 2025 but has yet to finalize. Industry and states should coordinate with EPA contacts as compliance and state planning deadlines approach under the current regulations.
Regional Haze:
Regional haze presents a slightly different picture. In its March announcement, the EPA indicated it would be “restructuring the Regional Haze Program.” The Clean Air Act’s regional haze program seeks to protect visibility in certain areas that include national parks and wilderness (referred to as “Class I” areas). States develop plans in ten-year planning periods to show how they will make progress towards visibility goals for Class I areas. Historically, rules governing the state planning process, like the 2017 Regional Haze Rule, have come from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which again is reportedly being eliminated in the EPA’s planned reorganization.
When the EPA says it is restructuring the regional haze program, that likely includes the 2017 Regional Haze Rule. In 2018, the EPA announced similar efforts to overhaul regional haze planning in the Regional Haze Reform Roadmap. While some efforts of the Roadmap came to pass during President Trump’s first administration, the rule revisions did not. The EPA’s March announcement likely revives these efforts amid this office shuffling.
Even though the EPA’s OAR (specifically the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards) has typically been responsible for setting national regional haze policy, decisions on approval or disapproval of actual state plans come from one of the EPA’s ten regional offices. These lines of EPA decision-making are already blurring. For instance, EPA Region 3 recently announced a change in regional haze policy when it proposed approving West Virginia’s state implementation plan for the second implementation period on April 18, 2025. There, the EPA announced a new agency policy that when visibility conditions for Class I areas are below the uniform rate of progress and a state has considered the four statutory factors, the state has presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress. This seemingly new national policy was then applied in EPA Region 8’s proposal to approve South Dakota’s plan on May 14.
New Offices, New Names
While the EPA works out all the concrete details of its reorganization of the OAR (and at least three other offices, including the Office of Water), it has announced the creation of two new offices within the OAR:
Office of State Air Partnerships; and
Office of Clean Air Programs.
The EPA explains that the Office of State Air Partnerships will focus on state implementation plans and air permitting to ensure national consistency. This could mean that decisions historically left to regional offices, like regional haze plan approvals, could become much more centralized in this new office. The EPA explains that the new Office of Clean Air Programs will “align statutory obligations and mission essential functions based on centers of expertise to ensure more transparency and harmony in regulatory development” but the exact work of this office remains to be seen.
North Carolina Bill Would Expand Workplace Violence Prevention Act
North Carolina’s Senate Bill (SB) 484, sponsored by Senators Timothy Moffitt, Warren Daniel, and Danny Britt, would amend the Workplace Violence Prevention Act by allowing employers to seek restraining orders against “mass picketing” that blocks access to businesses and public roads.
Quick Hits
North Carolina is one of several states that have specific workplace violence prevention laws.
North Carolina’s Workplace Violence Prevention Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 95, Article 23 (WVPA) allows employers to pursue certain protections on behalf of their employees who face “unlawful conduct” (i.e., physical violence or threats thereof), including by obtaining civil no-contact orders, and to prevent discrimination and retaliation against employees who miss work because of domestic violence or other harassment.
Recently introduced legislation would amend the WVPA’s definition of “unlawful conduct” to include mass picketing that would hinder or prevent the “pursuit of any lawful work or employment,” obstruction of entrances to or from the place of employment, and mass picketing that would obstruct the use of public roads, streets, and other areas of travel.
The amendments would also allow employers to seek civil no-contact orders on behalf of the employer itself, instead of a specific employee.
The bill exempts peaceful demonstrations, informational picketing, and legally protected labor activity—unless they involve violence, threats, or intentional obstruction.
Senate Bill 484: Workplace Violence Prevention/Mass Picketing
North Carolina’s Workplace Violence Prevention Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 95, Article 23 (WVPA) allows employers to pursue certain legal remedies on behalf of their employees who face “unlawful conduct” by obtaining civil no-contact orders against the perpetrators on behalf of the employee. The WVPA also prevents discrimination and retaliation against employees who are absent from work because of domestic violence or other harassment.
The current iteration of the WVPA defines unlawful conduct as threats or actual instances of physical violence. Senate Bill 484 would amend the WVPA by expanding the definition of “unlawful conduct” at the workplace to include certain forms of mass picketing, allowing employers to obtain civil no-contact orders against mass picketers on behalf of employees as well as the employer. The bill defines “mass picketing” as:
[p]icketing, with or without signs, that constitutes an obstacle to the ingress and egress to and from the premises being picketed or any other premises, or upon the public roads, streets, highways, or other ways of travel or conveyance, either by obstructing by their persons or by placing of vehicles or other physical obstructions.
The bill would add three new behaviors to the list of unlawful conduct: (1) hindering or preventing lawful work or employment through “mass picketing, unlawful threats, or force”; (2) obstructing entrances and exits to a workplace via mass picketing; and (3) obstructing public roads, highways, or transport systems through similar tactics. These amendments would prohibit “obstructions” of the workplace, which the SB 484 defines as “sustained or deliberate physical blockage that substantially and materially prevents ingress or egress that causes demonstrable disruption to operations or public safety.”
Additionally, the current iteration of the WVPA allows employers to obtain civil no-contact orders specifically on behalf of the employee, that is, to obtain an order prohibiting a perpetrator from contacting a specific employee. SB 484 would amend the WVPA to allow employers to file for a civil no-contact order on behalf of itself, thereby prohibiting mass picketers from accessing the employer’s place of employment, provided that the conduct in question occurs at or affects the workplace. The amendment also states that no physical injury or property damage is required to obtain such an order, and it mandates that respondents be notified before permanent orders are issued.
SB 484 states that the bill is not intended to conflict with the North Carolina State Constitution, and that the WVPA, as amended, would not apply to peaceful demonstrations, informational picketing, or labor activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act or the North Carolina Constitution.
Key Takeaways
SB 484 aims to strengthen workplace safety laws in North Carolina by specifically addressing disruptions caused by mass picketing. If passed, it would broaden the scope of North Carolina’s Workplace Violence Prevention laws by defining “mass picketing” and “obstruction” in a way that targets activities that physically block or interfere with access to workplaces or public roads. The bill allows employers not only to act on behalf of employees but also to seek legal remedies for their own protection through civil no-contact orders. The bill was amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on May 8, 2025, was referred to the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House.
AI Drives Need for New Open Source Licenses – Linux Publishes the OpenMDW License
For many reasons, existing open source licenses are not a good fit for AI. Simply put, AI involves more than just software and most open source licenses are designed primarily for software. Much work has been done by many groups to assess the open source license requirements for AI. For example, the OSI has published its version of an AI open source definition – The Open Source AI Definition – 1.0. Recently, the Linux Foundation published a draft of the Open Model Definition and Weight (OpenMDW) License.
The OpenMDW License is a permissive license specifically designed for use with machine‑learning models and their related artifacts, collectively referred to as “Model Materials.” “Model Materials” include machine‑learning models (including architecture and parameters) along with all related artifacts—such as datasets, documentation, preprocessing and inference code, evaluation assets, and supporting tools—provided in the distribution. This inclusive definition purports to align with the OSI’s Open Source Definition and the Model Openness Framework, covering code, data, weights, metadata, and documentation without mandating that every component be released. The Model Openness Framework is a three-tiered ranked classification system that rates machine learning models based on their completeness and openness, following open science principles.
The OpenMDW License is a permissive license, akin to the Apache or MIT license. It grants a royalty free, unrestricted license to use, modify, distribute, and otherwise “deal in” the Model Materials under all applicable intellectual‑property regimes—including copyright, patent, database, and trade‑secret rights. This broad grant is designed to eliminate ambiguity around the legal permissions needed to work with AI assets.
The primary substantive compliance obligation imposed by OpenMDW is preservation of the license itself. Any redistribution of Model Materials must include (1) a copy of the OpenMDW Agreement and (2) all original copyright and origin notices. Compliance is as easy as placing a single LICENSE file at the root of the repository. There are no copyleft or share‑alike requirements, ensuring that derivative works and integrations remain as unconstrained as possible.
There is however a patent‑litigation‑termination clause. If a licensee initiates litigation alleging that the Model Materials infringe their patents—except as a defensive response to a suit first brought against them—all rights granted to that licensee under the OpenMDW are terminated. This provision serves to discourage aggressive patent actions that could undermine open collaboration.
Any outputs generated by using the Model Materials are free of license restrictions or obligations. The license also disclaims all warranties and liabilities “to the greatest extent permissible under applicable law,” placing responsibility for due diligence and rights clearance squarely on the licensee.
We all know that AI will be transformative, but we do not yet know all the ways in which it will be so. One of the transformations that AI will undoubtedly drive is a redefinition of what it means to be “open source” and the type of open source AI licenses. As a leader of my firm’s Open Source Team and its AI Team, the intersection of these areas is near and dear to my heart. While many lawyers and developers may not yet have focused on this, it will be a HUGE issue. If you have not yet done so, now is a good time to start.
One of the core issues is that traditionally, under an open source license, the source code is made available so others can copy, inspect, modify and redistribute software based thereon. With AI, the code alone is often not enough to accomplish those purposes. In many cases, other things are or may be necessary such as the training data, model weights and other non-code aspects that are important to AI. This issue is significant in many ways. So much so that, as mentioned above, the Open Source Initiative, stewards of the Open Source definition, developed the Open Source AI Definition 1.0 to REDEFINE the meaning of open source in the context of AI. To learn more about these issues, check out the OSI Deep Dive initiative here.
Listen to this post
Noteworthy False Claims Act Settlement Demonstrates DOJ’s Continued Scrutiny of Arrangements Between Hospitals and Physician Practices
On May 14, 2025, Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center d/b/a Community Health System (CHS) and its technology partner, Physicians Network Advantage, Inc. (PNA), agreed to pay $31.5 million and enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement to settle allegations of violating the federal anti-kickback statute (AKS) and physician self-referral law (Stark Law) under the False Claims Act (FCA). The alleged conduct at issue revolved around CHS’s plan beginning in 2013 to assist local area physicians in their adoption of the electronic health records (EHR) platform used by CHS and its establishment of PNA to support that goal. For decades, the government has strongly promoted the adoption of interoperable EHR platforms by physician practices (e.g., Meaningful Use payments), given that EHR systems allow for better care coordination, increased efficiency, and improved patient experience. Moreover, as described in more detail below, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted an AKS safe harbor and Stark Law exception that allowed certain entities, including hospitals, to donate EHR technology and services to physicians if certain conditions are satisfied. However, CHS’s and PNA’s alleged conduct exceeds what is permissible under the relevant safe harbor and exception.
Background
CHS operates a network of hospitals across Fresno County, California, delivering health care services to beneficiaries of federal health care programs. PNA, founded in 2010 with financial and operational support from CHS, focused on expanding EHR technology in physician offices.
A relator – PNA’s former Controller – sued PNA and CHS along with another health system, health foundation, physician group, and individuals on behalf of the United States for alleged FCA, AKS, and Stark Law violations. The Settlement Agreement described the following conduct provided to induce referrals of business reimbursable by federal health care programs:
PNA’s headquarters included a posh space known as “HQ2,” where health care providers received high-end hospitality—such as fine wine, liquor, cigars, and catered food.
CHS and PNA provided substantial financial subsidies and cost reductions for EHR services to a large physician practice, including deferring upfront costs.
CHS and PNA allegedly supplied grants to a large physician network to pay for EHR-related software and subsidize upfront cost-sharing amounts related to EHR items and services.
CHS purportedly issued grants to certain providers and medical practices before formal EHR contracts were in place.
The relator alleges to have discovered defendants’ kickbacks initially following a fire at PNA headquarters, which revealed a surplus of expensive wine that a defendant told relator was leftover from a holiday party. The relator, while serving as PNA’s Controller, began to dig further into PNA’s business expenses. The relator confronted PNA’s sole shareholder and officer, who allegedly refused to discontinue the illegal conduct, and the relator then resigned from his position as Controller.
EHR Technology
As noted above, HHS recognizes the importance of supporting the adoption of EHR technology as evidenced by the AKS’s EHR safe harbor and the Stark Law’s EHR exception. The EHR safe harbor and exception allow hospitals and health systems to provide interoperable EHR technology to physician practices under specific conditions, including structuring the arrangements to avoid improper inducements for referrals.
While hospitals and health systems may offer EHR subsidies and cost reductions compliantly, CHS’s EHR subsidies and cost reductions purportedly failed to meet the AKS EHR safe harbor or Stark Law EHR exception because:
The subsidies and cost reductions were allegedly provided in return for referrals of patients to CHS for services reimbursed by federal health care programs, violating both the AKS safe harbor and Stark Law exception, which prohibit any link between financial benefits and the volume or value of referrals.
The arrangements allegedly included delayed collection of upfront cost-sharing for the EHR items or services, and the applicable Stark Law exception requires the physician practice to contribute 15% of the cost before receiving the EHR items or services.
The settlement does not indicate that the EHR donations were governed by written agreements that clearly specified the items/services, cost, and recipient contribution—requirements under both the AKS safe harbor and Stark Law exception.
Conclusion
This settlement is yet another example of the Department of Justice’s continued focus on enforcing Stark Law and AKS violations by hospitals and health systems. For more context, see our analysis of 2024’s key FCA settlements here.
DHS Terminates Temporary Protected Status for Afghanistan
On May 13, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristin Noem announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghanistan. The TPS designation for Afghanistan is set to expire on May 20, 2025, and the termination will take effect July 14, 2025.
What Is TPS – And How Does It Work?
TPS is a form of humanitarian protection the U.S. government provides to nationals of certain countries experiencing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent safe return.
During the TPS period, the beneficiaries:
are eligible to remain in the United States;
cannot be removed from the United States;
are authorized to work, provided they continue to meet TPS requirements;
may apply for and be granted travel authorization at the discretion of Homeland Security (DHS)
TPS does not lead to or confer lawful permanent resident status or any other immigration status.
The Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the DHS secretary to designate a foreign state for TPS if certain conditions exist. In making such a designation, the secretary considers:
whether returning nationals would face serious threats to their personal safety due to armed conflict;
whether there are extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent safe return; and
whether permitting aliens to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to the national interest of the United States.
The secretary’s determination is discretionary and not subject to judicial review.
Why Was TPS for Afghanistan Terminated?
Afghanistan was initially designated for TPS on May 20, 2022, due to ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary temporary conditions. On Sept. 25, 2023, DHS extended and redesignated Afghanistan for an additional 18 months, beginning on Nov. 21, 2023, until May 20, 2025.
Secretary Noem stated that after reviewing the current conditions in Afghanistan, including significant improvements in security and economic stability, the situation no longer meets the statutory criteria for TPS. DHS concluded that returning Afghan nationals no longer poses a serious threat to their safety, and allowing Afghan nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is not aligned with the national interest.
What Is the Potential Impact of the Termination?
Once a country’s TPS designation is terminated, beneficiaries revert to the same immigration status or category that they maintained before TPS (if still valid), or any other lawfully obtained immigration status or category they acquired while under TPS. Afghan nationals will be required to depart the United States by the termination date unless they obtain another form of lawful immigration status. They must also report their timely departure to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Why Governance — Not Growth — Will Define the Next Era of Family Offices
Family Offices are entering a new era — one defined less by asset growth and more by structure, resilience, and governance.
As Forbes recently forecasted, the defining trend for Family Offices in 2025 is not asset growth — it’s professionalization and governance.1 As families confront generational transitions and operational complexity, building resilient governance structures is becoming a strategic imperative, not a secondary concern.
Introducing the Governance Imperative
This shift is further underscored in Deloitte’s recently published 2025 Family Office case study series, The Fireside.[2] The report pulls back the curtain on the often-private world of global Family Offices and reveals an urgent pattern: where governance falters, legacy cracks. Where it’s prioritized, cohesion and continuity are amplified.
The Governance Gap
For decades, many Family Offices concentrated on managing investments: allocating portfolios, sourcing deals, and growing capital. Today, those priorities are evolving. The challenge is no longer “How do we make money?” — it’s “How do we keep it? How do we coordinate it? And how do we prepare the next generation to lead it?”
Recent data underscores the urgency:
86% of Family Office executives cite governance as their number one challenge.3
69% of global Family Offices now list succession planning as a core strategic focus.4
66% prioritize family wealth advisory and intergenerational training programs.4
Yet despite recognizing the need, many families are slow to act — often because governance feels abstract, emotionally charged, or secondary to immediate financial results.
The High Cost of Inaction
The absence of governance isn’t neutral. It’s destabilizing.
Without frameworks to guide decision-making, manage risk, and align stakeholders, Family Offices face:
Increased family disputes
Fragmented investment strategies
Talent flight (especially among rising generation members)
Higher exposure to succession crises
In The Fireside, a first-generation executive warns, “If you’re going to be honest, the biggest risk to most Family Offices is the family.” [2] He goes on to describe a scenario in which a patriarch’s failure to plan for succession could lead to chaos, stalled operations, and a hemorrhaging of wealth.
One generational transfer gone wrong can fracture a fortune built over decades. Without clear structures for ownership, leadership, and communication, even the most sophisticated portfolios are vulnerable.
What the Next Era Requires
Families leading the way are treating governance not as a “nice to have,” but as a strategic asset—building institutional-quality practices into private wealth structures.
Key trends defining forward-looking Family Offices include:
Family Constitutions and Charters: Clearly defined values, mission, and governance bodies.
Formal Investment Committees: With professional standards around risk management, due diligence, and accountability.
Structured Succession Planning: Leadership development programs and shadow boards for next-gen family members.
Family Councils and Communication Protocols: Regular, structured engagement across generations.
From The Fireside: “The absence of a succession plan can send the rats skittering off the decks.”
Other families are going further, embracing advisory boards composed of legal, financial, philanthropic, and next-gen governance experts. One CEO featured in Deloitte’s report explained, “We selected our board the same way you would for a public company — a financial expert, an investment expert, a lawyer who works with wealth holders, and two members focused on family dynamics and philanthropy.”2
The result? A professional-grade Family Office that aligns with fiduciary best practices and enhances trust.
Why Governance is the New Growth Strategy
At a time when investment returns are increasingly volatile, governance delivers durable value. Good governance:
Reduces strategic drift
Protects against legal and regulatory risk
Creates clarity around roles, rights, and responsibilities
Strengthens the family’s human capital alongside its financial capital
Moreover, it enables continuity in a landscape marked by volatility. One family office COO interviewed by Deloitte, after describing a painful yet successful split into multiple branches, summarized it succinctly: “Families should feel empowered to do good in their respective ways.”2
It’s no longer enough to focus on growing AUM. The real edge belongs to families that can navigate complexity, steward leadership, and foster unity across generations.
The Family Offices that will define the next era won’t be the ones that took the most risk. They’ll be the ones who built the strongest foundations.
Endnotes/Sources
Paul Westall, “Predictions For The Family Office Space In 2025,” Forbes, February 5, 2025.
Dr. Rebecca Gooch, The Family Office Insights Series – Global Edition, The Fireside, May 8, 2025.
Ocorian Family Office Study, 2024.
J.P. Morgan Private Bank, Global Family Office Report, 2024.
Healthcare Preview for the Week of: May 19, 2025 [Podcast]
MAHA and More Medicaid
Late Sunday night, May 18, 2025, the House Budget Committee voted to advance the reconciliation package drafted by the Energy and Commerce Committee and Ways and Means Committee last week. The four Freedom Caucus members who voted against the bill last Friday changed their votes to “present” on Sunday, which allowed the bill to move forward with a 17 – 16 majority in committee while still acknowledging their desire for additional federal savings.
The package moves to the House Committee on Rules next, which is scheduled to convene at 1:00 am on Wednesday (yes, am). The Rules Committee has already released a revised version of the package in a format that highlights the changes made. Additional modifications are expected in order to garner the near unanimity required for passage through the House. Anticipated changes impacting healthcare include implementing work requirements earlier than 2029. Republican leaders hope to have the bill on the House floor later this week, before Congress breaks for the Memorial Day recess.
Two subcommittees within the Senate Committee on Appropriations will meet this week to review portions of the president’s budget request for fiscal year 2026. US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will appear before the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies on Tuesday, and US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Martin A. Makary will appear before the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies on Thursday.
Outside of Congress, the Administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission is anticipated to release its initial assessment and strategy this week, likely on Thursday. The commission, established in February and chaired by Secretary Kennedy, was instructed to develop a report that, among other things:
Reviews childhood chronic disease in the United States compared to other countries.
Assesses the threat of potential overutilization of medication and certain food ingredients and chemicals.
Identifies best practices for preventing childhood health issues.
Evaluates the effectiveness of existing educational programs.
Evaluates existing federal programs and funding.
Restores the integrity of science, including by eliminating undue industry influence.
Today’s Podcast
In this week’s Healthcare Preview, Rodney Whitlock and Debbie Curtis join Julia Grabo to discuss what happened over the weekend with the House’s budget reconciliation bill and what to pay attention to moving forward.
IRS Roundup May 2 – May 13, 2025
Check out our summary of significant Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance and relevant tax matters for May 2, 2025 – May 13, 2025.
IRS GUIDANCE
May 2, 2025: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2025-20, providing guidance on the domestic asset/liability percentages and domestic investment yields used by foreign life insurance companies and foreign property and liability insurance companies to compute their minimum effectively connected net investment income under Section 842(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
May 5, 2025: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin 2025-19, which includes Revenue Ruling 2025-10 and Revenue Procedure 2025-18.
Revenue Ruling 2025-10 provides various prescribed rates for federal income tax purposes for May 2025, including:
The short-, mid-, and long-term applicable federal rates for purposes of Code Section 1274(d).
The short-, mid-, and long-term adjusted applicable federal rates for purposes of Code Section 1288(b).
The adjusted federal long-term rate and the long-term tax-exempt rate from Code Section 382(f).
The appropriate percentages for determining the low-income housing credit from Code Section 42(b)(1) (but only for buildings placed in service during May 2025).
The federal rate for determining the present value of an annuity, an interest for life or for a term of years, or a remainder or a reversionary interest for purposes of Code Section 752.
Revenue Procedure 2025-18 provides issuers of qualified mortgage bonds (defined in Code Section 143(a)) and mortgage credit certificates (defined in Code Section 25(c)) with guidance related to nationwide purchase prices for residences, as well as the average area purchase price for residences located in statistical areas in each US state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
May 6, 2025: The IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2025-21, modifying Section 12 of Revenue Procedure 2024-32.
Executive Order 14219, issued through the Department of Government Efficiency’s deregulatory initiative, directed agencies to initiate a review process for identification and removal of certain regulations and guidance. Pursuant to Executive Order 14219, the US Department of the Treasury and the IRS identified Section 12 of Revenue Procedure 2024-32 as a regulation needing modification.
Revenue Procedure 2024-32 specifies the procedure by which the sponsor of a defined benefit plan, which is subject to the funding requirements of Code Section 430, may request approval from the IRS for the use of plan-specific substitute mortality tables. Section 12.02 of Revenue Procedure 2024-32 specifies that if a plan sponsor wishes to use plan-specific mortality tables, it must develop and request approval for the use of new plan-specific mortality tables for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2026. Revenue Procedure 2025-21 provides immediate relief for some of those plan sponsors by narrowing the category of plan sponsors that must request approval of new plan-specific substitute mortality tables.
May 12, 2025: The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2025-11, determining the interest rates on overpayments and underpayments of tax under Code Section 6621. For corporations, an overpayment rate of 6% and an underpayment rate of 7% is established for the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2025. Where a portion of a corporate overpayment exceeds $10,000 during the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2025, the overpayment rate is 4.5%. For large corporate underpayments, the underpayment rate for the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2025, is 9%.
May 12, 2025: The IRS released Internal Revenue Bulletin 2025-20, which includes Notice 2025-25 and Notice 2025-26.
Notice 2025-25 publishes the inflation adjustment factor for credits under Code Section 45Q on carbon oxide sequestration, which is used to determine the amount of the credit allowable under Section 45Q for taxpayers that make an election under Code Section 45Q(b)(3) to have the dollar amounts applicable under Code Section 45Q(a)(1) or (2) apply.
Notice 2025-26 publishes the reference price under Code Section 45K(d)(2)(C) for calendar year 2024. The reference price applies in determining the amount of the enhanced oil recovery credit under Code Section 43, the marginal well production credit for qualified crude oil production under Code Section 45I, and the applicable percentage under Code Section 613A used in determining the percentage of depletion in the case of oil and natural gas produced from marginal properties.
The IRS also released its weekly list of written determinations (e.g., Private Letter Rulings, Technical Advice Memorandums, and Chief Counsel Advice).
THE “BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL”
A recent tax bill, which some practitioners are calling the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” is currently being deliberated in Congress. As of the publication date of this edition of the IRS Roundup, a few of the notable provisions in the Big, Beautiful Bill include:
A proposed disallowance of “substitute payments” related to state and local taxes.
The proposal of a 23% pass-through business deduction, up from the current deduction of 20%.
The renewal of a research and development expensing provision through 2029, including a 100% bonus depreciation.
A phaseout of certain clean electricity credits, marking a notable change to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
The reinstatement of a partial charitable contribution deduction for nonitemizers.
The proposed disallowance of certain amortization deductions for sports franchises.
An extension of various provisions expected to sunset in 2026.
The Lobby Shop- Reconciliation Roadmap and Tariff Updates [Podcast]
In this episode of The Lobby Shop, Liam Donovan provides an update on the budget reconciliation process in Congress, and the team dives into the proposed House cuts to energy programs funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, proposed Medicaid reductions, and the ongoing debate over SALT deductions—along with the challenges the legislation faces in the Senate and a tight legislative timeline. Josh Zive and Paul Nathanson also examine the current state of the Trump Administration’s tariffs, including the temporary easing of the U.S.–China trade war, multiple Section 232 investigations, and the complex policy landscape companies must navigate amid evolving tariff rules.
Presidential Deportation Powers Still Subject to Due Process – SCOTUS Today
Late on Friday, May 16, in the case of A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court enjoined the Trump administration from carrying out further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (the “Act”) of 176 Venezuelan detainees currently held in Texas.
The 7–2 majority (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) criticized the administration and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for their earlier handling of the case. Indeed, the detainees were being put on buses for deportation as the case was being considered by the Supreme Court.
While only last month, the Court allowed the president to invoke the Act to speed alien removals while litigation continues in lower courts, the Court also commanded that those threatened with removal should receive notice that they are subject to the Act and entitled to a “reasonable” opportunity to challenge their removal before the federal court where they are being detained. The administration had argued that the president had summary power to expeditiously deport alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua.
“Under these circumstances,” the Court stated Friday in an unsigned per curiam opinion in the instant case, “notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”
The administration was further undermined by the Court’s recollection that the government had recently insisted that it is unable to bring back Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man wrongly deported to El Salvador in March. The Supreme Court told the government last month to try to return Abrego Garcia. The government’s failure or inability to do so highlighted the exigency of the case and the failings of the lower courts to require the prompt exercise of due process.
For these reasons, the Court enjoined the administration from deporting the subject individuals and ordered the remand of the case to the Fifth Circuit for resolution of the matters that had been raised. The injunction will remain in force through the Fifth Circuit proceedings and any subsequent Supreme Court action.
Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, asserting more than a little questionably that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction at this stage. Alito wrote colorfully, though not persuasively, that the Court “has plucked a case from a district court and decided important issues in the first instance.”
In detailing the haste of the various actions and proceedings of the lower courts, the Supreme Court’s opinion sounds as if it were written with the aid of a stopwatch. The end result, however, is that, while a substantial majority of the Court, including the Justices nominated by President Trump, acknowledged that a president has considerable summary powers under the Act, that power is constrained by due process considerations.
A final note: This case reads as if it were essentially treated as a class action, but without the time-consuming procedures related to class certification. This might presage how the Court will deal with the issue of nationwide injunctions discussed in this blog in connection with the pending “birthright citizenship” case.
Big Financial Mistakes Wealthy Americans Are Making
It seems logical that wealthy individuals reached their lofty financial status by making numerous smart decisions. We assume people with seemingly no money worries don’t make blunders like the average earner does. Yet it’s common to hear about rich people who lost it all or took a big hit because of major mistakes they made.
Maybe they knew all the in’s and out’s of managing their wealth but took undue risks. Perhaps, lacking knowledge about various aspects of investing or taxes, they acted on poor advice or didn’t seek competent outside expertise. Or they just figured that having tons of money meant they didn’t have to worry about it, and they contentedly and cluelessly sat on their big pile of money until it started crumbling.
An analogistic quote about losing wealth is a phrase about lost love written by poet Alfred Lord Tennyson: “Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” That’s wrong. For some people who have had money and then had it taken away, it was catastrophic for their lives and egos. Some of those people never get their wealth back, and it kills them with regret and remorse for the rest of their lives. They’re miserable.
Costly financial mistakes can be avoided with the right planning and discipline. Let’s take a look at some of the reasons these mistakes happen.
Hubris – From Staying Ahead of the Joneses to Sheer Stubbornness
One of the biggest problems you see with a wealthy person is hubris. Let’s assume we’re talking about a high-status person such as a doctor, attorney, or other highly accomplished professional who earns well into six figures. In their social circle, they have more education than most of their friends. They drive the nicest cars, own the nicest houses, and have clout where they work. They’re compelled to showcase their status and wealth. They take on too much debt to buy those fancy cars, buy a house that’s bigger than they need, or buy a jet to fly privately with their family. They feel that they have to look like this successful, high-status person, and lean all-in to that lifestyle that’s going to end up costing them much of their wealth.
I had a call with a lady who said she had been offered $18 million for medical offices she owned. She was the most arrogant person I’ve ever had a call with. We started narrowing down what her lifestyle looked like. I determined she spent over $2 million a year on her lifestyle. She had no other savings and assets outside of the $18 million someone was going to pay her for the medical practice.
I said, “You can’t retire. You’re not even close.” I advised her that she needed to cut her lifestyle expenses in half. Well, she got mad at me for telling her the truth.
Hubris comes in many forms, especially in terms of stubbornness when wealthy people think they know better than financial professionals. For example, there are a bunch of high earners today who want to invest in things outside of the stock market. Their friends are starting businesses or buying businesses or doing real estate deals. They think, because they’re smart, rich, and have a formal education from a big-time school, that they can figure all of it out on their own.
But I’ve seen these accomplished, educated, wealthy people who get into private investments with friends, family, or work colleagues lose a ton. I knew a data scientist who had been referred to an investment opportunity by people in their professional circle. He lost about $1 million in what turned out to be two separate Ponzi schemes. People had come into his workplace and explained these investment ideas, telling the employees they didn’t need to hire a financial advisor because they were smart and could do their own due diligence. But they got scammed.
Poor Tax Planning
There’s a common misconception that CPAs are planning-focused when, in reality, most are compliance-focused.
Most people assume their current tax-focused compliance person is doing everything they can to reduce their tax bill. That is not true. Folks would get a better outcome from a tax planning perspective if they would request that for a separate fee, and on a dedicated basis, their CPA would review their situation to see if there’s anything that could be done to substantially reduce their taxes for future years from a planning perspective. This could include having the CPA review how their entities are structured, review their expenses and deductions they may be eligible to take, or explore more exotic strategies that may be a good fit for their particular situation. If people would take that approach and pay the CPA an extra $2,000 to do that detailed planning, I’ll bet you they could reduce their taxable income significantly.
High earners who are building long-term wealth typically have more complicated tax returns. It helps greatly to have a professional who can find strategies that can reduce taxes. Keep in mind that mainstream tax strategies aren’t always optimized for high-income earners.
There are so many tax scenarios that can come into play as one acquires more wealth, and if not planned for wisely, they can result in huge tax hits. Among those tax situations: failing to plan for a sudden spike in income; missing one-time planning opportunities such as when selling a business, executing stock options, or realizing significant capital gains; overconcentration in a single tax-advantaged investment like Roth IRAs, life insurance, or municipal bonds; failing to consider private partnerships, which can provide capital appreciation and tax benefits like deductions, credits, or passive losses.
Knowing When It’s Prudent for Concentration, Then Diversification
Nobody gets rich from diversification. People get rich from concentration.
Understanding everything there is to know about a single idea and concentrating your attention and focus on it is a huge factor in getting wealthy. If you’re right, it can take you from a zero to a hero almost overnight. Concentration will get you rich; diversification will keep you rich.
Markets change and cycle. I don’t know anybody who got rich purely in the stock market. I know people who worked for successful companies and were granted stock options, and those options grew to millions in value. But they understood their company and its wealth in a concentrated way. Competitors in your field, however, will come along and chisel away at parts of your company’s value over time, so to keep your wealth, that’s when you should start to diversify.
One area where it pays to stay concentrated is real estate. Some people have their whole portfolio in owning real estate. It will always be appealing because real estate does three things: It appreciates in value over time, there are tax efficiencies associated with owning real estate, and it also generates cash flow.
The more you have, the more there is to lose. It takes years, decades, to build dream-come-true wealth, but not staying on top of it can quickly lead to financial nightmares. We all make mistakes, even the wealthiest and seemingly smartest among us, and to protect and grow their wealth, it’s important to be open to education and collaboration, just as they were when building it.
This article is subject to the disclaimers found here.
Critical Minerals Committee Established by California State Mining and Geology Board
On May 15, 2025, the California State Mining and Geology Board voted to establish the Critical Minerals Committee. The committee was established by a unanimous 9-0 vote.
According to the board’s agenda materials, the “new committee will represent the state’s interests by evaluating current regulations, critical minerals conservation and availability, vulnerabilities and consider interested parties, and as needed, make recommendations for consideration by the Board.” The committee will consider potential modifications to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and the board’s Mineral Classification and Designation Guidelines.
The board’s action was followed by a presentation from California Geological Survey (CGS) Director and State Geologist, Jeremy Lancaster. His presentation materials outlined the significant amount of critical materials that California will need to achieve its clean energy goals. Director Lancaster explained the steps currently being taken by CGS to map California’s extensive critical materials deposits.
The board’s action follows a December 2024 presentation by Hunton partner Martin Stratte in which he discussed the reasons California should consider increasing its production of critical minerals to help strengthen domestic supply chains. Stratte also encouraged the board to consider whether the state’s Metallic Mining Backfill Regulations are inconsistent with its clean energy goals by having a chilling effect on the production of critical minerals.
As explained by Director Lancaster, many critical minerals are metallic minerals. California is the only state in the country to mandate the backfilling of open pits developed to mine metallic minerals. In short, the regulations seek to require that all materials taken out of a metallic mine pit be placed back into the pit during reclamation.
The state’s backfill regulations apply to the metallic minerals listed below. The demand for many of these minerals has increased greatly since the state’s enactment of the backfill regulations approximately 20 years ago.
Precious metals (gold, silver, platinum)
Iron
Nickel
Copper
Lead
Tin
Ferro-alloy metals (tungsten, chromium, manganese)
Mercury
Uranium and thorium
Minor metals including rubidium, strontium, and cesium
Niobium and tantalum
For more information about California’s critical minerals deposits, see CGS Note 58.