Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

US Tax Disputes

Keeping an eye on US tax controversy and litigation developments.

open menu close menu

US Tax Disputes

  • Home
  • About us
  • Property Tax
  • State and Local (Subnational) Taxation

Sixty Days or Three and a Half Years? The IRS Can’t Seem to Decide How Long the COVID-19 Relief Period Lasted

By Michelle Levin and Ryder Winborn
November 10, 2026
  • General
  • IRS
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

Section 7508A(d), as in effect in 2020, provided a mandatory postponement of certain time-sensitive acts for qualified taxpayers affected by a federally declared disaster. Because the COVID-19 disaster declarations covered the entire country, every taxpayer was potentially eligible. The question that has generated a wave of Form 843 claims is simple: how long did the COVID-19 postponement period last? On that question, the IRS has given two incompatible answers.

The IRS’s Official Position: 60 Days

In Abdo v. Commissioner, 162 T.C. 148 (2024), the Tax Court held that former section 7508A(d) provided an automatic and mandatory postponement beginning January 20, 2020. The IRS did not appeal. Instead, in its Action on Decision, the IRS acquiesced “only to the Tax Court’s holding that the COVID-19 disaster declarations created a mandatory 60-day postponement period from January 20, 2020, to March 20, 2020,” and expressly declined to acquiesce in “an interpretation that would result in any further postponement beyond the 60 days provided by the Tax Court in Abdo.”[1] The IRS Independent Office of Appeals has adopted the same 60-day view.[2]

That position is consistent with the government’s litigating posture in Kwong v. United States, 179 Fed. Cl. 382 (2025), in which the Court of Federal Claims held that the mandatory relief period ran from January 20, 2020, through July 10, 2023 — 60 days after the COVID-19 emergency ended on May 11, 2023. The government has appealed that decision.

What the IRS Is Telling Taxpayers: Through July 10, 2023

The IRS’s letters to taxpayers tell a different story. In responding to Kwong claims, the IRS has repeatedly described the relief period as extending through July 10, 2023 — the very period it refused to accept in its acquiescence. A September 28, 2026, Letter 916C states that “[r]elief applies only to qualifying penalties and interest for the period Jan. 20, 2020, through Jul. 10, 2023.”[3] (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. IRS Letter 916C (Sept. 28, 2026), tax year 2017: relief applies to “the period Jan. 20, 2020, through Jul. 10, 2023.” Identifying information redacted by the authors.

A September 2, 2026, notice of claim disallowance (Letter 105C) likewise refers to a “target timeframe of March 20, 2020, through July 10, 2023.”[4] (See Figure 2.) That letter not only adopts the July 10, 2023, end date but also uses a different start date — March 20, 2020, which is the date the IRS says the relief period ended.

Figure 2. IRS Letter 105C (Sept. 2, 2026), tax year 2016: amounts “assessed outside of the target timeframe of March 20, 2020, through July 10, 2023.” Identifying information redacted by the authors.

The IRS Does Not Appear to Know What Its Position Is

These positions cannot be reconciled. In its acquiescence, the IRS views the COVID-19 emergency postponement period as lasting only 60 days, from January 20 to March 20, 2020. In its communications to taxpayers, the IRS says the period for relief extends through July 10, 2023. Both cannot be right, and the IRS does not appear to know what its position is.

The confusion has consequences. Taxpayers reading these letters would reasonably conclude that the IRS accepts a relief period running through July 10, 2023, and that their claims were denied only because their particular penalties or interest fell outside it. Yet the IRS’s published position rejects any relief beyond March 20, 2020. Taxpayers are entitled to know the rule the IRS is actually applying. Until the IRS says which period it recognizes — and applies that period consistently — practitioners should preserve their clients’ claims, request that claims be held pending the outcome of the Kwong appeal, and calendar refund-suit deadlines conservatively.

These letters are just a fraction of the inconsistent positions we have seen the IRS take when it comes to availability of the mandatory 7508A(d) suspension period for the COVID pandemic.  In a more comprehensive article, we describe the plethora of inconsistent and contradictory responses taxpayers who are claiming this relief have received from the IRS.


[1]AOD 2026-1, 2026-23 I.R.B. 1556 (June 1, 2026).

[2]IRS Independent Office of Appeals, Memorandum AP-08-0626-0016 (2026).

[3]IRS Letter 916C to Taxpayer C (Sept. 28, 2026) (tax year 2017) (on file with authors).

[4]IRS Letter 105C to Taxpayer E (Sept. 2, 2026) (tax year 2016) (on file with authors).

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Covid-19, IRS
Michelle Levin

About Michelle Levin

Michelle Abroms Levin is a shareholder in Dentons Sirote’s Huntsville office, where she is a member of the Tax practice group. She represents clients during all phases of federal income tax controversies, including IRS audit, administrative appeals, and court proceedings in the U.S. Tax Court, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, federal district court and the Courts of Appeals. Michelle has secured major victories for her clients in the Eleventh Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and Tax Court, elevating important Administrative Procedure Act issues in the tax controversy context. Her experience includes a wide range of complex tax issues. Michelle also counsels clients in tax and business planning. She works with clients to structure transactions in a manner that maximizes tax benefits, reduces risk, and complies with tax law at local, state, and federal levels. Michelle has also been elected as a Fellow of the American College of Tax Counsel.

All posts Full bio

Ryder Winborn

About Ryder Winborn

Ryder Winborn is an associate in Dentons Sirote's Birmingham office. He is a member of the Tax Practice group and part of the Tax Controversy team, where he focuses on tax controversy and tax litigation, helping clients through complex tax-related issues. Ryder earned his JD from The University of Alabama School of Law, where he also completed an LLM in Taxation with the distinction of graduating magna cum laude. During his studies, he served as a senior editor for The Journal of the Legal Profession and was actively involved with the Business Law Society. Additionally, he served as a student attorney with the Entrepreneurship & Nonprofit Clinic (E-Clinic). His academic excellence was also highlighted by his achievement of the highest grade in International Business Transactions. Prior to law school, Winborn attained his BBA in Accounting from the University of North Alabama, graduating summa cum laude.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • General
  • State and Local Taxation

Indiana Tax Developments – Spring 2022

By Mark A. Loyd, Jeffrey T. Bennett, Bradley Hasler, Stephanie Bruns, and Bailey Roese
  • General
  • State and Local Taxation

New Year, New Taxes: Kentucky Sales and Use Tax Expands to More Services

By Mark A. Loyd, Bailey Roese, and Stephanie Bruns
  • General
  • State and Local Taxation

Maine Tax Developments: Fall 2024

By Zack Brandwein

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

Additional resources

Visit our Global tax guide to doing business in... 2024.

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2026 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site