Huang v. United States — May 28, 2025

Millions of Americans use tax preparation software to prepare their income tax returns.

But what happens when the software gives you incorrect advice, you follow that advice, and the IRS imposes a substantial penalty?

Should you have to pay the penalty even though you believed you were doing everything correctly?

That is the question raised in a 2025 federal court case, Huang v. United States.

1. What Happened?

Jiaxing Huang received money as gifts from her parents, who lived outside the United States.

She used TurboTax to prepare her taxes.

According to Huang, the software advised her that a person receiving a gift did not need to report it because reporting was the responsibility of the person giving the gift.

She followed that advice.

But there was a problem.

Under federal tax law, a U.S. person who receives more than $100,000 in gifts from foreign individuals during a year generally must report those gifts to the IRS on Form 3520, even though the gifts themselves generally are not taxable income.

Huang did not file the required forms on time.

When she discovered the requirement, she promptly filed the missing forms.

Nevertheless, the IRS imposed approximately $91,000 in penalties.

After additional proceedings and adjustments, approximately $36,500 in penalties remained.

Huang paid the remaining penalties and went to federal court seeking a refund.

2. The Important Difference: Tax-Free Does Not Always Mean Reporting-Free

Many taxpayers assume that if money is not taxable, they do not have to tell the IRS about it.

That is not always correct.

Consider this simple example:

The lesson is simple:

You can owe no income tax on a gift and still face substantial penalties for failing to report it.

3. What Did the Taxpayer Argue?

Huang did not dispute that the forms had been filed late.

Instead, she argued that she had a reasonable explanation for the failure.

Her position was essentially:

“I used tax preparation software, followed the instructions it gave me, and corrected the mistake as soon as I discovered it.”

Federal tax law permits relief from certain penalties when the taxpayer establishes reasonable cause.

In ordinary language, reasonable cause means that the taxpayer had a legally sufficient explanation for the failure, considering the particular facts and circumstances.

4. What Did the Federal Court Decide?

On May 28, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Huang’s reasonable-cause claim could proceed.

The court considered several important circumstances that Huang alleged:

• Incorrect advice: TurboTax allegedly affirmatively advised her that she did not need to report the gifts.
• Lack of specialized knowledge: She was unfamiliar with the foreign-gift reporting rules.
• Complex tax requirements: The reporting obligation was not necessarily obvious to an ordinary taxpayer.
• Prompt correction: She filed the missing forms after discovering the requirement.

The court concluded that these allegations, if proven, could support a reasonable-cause defense.

But there is an important limitation.

The court did not decide that Huang was entitled to have her penalties cancelled.

It decided only that her allegations were sufficient for her reasonable-cause claim to continue in court.

5. Does This Mean Tax Software Mistakes Automatically Excuse IRS Penalties?

No.

There is an important difference between these two situations:

Neither situation automatically eliminates an IRS penalty.

The taxpayer’s actions, the information available, the nature of the mistake, and the efforts made to correct it can all matter.

6. What Should Taxpayers Learn From This Case?

The practical lessons are straightforward.

First: Do not assume that money is exempt from IRS reporting merely because it is not taxable income.

Second: Tax preparation software can be useful, but it may not identify every specialized filing requirement.

Third: If you discover a reporting mistake, investigate and correct it promptly. Delaying correction can make a penalty dispute more difficult.

Fourth: If the IRS imposes a penalty, do not automatically assume that the penalty is legally unavoidable. Depending on the circumstances, a reasonable-cause defense may be available.

7. Why Having Both a CPA and Tax Attorney Can Matter

As both a CPA and Tax Attorney, I approach IRS penalty disputes from two perspectives.

As a CPA, I can examine the underlying tax reporting requirements, determine what should have been filed, and analyze how the mistake occurred.

As a Tax Attorney, I can evaluate whether the facts support a legal defense, examine the applicable tax law, and represent taxpayers in appropriate IRS administrative proceedings and federal tax litigation, subject to applicable court requirements.

A significant IRS penalty is not necessarily the end of the matter.

The important question is whether the penalty is legally justified under the taxpayer’s particular circumstances.

The Bottom Line

Huang v. United States teaches that a taxpayer who follows incorrect tax-software advice may have a reasonable-cause defense against IRS penalties.

But the taxpayer must establish that defense. Simply blaming the software is not enough.

The federal court allowed Huang to pursue her claim. It did not issue a final ruling cancelling her penalties.

For taxpayers facing significant IRS penalties, the distinction can be extremely important.

Case Reference: Huang v. United States, No. 24-cv-06298-RS (N.D. Cal., May 28, 2025).

Stay Connected

Follow Leon Nazarian, CPA, JD on Facebook for educational articles about federal income taxes, IRS penalties, IRS audits, IRS Appeals, and United States Tax Court matters.

This article is for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal or tax advice. The availability of reasonable-cause relief depends on the applicable law and the specific facts of each case.

If you are an individual taxpayer who receives a lawsuit settlement, part of that settlement may go directly to your attorney.

But for tax purposes, the amount you actually put in your pocket is not necessarily the amount that matters.

A 2025 U.S. Tax Court case, Mennemeyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-80, shows why.

The issue becomes much easier to understand if we ask two questions, in order.

Question #1: Is the Settlement Itself Taxable?

Before worrying about attorney fees, determine whether the settlement itself is taxable.

Settlement proceeds that may be nontaxable

Certain compensatory damages received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness may be excluded from taxable income.

Examples may include qualifying compensatory damages arising from:

• Physical injuries from a car accident;
• Physical injuries caused by medical malpractice;
• Physical injuries resulting from an assault; or
• Physical injuries from a slip-and-fall accident.

Settlement proceeds that are generally taxable

Examples may include:

• Lost wages or back pay;
• Employment discrimination damages representing taxable economic or nonphysical damages;
• Defamation damages;
• Emotional-distress damages not attributable to physical injury or physical sickness; and
• Punitive damages.

So our first question is simple:

Is the settlement taxable?

If the answer is yes, we proceed to Question #2.

Question #2: If the Settlement Is Taxable, Can You Deduct the Attorney Fees?

Now assume that both individuals have taxable settlements.

We will compare two specific taxable claims:

Why does that distinction matter?

Let’s put numbers on it.

Two Individuals — Same Settlement, Same Attorney Fee, Different Tax Result

Assume each individual receives a $500,000 taxable settlement.

Each pays $175,000 to an attorney.

Each therefore actually receives only $325,000.

*Assuming all applicable statutory requirements are satisfied.

The difference is substantial.

Both individuals received only $325,000.

But the individual in Column #1 has $325,000 remaining taxable after the special attorney-fee deduction.

The individual in Column #2 received the same $325,000 in cash but may have the entire $500,000 taxable, because the $175,000 paid to the attorney does not qualify for this special deduction.

What Did the Tax Court Decide in Mennemeyer?

Adrienne Mennemeyer received a $1.51 million settlement arising from claims connected with her former employment. Of that amount, $512,534 went to her attorneys.

The Tax Court essentially worked through the same two questions.

Question #1 — Was the settlement taxable?

Yes. The settlement was not shown to have been paid on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness. The settlement therefore did not qualify for that exclusion from income.

Question #2 — Could the attorney fees qualify for the special deduction?

Yes. The Tax Court concluded that Mennemeyer’s employment-related claims fell within the statutory provisions covering certain claims involving the employment relationship.

That meant the attorney fees could be considered for the special deduction in determining her tax liability.

The Practical Lesson

Mennemeyer demonstrates that an individual receiving a lawsuit settlement should ask two separate tax questions:

1. Is my settlement taxable?

And, if it is:

2. Can I deduct the attorney fees?

Those are different questions.

Two individuals can have the same $500,000 taxable settlement, pay the same $175,000 attorney fee, and receive the same $325,000 in cash—yet potentially have very different amounts remaining taxable because their underlying legal claims are different.

For a substantial settlement, these tax issues should ideally be considered before the settlement agreement is signed, not for the first time when the tax return is being prepared.

As both a CPA and Tax Attorney, I can analyze both sides of a settlement-tax issue: the proper tax treatment and reporting of the settlement and the legal authorities supporting that treatment if the IRS later questions the taxpayer’s position.

Stay Connected

Follow Leon Nazarian, CPA, JD on Facebook for educational information concerning federal taxation, IRS audits, IRS Appeals, tax controversies, and United States Tax Court matters.

This article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. The taxation of settlement proceeds and attorney fees depends on the underlying claims, settlement language, allocation of damages, fee arrangement, and other facts and circumstances.