I have two questions: First, does Notice 2019-7 teach us to be careful what we ask for? Second, is the notice a hammer in search of a nail?

Background – In a very business friendly transitional guidance (Notice 2018-76) on the deductibility of business meals, the IRS has announced that taxpayers generally may continue to deduct the food and beverage expenses associated with operating their trade or business. Under this notice, taxpayers may deduct 50 percent of an otherwise allowable business meal expense if:

We knew it was coming, and it's been confirmed: Loving is living, alive and well. You will, no doubt, recall that the D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in the celebrated 2014 decision Loving v. I.R.S., 742 F.3d 1013, 1015, 408 U.S. App. D.C. 281 (D.C. Cir. 2014), affirmed the Federal District Court ruling that Circular 230—the venerated Holy Grail of tax representation regulations—shockingly does NOT grant the Treasury Department/IRS the authority to regulate tax return preparation. Circular 230 does give the Treasury and the IRS, its subordinate agency, the authority to “regulate the practice of representatives of persons before the Department of the Treasury,” but tax preparation is not representation. The Appeals Court for Loving stated it this way: “…tax-return preparers do not practice before the IRS when they simply assist in the preparation of someone else's tax return.” The Court, however, left unanswered questions regarding just how wide and how limited Loving's reach is.

This raises a unique question related to the decline in value of the homes in the Porter Ranch community. Is there a case for them to claim a tax-deductible casualty loss due to diminished value?