Category: Tax Law

Trump accounts opened for contributions on July 4, 2026, and the first employer contribution programs are being drafted now. On August 11, 2026, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations that answer most of the questions New Mexico employers have been asking: what the plan document must say, whether the company can steer money to a preferred trustee, how the contributions hit payroll, and which owners can’t participate. That last answer is the one that matters most in a state where the typical employer is a family-owned S corporation. The proposed rules also deliver something benefits lawyers have wanted for four decades: the first regulatory nondiscrimination guidance for dependent care assistance programs, which will change how existing plans are tested.

What are Trump accounts, and where do employer contributions fit?

The 2025 reconciliation act added 26 U.S.C. § 530A, creating a tax-favored account for children under 18 that accepts up to $5,000 a year in total contributions, invested in low-cost U.S. equity index funds, with no distributions before the beneficiary turns 18 and IRA-style treatment afterward. Children born from 2025 through 2028 receive a one-time $1,000 federal deposit under § 6434, claimed on Form 4547. Employers can contribute through a program under 26 U.S.C. § 128, which excludes up to $2,500 a year per employee from the employee’s income, either as an employer-funded benefit or through pre-tax salary reduction under a cafeteria plan. Private money is arriving too: the Dell family pledged $250 for every child ten and under in ZIP codes with median household income of $150,000 or less, and deposits were reported to begin this month. Because that threshold captures essentially every ZIP code in New Mexico, most children in the state under ten now have or will have a funded account, which makes an employer match a benefit employees can see growing.

What do the proposed regulations require of an employer program?

The notice of proposed rulemaking, REG-101355-26, 91 Fed. Reg. 51611 (Aug. 11, 2026), requires a separate written plan that identifies eligible employee classes, states the contribution rules and whether salary reduction is permitted, describes how employees designate the destination account, sets the plan year, and includes notice, certification, and correction procedures. An employer may not limit contributions to accounts held by a particular trustee; employees choose. The employer must give eligible employees reasonable notice of the program, may rely on an employee’s written certification that the beneficiary is an eligible child, but must verify through the trustee or a payroll provider that the destination is actually a Trump account. Contributions are reported on Form W-2 in Box 12 with Code TA, and that reporting satisfies the annual statement requirement. The $2,500 limit is per employee, not per child, and it aggregates across all employers; the employer polices only its own program, and any excess is taxable wages. Contributions are exempt from income tax withholding but remain subject to FICA and FUTA. Salary reduction is allowed only for contributions to a dependent’s account, not the employee’s own, and unlike most cafeteria plan elections it must be changeable at least monthly. If a contribution later turns out to be ineligible, the employer must notify the trustee within a reasonable period, with 21 days deemed reasonable. Employers may rely on the proposed rules now.

Which New Mexico owners and families are excluded?

Only common-law employees may participate. Partners in a partnership and shareholders who own more than two percent of an S corporation are self-employed for this purpose and can’t receive program contributions for their own children, the same rule that already governs their health insurance and dependent care benefits. In New Mexico, where most closely held businesses with employees are S corporations or LLCs taxed as partnerships, that means the owner who adopts the program usually can’t use it for her own family, though her employees can, and the attribution rules extend the exclusion to the owner’s spouse and certain relatives on payroll. A C corporation owner-employee is a common-law employee and can participate, which is one more factor in the entity-choice analysis for a family business considering a benefits build-out. On the employee side, the beneficiary must be an eligible child with a Social Security number, and the certification the employer collects should say so.

How do the nondiscrimination tests work for a small employer?

A program must pass three tests modeled on the dependent care rules in 26 U.S.C. § 129(d). Contributions and benefits can’t favor highly compensated employees, a test a program passes automatically if it offers the same benefit on the same terms to everyone eligible. The eligibility classification must be reasonable and nondiscriminatory, with a safe harbor where the non-highly compensated participation percentage is at least 90 percent of the highly compensated percentage and a sliding scale below that. And the average benefit provided to non-highly compensated employees must be at least 55 percent of the average provided to the highly compensated group, which is where salary-reduction-only programs fail when only the higher-paid staff elect to defer. A matching contribution of the $1,000 federal pilot deposit is excluded from the first and third tests but not the eligibility test. The same rulemaking proposes the first regulations ever issued under § 129(d), including the rule that no more than 25 percent of dependent care benefits may go to owners of more than five percent of the business. New Mexico employers with existing dependent care plans should expect their administrators to retest under the new framework, particularly now that the dependent care exclusion rose to $7,500 for 2026.

What does a contribution cost, and what does it save in New Mexico?

Take an Albuquerque dental practice organized as an S corporation with twelve employees, four of whom have children under 18, that decides to contribute $2,500 a year for each eligible child’s parent. The practice’s cost is $10,000 plus the employer share of FICA, about $765, plus a small FUTA amount. Each participating employee excludes $2,500 from federal income tax, saving $550 at a 22 percent rate, and because New Mexico personal income tax starts from federal adjusted gross income and the state has adopted no decoupling provision, the exclusion carries through to the state return, saving another $122 or so at New Mexico’s 4.9 percent rate. Compared with a $2,500 cash bonus, the employee nets roughly $670 more in value and the employer pays the same FICA either way. The owner’s own three children get nothing from the program, but the owner can still contribute up to $5,000 per child directly with after-tax dollars, and New Mexico separately allows a state income tax deduction for contributions to its own 529 plan, The Education Plan, which for an owner’s family may be the better first dollar. Program contributions to a Trump account count toward the child’s $5,000 annual cap, so families with an employer match and their own contributions need to coordinate.

Should a New Mexico small business adopt a program this year?

For an employer with a young workforce, the economics are favorable and the administrative load is modest once the payroll vendor supports Code TA and multi-trustee remittance. The cautions are practical. Comments on the proposed regulations are due September 25, 2026, with a hearing October 15, and while reliance is permitted, final rules could adjust the certification and verification duties. A program that permits salary reduction requires a cafeteria plan amendment describing the benefit and its monthly election rule. The nondiscrimination tests punish programs that only the front office uses, so an employer-funded flat contribution is safer than a deferral-only design. And every owner should confirm entity type before promising the benefit to her own family, because the two percent S corporation rule has disappointed a great many New Mexico business owners on health insurance already.

Feature	Trump account employer program (§ 128)	Dependent care assistance (§ 129)	New Mexico 529 (The Education Plan)
Annual exclusion or benefit	$2,500 per employee, income tax only	$7,500 for 2026, income and FICA	No federal exclusion; NM state deduction for contributions
Owner participation (S corp 2%+, partners)	Excluded	Excluded	Anyone may contribute
Nondiscrimination testing	Three tests, 55% average benefits	Same tests plus 25% owner-concentration	None
Salary reduction permitted	Dependents’ accounts only, monthly elections	Yes, annual election	Payroll deduction, after tax
Payroll reporting	W-2 Box 12 Code TA	W-2 Box 10	None

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an S corporation owner contribute to her own children’s Trump accounts through the company program?

Not through the § 128 program if she owns more than two percent of the S corporation; she’s treated as self-employed. She can contribute directly with after-tax dollars up to the child’s $5,000 annual limit.

Are employer Trump account contributions subject to payroll tax?

They’re excluded from federal income tax up to $2,500 per employee, but FICA and FUTA still apply, and the employer must report them on Form W-2 in Box 12 with Code TA.

Does New Mexico tax employer Trump account contributions?

No. New Mexico personal income tax starts from federal adjusted gross income, so an amount excluded federally under § 128 is excluded for New Mexico purposes as well.

Can the employer require employees to use a particular trustee?

No. Under the proposed regulations a program fails if it steers contributions to one trustee. Employees choose the account, and the employer verifies it’s a valid Trump account.

What happens if only higher-paid employees participate?

The program can fail the 55 percent average benefits test, which makes the exclusion unavailable to the highly compensated group. An employer-funded contribution offered equally to all eligible employees avoids the problem.

Can an employer rely on the proposed regulations before they’re final?

Yes. The preamble permits reliance on the proposed rules pending final regulations. Comments are due September 25, 2026.

How North Star Law Firm Can Help

North Star Law Firm advises New Mexico small businesses on employee benefit design, entity structure, and the payroll tax and reporting consequences of new federal programs, and represents employers when the IRS questions how a benefit was administered. Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, represents taxpayers before the IRS and the U.S. Tax Court and brings a CPA’s view to the cost, testing, and reporting questions that decide whether a benefit is worth offering. The firm’s tax law practice handles benefit and compensation planning, its entity selection practice addresses the S corporation and partnership rules that determine owner eligibility, and its trust and estate practice helps families coordinate Trump accounts, 529 plans, and gifts to children. Contact North Star Law Firm before adopting a plan document, because the design choices made now determine whether the program passes its first test.

New Mexico’s clean energy build-out has handed its contractors a tax liability most of them never signed up for. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, a project owner’s federal credit is five times larger if every laborer and mechanic on the job was paid Davis-Bacon prevailing wages and a set share of the hours went to registered apprentices. The owner claims the credit, but the contractor controls the payroll, so owners push the obligation and the indemnity down the chain. With wind and solar deadlines now compressed into the next fifteen months, the pressure on New Mexico crews is about to peak, and the penalty math is severe enough to end a mid-sized contractor.

Why is 2026 through 2027 the pressure window in New Mexico?

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21, rewrote the clean electricity credits in 26 U.S.C. § 45Y and § 48E so that wind and solar facilities placed in service after December 31, 2027 receive no credit unless construction began on or before July 4, 2026. Every New Mexico wind and solar project that made the July deadline is racing to finish by the end of next year, and every one is claiming the full five-times credit, which means compliance on every hour of construction. Storage, geothermal, and nuclear projects have longer runways, with phase-downs starting for construction that begins in 2034, and the state’s Energy Transition Act targets of 50 percent renewable by 2030 and 80 percent by 2040 assure a long pipeline. The SunZia wind project, 3,650 megawatts across San Miguel, Lincoln, and Torrance counties, reached commercial operation in June 2026 and will be audited for years. One complication for begin-construction dates: the IRS notice that had eliminated the five percent safe harbor for larger projects, Notice 2025-42, was vacated by a federal district court in June 2026, so contractors should get the owner’s written position on when construction began rather than assume it.

What do the prevailing wage rules require?

Under 26 U.S.C. § 45(b)(7) and its parallels, every laborer and mechanic employed by the owner, the contractor, or any subcontractor in the construction of the facility, and in alteration or repair during the first ten years of operation, must be paid at least the prevailing wage the Department of Labor has determined for the classification and the locality. The rates come from the wage determinations posted on sam.gov by county and construction type; a project spanning counties may need more than one. When a classification doesn’t exist, which happens constantly for wind technicians and battery installers, the contractor requests a supplemental determination from the Department of Labor, which under the IRS’s July 2026 guidance must be requested no more than 90 days before the contract is executed and is valid for 180 days. The regime is enforced by the IRS through the owner’s return, not by the Department of Labor, and it’s distinct from New Mexico’s own Public Works Minimum Wage Act, NMSA 1978 § 13-4-11, which applies to state and local government projects over $60,000 and uses rates set by the Department of Workforce Solutions. A municipal utility that takes elective pay on a solar array it also funds with state money faces both regimes and pays the higher rate for each classification.

What does a wage mistake cost?

The cure provisions in § 45(b)(7)(B) and Treas. Reg. § 1.45-7 preserve the credit if the owner pays each underpaid worker the shortfall plus interest at the federal underpayment rate increased by six percentage points, and pays the IRS a penalty of $5,000 per affected worker. For intentional disregard the shortfall is trebled and the per-worker penalty rises to $10,000. Consider a Roswell electrical subcontractor with 60 workers in one classification underpaid by $2 an hour for 1,000 hours each over two quarters. Back wages are $120,000, interest at roughly 13 percent accrues, and the penalty is $300,000, most of which the owner’s indemnity will send back to the subcontractor. Two regulatory safe harbors change that outcome. Under § 1.45-7(c)(6), the penalty is waived if the correction is paid by the last day of the first month after the quarter ends and either the underpayment affected no more than 10 percent of pay periods or the shortfall was under 5 percent of required wages. And under § 1.45-7(c)(3)(v), correcting and paying the penalty before receiving an IRS examination notice creates a rebuttable presumption that the error wasn’t intentional. The lesson is quarterly self-audits with a correction procedure that runs in weeks, because the alternative is an IRS finding years later and a 180-day payment window under § 1.45-7(c)(4).

How does the apprenticeship rule work in rural New Mexico?

Section 45(b)(8) requires that at least 15 percent of total labor hours on facilities that began construction after 2023 be performed by qualified apprentices from registered programs, that the applicable apprentice-to-journeyworker ratio be met each day, and that any contractor or subcontractor with four or more employees on the job employ at least one apprentice. The penalty for a shortfall is $50 per missing labor hour, or $500 if intentional. On a 100,000-hour project, a 5,000-hour shortfall is $250,000. The good-faith effort exception is what makes the rule workable in Catron, Union, or Hidalgo counties, where no registered program may operate. Under Treas. Reg. § 1.45-8, a written request to a registered program at least 45 days before the work, followed by a denial or by no response within five business days, satisfies the requirement for 365 days, after which the request must be renewed. Requests should go to programs listed with the state apprenticeship office at the Department of Workforce Solutions, and the proof should be kept. The exception is a paperwork defense, lost by contractors who couldn’t find apprentices and never asked.

How do tribal projects fit in?

Indian tribal governments, their subdivisions, and, under regulations finalized in December 2025, wholly tribally owned entities and Section 17 corporations can claim the credits as direct payments under 26 U.S.C. § 6417, which has made solar and storage projects on pueblo and Navajo Nation land some of the most active in the state. The prevailing wage and apprenticeship rules apply to elective-pay claimants exactly as they apply to taxable owners, and the five-times multiplier is the same. The practical problem is that the Department of Labor publishes wage determinations by county, not by reservation, so a project at Zuni uses the McKinley County determination and a Navajo Nation project may need supplemental determinations for classifications the county rate doesn’t cover. Tribal employment preference laws and TERO fees sit on top of the federal rules rather than replacing them, and tribal apprenticeship programs count only if registered with the Department of Labor or a recognized state agency, which contractors should confirm before counting the hours.

What belongs in the subcontract?

Three things. First, a defined compliance scope: which wage determination governs, who requests supplemental determinations, how apprenticeship hours are allocated among tiers, and who bears another subcontractor’s shortfall. Second, a records clause tracking Treas. Reg. § 1.45-12: certified payrolls, classifications, hours, fringe calculations, apprenticeship agreements, and good-faith requests, retained for the owner’s full limitations period, because the owner certifies compliance on Form 7220 with its return and the IRS may not look at the project for years. Third, a negotiated indemnity. The owner’s exposure on a $200 million project is the difference between a 6 percent and a 30 percent credit, or $48 million, and an uncapped flow-down of that number to a subcontractor with $3 million in annual revenue is a bankruptcy waiting to happen. A cap tied to the subcontract price, a carve-out for errors promptly cured under the safe harbors, and an owner’s duty to give notice of any IRS inquiry in time to use the 180-day window are reasonable asks, and owners who need experienced New Mexico crews on a 2027 deadline are inclined to grant them.

Failure	Cure or penalty	Safe harbor
Wage underpayment	Back pay plus interest at underpayment rate + 6 points; $5,000 per worker to IRS	Penalty waived if corrected by end of month after quarter and error is limited (§ 1.45-7(c)(6))
Intentional wage underpayment	Three times shortfall; $10,000 per worker	Presumption of no intent if corrected before exam notice (§ 1.45-7(c)(3)(v))
Apprentice labor-hour shortfall	$50 per missing hour; $500 if intentional	Good-faith request denied or unanswered in 5 business days (§ 1.45-8)
Uncured failure after IRS determination	Loss of the five-times multiplier	Payment within 180 days of final determination (§ 1.45-7(c)(4))

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is liable if a subcontractor underpays prevailing wages on an IRA project?

Legally, the owner, whose credit shrinks. Contractually, whoever the indemnity names, usually the contractor and its subcontractors. IRS penalties are assessed on the owner and flowed down by contract.

What interest rate applies to prevailing wage corrections?

The federal underpayment rate under § 6621 plus six percentage points, which in 2026 puts the rate in the low teens.

Do the rules apply to projects owned by pueblos or the Navajo Nation?

Yes. Tribal governments and wholly owned tribal entities claiming elective pay under § 6417 must meet the same prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements to receive the five-times credit.

What if no registered apprenticeship program exists in the county?

Send a written request to a registered program at least 45 days before the work. A denial, or no response within five business days, satisfies the requirement for 365 days under Treas. Reg. § 1.45-8.

Does New Mexico’s Public Works Minimum Wage Act replace the federal rules?

No. It applies to state and local government projects over $60,000 and uses state-set rates. A project subject to both regimes must pay the higher rate for each classification and keep records for both.

How long should a contractor keep payroll records for an IRA project?

At least as long as the owner’s return remains open, and in practice through the ten-year operation period plus the limitations period, because alteration and repair work during operations is covered too.

How North Star Law Firm Can Help

North Star Law Firm advises New Mexico contractors, developers, and tribal entities on prevailing wage and apprenticeship compliance, subcontract risk allocation, elective pay and transferability, and the IRS examinations that follow a claimed credit. Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, represents taxpayers before the IRS and the U.S. Tax Court and brings a CPA’s discipline to the certified payroll, classification, and labor-hour reconciliations that decide whether the five-times credit survives. The firm’s tax law practice covers credit planning and compliance, its audit defense practice handles examinations of claimed credits, and its business structuring practice addresses how project entities and contractors allocate the risk. Contact North Star Law Firm before signing the flow-down, because the indemnity you accept today is the audit you defend in 2030.

New Mexico workers put in a lot of overtime. Permian Basin crews in Lea and Eddy counties, hospital staff in Albuquerque, and line workers at the state’s food processors routinely clear fifty-hour weeks, and many of them expected the federal deduction for overtime pay to show up as a bigger refund next spring. Whether it does now depends on a single entry on the W-2 their employer files, and the IRS’s revised guidance, Fact Sheet FS-2026-13 (Aug. 6, 2026), makes that entry a hard ceiling. New Mexico employers have a second layer to sort through, because the state’s own overtime law doesn’t line up with the federal one, and New Mexico workers have a third surprise waiting: the state income tax return gives them nothing.

What did the IRS change in August?

The deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 225 allows up to $12,500 of qualified overtime compensation ($25,000 on a joint return) to be deducted for tax years 2025 through 2028, phasing out above $150,000 of modified adjusted gross income ($300,000 joint). For 2025, the IRS let employees reconstruct the figure from pay stubs. Beginning with 2026 wages, FAQs 20 through 23 of the revised fact sheet say the employee may deduct only what was actually paid as qualified overtime and reported in Form W-2, Box 12, Code TT, whichever is less. An understated W-2 caps the deduction until the employer issues a Form W-2c, and the substitute Form 4852 doesn’t cure the problem. FAQ 11 requires the employer to correct errors as soon as possible or face penalties under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6721 and 6722. Withholding doesn’t drop automatically; the employee must file a new Form W-4 using Step 4(b). And only the premium half of time-and-a-half counts, computed under Fair Labor Standards Act rules.

Which New Mexico overtime counts and which doesn’t?

This is where New Mexico employers face a problem Texas employers don’t. Under NMSA 1978 § 50-4-22(D), the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act requires time-and-a-half after forty hours in a seven-day week, and it applies to employers regardless of size. The FLSA’s enterprise coverage generally requires $500,000 in annual sales, so a small Taos restaurant, a Silver City auto shop, or a Clovis landscaper with $350,000 in revenue may owe overtime under state law that the FLSA never required. Section 225 counts only FLSA-required overtime, so that state-mandated premium isn’t qualified, and the employer shouldn’t report it in Code TT even though it’s paying it. The exemptions run in both directions. New Mexico’s statute excludes forepersons, superintendents, supervisors, and workers paid on commission, piecework, or flat rate under § 50-4-21(C), categories the FLSA treats differently, so a working foreman at an Albuquerque machine shop may be owed federal overtime that qualifies even though state law exempts him. Public employers are outside the state act entirely, and their employees commonly receive compensatory time under 29 U.S.C. § 207(o) rather than cash. Comp time isn’t overtime compensation paid, so state, county, and municipal workers who bank hours instead of dollars get no Code TT entry for them.

How does the calculation work for a Permian Basin crew?

Take a Carlsbad service-company hand at $28 an hour who works 60 hours in a week, receives a $600 weekly per diem while away from home, and earns a $250 weekly rig bonus tied to production. The FLSA regular rate is the week’s total pay spread over all hours worked; the nondiscretionary bonus goes in, while a reasonable per diem that reimburses expenses stays out. Straight-time pay is $1,680, the bonus adds $250, so the regular rate is $32.17, not $28. The qualified premium is 20 overtime hours times half of $32.17, or $321.67 for the week. A payroll system that ignores the bonus reports $280, and one that improperly folds the per diem into the regular rate reports $421.67 and hands the employee a deduction the IRS says he can’t take. Over a 45-week season the correct figure is about $14,475, which already exceeds the $12,500 cap for a single filer; the employer’s job is to get the number right, not to maximize it.

Will New Mexico honor the deduction on the state return?

No, and this catches almost everyone. New Mexico personal income tax starts from federal adjusted gross income. Under NMSA 1978 § 7-2-2, base income is federal AGI with adjustments, and net income is base income less either the federal standard deduction or federal itemized deductions as defined in § 63 of the Internal Revenue Code. The overtime deduction is neither. Congress placed it in § 63(b), alongside the standard deduction, and § 63(d) expressly excludes § 63(b) items from the definition of itemized deductions. It never reduces AGI, so it never enters the New Mexico computation. The Taxation and Revenue Department confirmed as much in its July 31, 2025 briefing to the Legislature, listing the overtime and tips deductions among the federal changes New Mexico doesn’t pick up. A bill to add a matching state deduction, House Bill 264, was introduced in the 2026 session and postponed indefinitely on February 2, 2026. For the Carlsbad hand above, the $12,500 federal deduction saves roughly $2,750 at a 22 percent federal rate, but his New Mexico tax, at rates that reach 4.9 percent in his bracket, is unchanged. Employers should say so plainly when employees ask, because the state refund won’t move.

What state-law tools do New Mexico employees have to check the number?

More than employees in most states. NMSA 1978 § 50-4-2(B) requires every pay statement to show gross pay, hours worked, total wages and benefits earned, and an itemized list of deductions. An employer that adds a separately stated overtime premium line to that receipt gives employees a running total to compare against Box 12 in January and gives itself a contemporaneous record if the IRS or the Department of Workforce Solutions asks. That matters because the state’s wage-claim remedies are severe: an employer that underpays wages owes the shortfall plus interest and an additional amount equal to twice the unpaid wages under § 50-4-26. A dispute that begins as a question about a tax form can end as a treble-damages wage claim if the underlying overtime was never paid, and the deduction gives every hourly employee a reason to look.

What should a New Mexico employer do before the 2026 W-2s?

Map the workforce into three groups: employees owed FLSA overtime, employees owed only state overtime, and employees exempt under both. Configure payroll to compute Code TT on the FLSA regular rate for the first group only, with bonuses and differentials included and reasonable per diems excluded. Add a premium line to the pay receipt. Write a correction procedure so that a January question about Box 12 produces a W-2c in weeks rather than a complaint in months. Confirm that any employee treated as an exempt supervisor meets the federal duties test and the $684 weekly salary floor, because New Mexico’s broader supervisor exclusion won’t protect the employer under federal law. And tell employees now that the deduction is federal only, that their withholding won’t change unless they file a new W-4, and that the state return will look the same as last year.

New Mexico worker	State overtime owed?	FLSA overtime owed?	Qualified for § 225?
Hourly hand, $2M-revenue oilfield service company	Yes	Yes	Yes, premium half on FLSA regular rate
Cook at a $350,000-revenue restaurant with no interstate commerce	Yes	Generally no	No; state-only overtime isn’t qualified
Working foreman, non-exempt under FLSA duties test	No (state exclusion)	Yes	Yes
County road crew member receiving comp time	Not covered	Yes, but paid in time	No, until comp time is cashed out as overtime pay
Commission salesperson at a retail store	No (state exclusion)	Depends on § 207(i)	Only if FLSA overtime is actually owed and paid

Frequently Asked Questions

Can New Mexico workers deduct overtime on their state income tax return?

No. New Mexico net income starts from federal AGI and subtracts only the federal standard or itemized deductions. The overtime deduction is a § 63(b) deduction that never reaches the state computation, and the 2026 bill to add a state version died in committee.

Does overtime required only by the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act qualify for the federal deduction?

No. Section 225 covers only overtime the Fair Labor Standards Act requires. Employers below the FLSA’s coverage thresholds that pay state-mandated overtime shouldn’t report it in Code TT.

What if my employer left Box 12, Code TT blank?

Starting with 2026 wages, the reported amount is the ceiling. The only fix is a corrected W-2c issued by the employer, since the IRS won’t accept a substitute Form 4852 for this purpose.

Do per diems increase the overtime premium?

A reasonable per diem that reimburses travel expenses is excluded from the FLSA regular rate. Nondiscretionary bonuses and shift differentials are included, which raises the premium and the Code TT figure.

Do public employees who receive comp time get the deduction?

Not for banked hours. Compensatory time isn’t overtime compensation paid, so nothing is reported until the time is paid out in cash as overtime.

What penalties does an employer face for a wrong Code TT amount?

Federal information return penalties, which shrink if the correction is prompt, plus the practical risk that an employee’s question uncovers unpaid overtime, which under New Mexico law carries double damages on top of the wages.

How North Star Law Firm Can Help

North Star Law Firm helps New Mexico employers sort out which overtime is federal, which is state-only, and what belongs in Box 12, and it stands with workers whose W-2s understate what they earned. Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, has spent years inside payroll systems as a CPA and represents taxpayers before the IRS and the U.S. Tax Court when reporting disputes turn into examinations. The firm’s tax law practice covers employment tax planning and compliance, its business structuring practice addresses the owner-manager questions that determine exemption status, and its audit defense practice steps in when the IRS questions a payroll. Contact North Star Law Firm to get the Code TT calculation right before year-end processing locks it in.

A Santa Fe gallery pays a sculptor in Oaxaca for a commissioned piece. An Albuquerque software firm brings on a developer in Warsaw as a contractor. A Las Cruces produce broker pays a Chihuahua trucking company for cross-border hauls. Each payment raises the same quiet question, and most small businesses answer it wrong or not at all: should this payee have given us a Form W-9 or a Form W-8, and were we supposed to withhold tax before sending the money? Get it right and the paperwork takes minutes. Get it wrong and the IRS can hold the New Mexico business liable for tax it never withheld from money it already paid out, plus penalties and interest. This evergreen corner of tax compliance deserves a permanent place in every onboarding checklist.

What are Forms W-9 and W-8, and who gives you which?

Both forms tell a payor how to handle reporting and withholding, and both certify the payee’s status. Form W-9 comes from U.S. persons: citizens, resident aliens, and entities organized in the United States, including a U.S. citizen freelancer living abroad, a status people routinely get wrong. It supplies the taxpayer identification number that feeds 1099 reporting. The W-8 family comes from foreign persons and does two jobs: it certifies non-U.S. status, and it is the vehicle for claiming exemptions or treaty rate reductions. The main variants are W-8BEN for foreign individuals, W-8BEN-E for foreign entities, W-8ECI for income effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business, W-8EXP for foreign governments and exempt organizations, and W-8IMY for intermediaries and flow-through entities. The payee picks the form; the payor’s job is to collect it before the first payment, review it for obvious defects, and keep it on file.

When must a New Mexico business withhold on payments to foreign payees?

The default rule is blunt. Payments of U.S.-source fixed or determinable annual or periodical income, the FDAP category that includes interest, dividends, rents, royalties, and compensation for services performed in the United States, made to a foreign person are generally subject to 30 percent withholding at the source under 26 U.S.C. § 1441. The payor withholds, deposits, and reports on Forms 1042 and 1042-S. Two big pressure valves exist. Income effectively connected with the payee’s U.S. business, certified on a W-8ECI, escapes the 30 percent regime because the payee will report it on a U.S. return. And tax treaties, which the United States maintains with more than 60 countries, can cut the rate on many income types, sometimes to zero, but only if the payee affirmatively claims the treaty on a valid form; individuals claiming treaty benefits on personal services compensation generally need Form 8233 rather than a W-8 alone. Source matters enormously: compensation for services is sourced where the services are performed, so paying a developer who works entirely from Poland is generally foreign-source income outside FDAP withholding, while flying the same developer to Albuquerque for a month changes the analysis.

What happens when no form is collected at all?

The code fills the silence with presumptions that favor the Treasury, never the payor. Miss a W-9 from a U.S. payee and backup withholding at 24 percent applies under 26 U.S.C. § 3406. Lack a valid W-8 from a foreign payee and the 30 percent rate applies with no treaty relief. The trap is that these are the payor’s liabilities: a business that should have withheld and did not can be assessed the uncollected tax itself, on top of penalties for unfiled 1042-S or 1099 reporting and, for treaty claims it accepted carelessly, exposure for under-withholding. The payee can often recover over-withheld amounts by filing a U.S. return, but the payor rarely recovers what it failed to withhold from someone an ocean away. In an audit, the examiner’s first request is simply the vendor file: no forms, no defense.

Which mistakes show up most in small-business vendor files?

Five patterns account for most of the damage. Treating every vendor as domestic because the invoice is in dollars and the English is fluent, so no one ever asks for a W-8. Accepting a W-9 from a foreign contractor who filled out the familiar-looking form by mistake, which misroutes the account into 1099 land and skips required withholding. Assuming treaty benefits apply automatically because the payee’s country has a treaty, when the payee never claimed it on a valid form, and never filed the Form 8233 that individual service providers need. Ignoring expiration, since W-8BEN forms generally lapse after the third full calendar year and a stale form is no form. And overlooking U.S. citizens abroad, who must give a W-9 no matter where they live, because citizenship, not address, controls U.S.-person status. Every one of these is cheap to fix at onboarding and expensive to fix in examination.

How should a New Mexico business build its onboarding process?

Make the tax form a gate, not an afterthought: no vendor gets paid until the right form is in the file. Ask every new payee for a W-9 or the appropriate W-8, and say plainly that foreign payees use W-8s, because many first-time foreign vendors have never seen one. Check tax residency rather than assuming from mailing address or bank location, and validate TINs on W-9s through IRS matching. For foreign service providers, document where the work physically happens, since that fact drives sourcing, and collect Form 8233 when an individual claims treaty benefits on U.S.-performed services. Calendar W-8 expirations. And when payments will be large or recurring, price the compliance into the relationship up front: registering for Form 1042 reporting, or restructuring so the work is performed abroad, is far easier before the first payment than after the third audit notice. A borderland economy runs on cross-border relationships; the businesses that thrive in it treat withholding forms the way they treat gross receipts tax registration, as basic plumbing.

Payee situation	Correct form	Default withholding if form is missing or invalid
U.S. citizen or resident contractor, any address worldwide	W-9	24 percent backup withholding
Foreign individual, services performed outside the U.S.	W-8BEN	Generally foreign-source; documentation still prudent
Foreign individual, services performed in the U.S., treaty claim	W-8BEN plus Form 8233	30 percent on U.S.-source compensation
Foreign company with a U.S. branch or trade or business	W-8ECI	30 percent on FDAP absent the certification
Foreign partnership or intermediary receiving for others	W-8IMY with underlying documentation	30 percent, presumption rules apply

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between Form W-9 and Form W-8?

A W-9 certifies that the payee is a U.S. person and supplies the TIN used for 1099 reporting. The W-8 series certifies foreign status and carries any claim of exemption or treaty rate reduction that limits the default 30 percent withholding.

Do I withhold when paying a contractor who works entirely in Mexico?

Compensation is sourced where services are performed, so pay for work done entirely outside the United States is generally foreign-source and outside FDAP withholding. Collect a W-8BEN anyway to document the foreign status behind that conclusion.

What if my vendor never returns a W-9?

Backup withholding at 24 percent applies to reportable payments under 26 U.S.C. § 3406, and the business that fails to withhold can be held liable for the amount itself along with information-reporting penalties.

Do tax treaty rates apply automatically?

No. The payee must claim the treaty on a valid W-8, and individuals claiming treaty benefits on compensation for U.S.-performed services generally must also provide Form 8233. Without the paperwork, the payor must withhold at the full statutory rate.

How long does a Form W-8BEN remain valid?

Generally through the end of the third full calendar year after signature, unless a change in circumstances makes it incorrect sooner. Calendar the expirations, because payments made on a lapsed form are treated as undocumented.

Can a U.S. citizen living abroad give me a W-8?

No. U.S. citizens are U.S. persons wherever they live and must provide a W-9. A W-8 from someone you know to be a U.S. citizen is invalid on its face.

How North Star Law Firm Can Help

North Star Law Firm builds withholding and information-reporting compliance for New Mexico businesses that pay across borders, from vendor onboarding design and treaty documentation to cleanup when years of payments went out with no forms on file. Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, handles the intersection of international payments and federal tax exposure, and the firm’s international tax practice pairs with its audit defense practice when the IRS asks for the vendor file, and with its penalty abatement practice when reporting lapses have already priced themselves. Contact North Star Law Firm before the next foreign vendor is onboarded, and turn a recurring audit risk into a five-minute checklist item.

New Mexico employers occupy an unusual spot in the paid-leave landscape: the Legislature has repeatedly declined to enact a statewide paid family and medical leave program, most recently when House Bill 11 stalled in the 2025 session, so any family or medical leave benefit a New Mexico employer offers is voluntary. Voluntary happens to be exactly what the federal tax code rewards. Section 45S gives employers a general business credit for paid family and medical leave, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made the credit permanent and added a way to claim it based on insurance premiums, and on August 5, 2026, Treasury and the IRS issued Notice 2026-28 explaining how that premium method works. For a state full of employers competing for workers against Colorado and Arizona wages, the notice is worth reading closely, and the comment window is open until October 16, 2026.

What is the section 45S credit and who can claim it?

Under 26 U.S.C. § 45S, an eligible employer with a written policy providing at least two weeks of paid family and medical leave at 50 percent or more of normal wages can claim a credit ranging from 12.5 percent to 25 percent of wages paid during the leave, with the percentage climbing as the payment rate rises toward full wage replacement. The leave must be FMLA-type leave, the categories in section 45S(e) such as bonding with a new child, caring for a family member with a serious health condition, or the employee’s own serious health condition, and the credit applies to qualifying employees who meet tenure and compensation limits. Ordinary vacation, personal leave, and sick time do not qualify, which also means the paid sick leave New Mexico employers must provide under the state’s Healthy Workplaces Act is a separate obligation, not a credit generator. The OBBBA’s amendments made the credit a permanent fixture rather than an expiring extender, so it now belongs in long-range benefits design, not just year-end tax projections.

What did the premium method add?

Many small employers cannot self-fund weeks of wage replacement, so they buy insurance instead: a paid family and medical leave policy, sometimes bundled with short-term disability coverage. The amended statute lets an employer elect to compute the credit as a percentage of premiums paid or incurred for such insurance, rather than of wages paid during leave. That is a meaningful shift for a twenty-employee Albuquerque firm: the credit arrives based on premiums whether or not anyone happens to take leave that year, the cost is predictable, and the insurer administers the claims. Notice 2026-28’s central rule keeps the two methods tethered: a premium is creditable only to the extent it funds benefits that would have qualified under the wage method had the employer paid them directly. The notice labels this “creditable coverage,” and it is the test every policy has to pass.

Which premium dollars fail the creditable coverage test?

Four categories fall out. Premiums funding leave that is not section 45S(e) family or medical leave, such as a rider covering ordinary short-term illness that does not rise to a serious health condition. Premiums covering individuals who are not qualifying employees when the premium is paid, a status the notice measures at premium payment, not when leave is later taken. Premiums funding leave that state or local law requires or that a government pays for. And premiums funding benefits that would not count as section 45S wages. Because real-world policies mix creditable and noncreditable coverage, the notice requires employers with these blended premiums to allocate using a reasonable method built on objective criteria, applied consistently across the year and across all entities treated as a single employer under the aggregation rules, and supported by contemporaneous records. Employers can even use the wage method for some leave and the premium method for other leave in the same year, with a strict prohibition on claiming both credits for the same instance of leave, and a split allowed when a benefit is funded partly by insurance and partly from general assets.

Why is the state-mandated leave exclusion good news for New Mexico employers?

The exclusion has real teeth in states that run mandatory programs: premiums or contributions attributable to leave required by state law generate no federal credit, and employers there are pushed back to the wage method for any benefits above the mandate. New Mexico has no such program, so a New Mexico employer’s entire voluntary policy can be creditable if it otherwise qualifies. The border complication comes from the workforce, not the statute book. A Farmington or Gallup employer with remote workers in Colorado pays into Colorado’s FAMLI program for those employees, and premiums attributable to that mandated coverage are excluded; the same logic follows employees in other mandate states. Multistate employers should ask their carriers to break premiums out by state and coverage type, because that invoice detail becomes the objective allocation record the notice demands. Employers whose only mandated obligation is Healthy Workplaces Act sick leave lose nothing, since that leave was never 45S-creditable to begin with.

What should a New Mexico employer do before year-end?

Employers already paying for family and medical leave coverage should have the policy reviewed against the creditable coverage categories and set up the allocation methodology now, during the tax year, because the notice expects contemporaneous support, not a March reconstruction. Employers considering adding a benefit should model the premium method against the wage method: predictable credit on premiums versus a potentially larger credit in a year of heavy leave usage. Everyone should confirm the basics that disqualify policies outright, including the written policy requirement, the minimum two-week benefit, the 50 percent payment floor, and non-discrimination toward part-year and part-time workers the statute requires. Taxpayers may rely on the notice for tax years beginning after December 31, 2025, and employers with unusual structures, staffing agencies, aggregated groups, or state-facilitated private coverage, should consider filing comments by October 16, since Treasury specifically asked about allocation factors and voluntary state-program interactions.

Design question	Wage method	Premium method (Notice 2026-28)
Credit base	Wages actually paid during qualifying leave	Premiums paid or incurred for creditable coverage
Credit if no employee takes leave	None that year	Still available; based on premiums
Cash-flow profile	Variable, spikes with leave usage	Predictable, follows premium schedule
Key compliance burden	Tracking wages and leave categories	Creditable-coverage analysis and blended-premium allocation records
State-mandated leave interaction	Mandated benefits excluded from credit	Premiums for mandated coverage excluded; allocation required

Frequently Asked Questions

Can New Mexico employers claim the section 45S paid leave credit?

Yes. Because New Mexico mandates no paid family and medical leave program, a voluntary written policy meeting the statute’s requirements can generate the credit at 12.5 to 25 percent of qualifying wages or, under the new premium method, of qualifying insurance premiums.

Does Healthy Workplaces Act sick leave qualify for the credit?

No. State-required leave is excluded from the credit, and ordinary sick leave is not section 45S family and medical leave in any event. The credit rewards voluntary FMLA-type benefits above the state’s sick leave mandate.

What is the premium method under Notice 2026-28?

An election to compute the credit as a percentage of premiums paid for paid family and medical leave insurance, limited to premiums funding coverage that would have qualified under the wage method, with allocation rules for policies mixing creditable and noncreditable coverage.

How do Colorado remote employees affect the credit?

Premiums or contributions attributable to Colorado’s mandated FAMLI coverage are not creditable, so multistate employers must allocate premiums by state with objective, consistently applied, documented methods.

Can an employer use both the wage and premium methods?

Yes, for different instances of leave in the same year, and a single leave benefit funded partly by insurance and partly from general assets can be split between methods. Claiming both credits for the same leave is prohibited.

How North Star Law Firm Can Help

North Star Law Firm helps New Mexico employers capture credits they are entitled to and defend them on examination, from policy design and creditable-coverage review to the allocation documentation Notice 2026-28 expects. Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, brings the combined tax-law and accounting perspective that benefit credits demand. The firm’s tax planning practice integrates credits into entity and compensation strategy alongside its business structuring work, and if a claimed credit draws IRS scrutiny, the firm’s audit defense practice handles the examination. Contact North Star Law Firm to model the premium method against your current benefits spend before the tax year closes.

New Mexico built a national reputation on business privacy. The state asks for no annual report from LLCs and no public list of members or managers, which is why formation agents from Albuquerque to Santa Fe spent decades organizing companies for owners who value discretion. The Corporate Transparency Act was about to end that quietly, routing every LLC’s owners into a federal database. Now the database is closing instead. FinCEN’s final rule announced August 11, 2026, effective August 14, 2026, permanently exempts U.S. companies and U.S. persons from beneficial ownership information reporting, and FinCEN says it will delete what U.S. persons already filed. Here is what the rule changes for New Mexico entities, who still has to file, and why your ownership paperwork still matters after the federal deadline disappears.

What did FinCEN’s final rule change?

Four things, each permanent. Domestic reporting is over: entities formed under the law of any U.S. state, including every New Mexico LLC, corporation, and limited partnership, are exempt from BOI reporting. FinCEN identifier holders are released: U.S. persons who obtained FinCEN IDs no longer have any obligation to update or correct the underlying information. Foreign companies’ reports shrink: entities formed abroad but registered to do business in the United States remain reporting companies, but they no longer identify U.S. person company applicants and no longer report U.S. persons who own or control them. And the data gets deleted: FinCEN will remove previously reported information about company applicants, beneficial owners, and FinCEN ID recipients it reasonably believes are U.S. persons, judged by markers like a U.S. passport or driver’s license. The final rule adopts, and makes permanent, the exemptions FinCEN issued on an interim basis in March 2025 under the Corporate Transparency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5336.

Who in New Mexico still has a filing obligation?

The remaining regime is narrow but real. A company formed under foreign law that has registered with the New Mexico Secretary of State to transact business here is still a reporting company, and it must report its beneficial owners who are foreign individuals. Think of a Canadian holding company registered to operate a New Mexico solar project, or a Mexican distributor registered to run a Las Cruces warehouse: those entities stay in the system for their non-U.S. owners. A New Mexico LLC owned by foreign individuals, by contrast, is a domestic entity and files nothing, because the exemption follows the place of formation, not the owners’ passports. Foreign-owned structures deserve one careful pass with counsel, both to confirm which entities in the chain still report and to check whether any earlier filing that mixed U.S. and foreign identification will survive FinCEN’s identity-based deletion standard.

Does this restore New Mexico’s LLC privacy advantage?

Largely, yes, at the federal registry level. The state’s formation regime never demanded owner names, the federal database that would have collected them is being emptied of U.S.-person data, and no New Mexico statute imposes a state-level beneficial ownership report. Owners comparing states should note the landscape is no longer uniform: New York has enacted its own LLC transparency legislation, and other states have flirted with similar registries, so a structure that spans states needs a state-by-state map. Privacy from a government database, though, was never privacy from everyone. Banks still collect beneficial ownership certifications under customer due diligence rules whenever an account opens, lenders and title companies demand ownership charts by contract, and litigation discovery reaches whatever a registry would have shown. The rule removes a filing obligation; it does not make ownership unknowable, and it was never designed to.

What should owners do about reports they already filed?

Most New Mexico owners who filed during the mandatory window in 2024 or early 2025 can simply note the deletion policy and move on, keeping their own copy of what was submitted in the entity’s minute book. Three situations justify more attention. If a filing included a foreign owner’s passport or foreign identification, the identity-based deletion standard may leave that record in place, so foreign-owner structures should not assume a clean slate. If information was shared onward while the database operated, for example to a financial institution that accessed BOI for due diligence, that copy lives outside FinCEN’s deletion. And if a company relied on its BOI filing as its only organized statement of who owns what, it should replace that function now, because the next loan closing, acquisition, or estate administration will ask the same questions the form did.

Why does ownership documentation still matter without the CTA?

Because every consequential moment in a company’s life turns on proving who owns it. Selling the business requires clean capitalization records in diligence. Borrowing requires ownership certifications. Estate planning and probate require knowing exactly what interest a deceased member held, and New Mexico’s community property rules can put a spouse’s interest into the analysis whether or not any registry ever recorded it. Tax filings must match reality: K-1 allocations, S corporation shareholder eligibility, and basis calculations all flow from the ownership ledger. And if the company ever lands in a dispute or an insolvency, courts will reconstruct ownership from operating agreements, assignments, and consents, documents too many small companies never finished. The CTA’s one accidental gift was forcing owners to assemble that file. Keep it current even though the government stopped asking.

Situation	Filing duty after August 14, 2026	Practical step
New Mexico LLC, U.S. owners	None	Keep internal ownership records current
New Mexico LLC, foreign owners	None (domestic entity)	Confirm no other entity in the chain reports; check residual filed data
Foreign company registered in New Mexico	Reports foreign beneficial owners	Calendar the obligation; exclude U.S. persons from reports
U.S. person with a FinCEN ID	None; data slated for deletion	Retain a copy of prior submissions
Any entity opening a bank account	No FinCEN filing, but bank certification required	Maintain an ownership chart ready to certify

Frequently Asked Questions

Do New Mexico LLCs still need to file BOI reports with FinCEN?

No. FinCEN’s final rule, effective August 14, 2026, permanently exempts all U.S.-formed companies from beneficial ownership reporting, and that covers every New Mexico LLC, corporation, and limited partnership.

Will FinCEN really delete the report my company filed?

FinCEN says it will delete information about individuals it reasonably believes are U.S. persons, based on identifiers like a U.S. passport or driver’s license. Records tied to foreign identification may survive, so foreign-owner filings deserve review.

My New Mexico LLC has foreign members. Do we file anything?

No. The exemption depends on where the entity was formed, not who owns it. A New Mexico-formed LLC is exempt even with entirely foreign ownership, though a foreign-formed company registered here still reports its foreign owners.

Is a New Mexico LLC anonymous again?

At the registry level, largely yes: no state annual report lists members, and the federal database is being emptied of U.S.-person data. Banks, lenders, courts, and the IRS can still require ownership disclosure through their own channels.

Could BOI reporting for U.S. companies return later?

The Corporate Transparency Act statute remains in force, so a future administration could attempt new rules reinstating domestic reporting. Any such attempt would require full rulemaking and would face immediate court challenges, giving businesses lead time.

How North Star Law Firm Can Help

North Star Law Firm helps New Mexico business owners keep entity structures clean and defensible: ownership documentation that satisfies lenders and buyers, entity selection that fits the tax plan, and cross-border structures that comply with what remains of federal reporting. Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, brings combined legal and accounting judgment to structuring questions, and the firm’s business entity selection practice pairs with its trust and estate tax planning practice so ownership records, succession plans, and tax filings tell one consistent story. For owners whose companies carry federal loan or tax exposure alongside structural questions, the firm’s tax defense practice completes the picture. Contact North Star Law Firm to put your ownership file in order while the deadline pressure is off.

When a struggling company sells its assets and later lands in bankruptcy, one question controls who gets paid: do successor liability claims against the buyer belong to the bankruptcy estate or to individual creditors? In In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc., No. 24-2210 (3d Cir. Apr. 27, 2026), the Third Circuit answered with a clean test: if the claim remedies a harm shared by all creditors, it belongs to the estate; only a creditor’s unique, individualized injury stays with the creditor. For New Mexico business buyers structuring asset purchases — and for creditors deciding when to sue a successor — the decision is a practical roadmap.

What did the Third Circuit decide in In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels?

Whittaker Clark & Daniels processed and distributed industrial chemicals, including talc alleged to contain asbestos. In 2004, it sold substantially all of its operating assets to Brenntag affiliates for roughly $200 million, with the buyer expressly excluding pre-sale asbestos and environmental liabilities. Two decades and thousands of tort claims later — including a $29 million South Carolina verdict — Whittaker filed chapter 11 in the District of New Jersey. Its fraudulent-transfer claims from the 2004 deal were time-barred, so the estate’s most valuable asset was its successor liability theory against Brenntag, which the debtor settled for approximately $535 million over the objection of talc plaintiffs who had sued Brenntag directly before the petition. The Third Circuit, in a precedential opinion, held the claims were property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) because they were derivative of harm to the debtor — the diversion of assets that would otherwise have paid creditors generally.

Why do successor liability claims get pulled into the bankruptcy estate?

Section 541(a)(1) sweeps all of the debtor’s legal and equitable interests in property into the estate at the moment of filing, and the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 halts creditor efforts to seize what belongs to the estate. Building on Caplin v. Marine Midland Grace Trust Co. of New York, 406 U.S. 416 (1972), and its own decision in In re Emoral, Inc., 740 F.3d 875 (3d Cir. 2014), the court asks whether a claim remedies a direct injury to particular creditors or a general injury to the creditor body. The Whittaker Clark panel added a critical clarification: that state law lets creditors — not the debtor — bring the claim outside bankruptcy is not dispositive. What matters is the theory of liability and who benefits from recovery. A product-line claim rests on the successor’s continuation of the debtor’s operations after assets left the creditor pool, so any recovery properly enlarges the pool for everyone, much like a fraudulent-transfer recovery.

When does a claim stay with the individual creditor?

The escape hatch is an individualized theory of liability. A creditor keeps its claim when it can trace a direct, particular injury to the successor’s own conduct toward that creditor — not merely the generalized harm of asset diversion. Think of a supplier who extended credit in reliance on the buyer’s specific representations, a lender whose debt the buyer expressly assumed, or a counterparty the successor defrauded in direct dealings. The Whittaker Clark court acknowledged that the talc plaintiffs’ physical injuries were unique, but the theory of Brenntag’s liability was not: it turned entirely on Brenntag’s status as successor to the manufacturing operation. “My damages are unique” is not enough; the liability theory itself must be personal to you.

What are the successor liability rules for New Mexico asset purchases?

New Mexico follows the traditional rule that an asset purchaser does not inherit the seller’s debts, subject to four common-law exceptions: express or implied assumption of liabilities, de facto merger, mere continuation of the seller, or a fraudulent purpose to escape liability. Critically, New Mexico is also among the minority of states that recognize product-line successor liability. In Garcia v. Coe Mfg. Co., 1997-NMSC-013, 123 N.M. 34, 933 P.2d 243, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that a buyer who acquires a manufacturer’s assets and continues the same product line under the predecessor’s design and trade name can be strictly liable for defects in the predecessor’s products. That makes Whittaker Clark especially relevant here: New Mexico recognizes the very theory the Third Circuit just classified as estate property.

How should a New Mexico buyer structure an asset purchase to limit successor exposure?

“We only bought assets” is not a magic shield, and it is weakest where the claims are largest — product defect and environmental liabilities. Deal hygiene matters. Avoid a seamless continuation of the seller’s trade name, management, and customer-facing identity where possible, and pay demonstrably fair, separately documented consideration so the transfer cannot be attacked under New Mexico’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, § 56-10-18 (NMSA ch. 56, art. 10), which reaches transfers made with intent to hinder creditors or for less than reasonably equivalent value by an insolvent seller. Build escrows, holdbacks, and indemnities into the agreement, and confirm the seller retains enough value to answer known claims — Whittaker’s hollow shell structure shows how paper exclusions fail. A buyer continuing the same product line should price in or insure against strict-liability tail exposure, because a disclaimer clause does not bind injured third parties who never signed it.

Is buying through bankruptcy under Section 363 the cleaner path?

Often, yes. A sale approved under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) can transfer assets “free and clear” of interests in the property, and bankruptcy courts routinely pair 363 orders with injunctions channeling claims to the sale proceeds. A court-supervised sale — with notice to creditors and a federal order — gives a buyer protection no private purchase agreement can replicate. The trade-offs are process, time, and competitive bidding, and even 363 orders have soft edges for future claimants who had no notice. But for a target carrying product-line, environmental, or mass-tort tail risk, a chapter 11 or Subchapter V sale in the District of New Mexico is frequently cheaper than the exposure it eliminates — and Whittaker Clark confirms the estate, not scattered plaintiffs, controls the successor claims.

What should a creditor of a failing New Mexico company do before the bankruptcy hits?

Picture a creditor of an Albuquerque manufacturer watching the debtor sell its plant, equipment, and brand to a successor that keeps the same product line running. First, diagnose the theory: a product-line or mere-continuation claim is collective under Whittaker Clark reasoning, so if the debtor later files, that claim likely becomes estate property and your lawsuit stops at the stay. Second, hunt for individualized facts now — your own reliance on the buyer’s statements, direct dealings, an express assumption of your particular debt — and plead them early and distinctly, because a complaint framed only in collective terms hands the estate the whole case. Third, remember that winning a standing fight is not winning the case: the plaintiffs who sued Brenntag first still watched the estate settle and release the claims for $535 million, and a plan release can extinguish collective theories over your objection. Pursue voidable-transfer remedies while timely, and value your claim with the bankruptcy endgame in mind.

Claim theory	Nature of injury	After debtor’s bankruptcy filing
Product-line successor liability (Garcia v. Coe in NM)	Collective — asset diversion harms all creditors	Property of the estate; creditor suits stayed (Whittaker Clark)
Mere continuation / de facto merger	Collective — depletion of the creditor pool	Likely estate property under the same reasoning
Fraudulent / voidable transfer (NMSA § 56-10-18)	Collective — recovery replenishes the pool	Estate property; trustee or debtor in possession controls
Express assumption of your specific debt	Individualized — contract right personal to you	Generally stays with the creditor
Successor’s direct fraud or misrepresentation to you	Individualized — traceable to conduct toward you	Generally stays with the creditor if pleaded distinctly

Frequently Asked Questions

What is successor liability in a New Mexico asset purchase?

Successor liability is the exception to the rule that an asset buyer does not inherit the seller’s debts. New Mexico recognizes the four traditional exceptions — express assumption, de facto merger, mere continuation, and fraudulent purpose — plus product-line strict liability under Garcia v. Coe Mfg. Co. for buyers who continue a predecessor’s manufacturing line.

Does buying only assets protect a buyer from the seller’s debts?

Not by itself. A liability-exclusion clause binds the seller, not injured third parties. If the buyer continues the same operations, uses the seller’s name, or pays less than fair value to an insolvent seller, courts can impose the seller’s liabilities anyway.

What makes a creditor’s claim individualized enough to survive bankruptcy?

The theory of liability, not the damages, must be personal: your own reliance on the successor’s representations, direct dealings with the buyer, or an express assumption of your specific debt. Under In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, a claim resting on the successor’s continuation of the business belongs to the estate even if your injuries are unique.

Can a buyer purchase assets free and clear of successor liability claims?

A bankruptcy sale under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) lets a buyer take assets free and clear of most interests, backed by a federal court order and notice to creditors. It is generally the cleanest path for acquiring a distressed business with significant tort, environmental, or product-line tail risk.

How long do creditors have to challenge a transfer under New Mexico’s voidable transactions law?

Claims under New Mexico’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act are generally extinguished four years after the transfer, with a limited discovery window for actual-intent claims. Whittaker’s own fraudulent-transfer claims were already time-barred when it filed — timing matters.

Should a creditor sue the successor before the debtor files bankruptcy?

Filing first does not lock in ownership of a collective claim — the Whittaker talc plaintiffs sued Brenntag pre-petition and still lost the claims to the estate’s $535 million settlement. Sue early, but plead individualized theories distinctly rather than relying on the race to the courthouse.

How North Star Law Firm Can Help

North Star Law Firm counsels New Mexico business owners, buyers, and creditors statewide — Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces and beyond. Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, is admitted to practice before the federal courts in the District of New Mexico and handles bankruptcy matters across the state, bringing both the legal and accounting lens to successor exposure, voidable-transfer risk, and the tax consequences of acquisition structure. Whether you are buying a distressed company’s assets, weighing a Section 363 purchase, or deciding how to preserve a creditor claim before a filing — see the firm’s guide to choosing a bankruptcy chapter for a New Mexico business — early planning separates protected parties from swept-aside ones. Contact North Star Law Firm for a free consultation.

A federal court just refused to let a regional bank walk away from a $230 million Ponzi scheme. In iCap Trust v. Columbia Bank, No. 2:25-cv-01870 (W.D. Wash. 2026), investors’ assigned claims survived dismissal because the bank’s own compliance files allegedly showed it understood what was flowing through the accounts and kept processing anyway. For New Mexico investors — Santa Fe retirees pitched at church, Hobbs families sold oil-and-gas “working interests,” Albuquerque professionals lured onto crypto platforms — the ruling is a map. Recovery comes from several directions, and knowing where to look first can change the outcome by six figures.

What did the federal court decide in the iCap case against Columbia Bank?

iCap, a Pacific Northwest real estate enterprise, raised roughly $230 million from more than 1,800 investors before collapsing into bankruptcy, where the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Washington found substantial evidence of a Ponzi scheme running from 2018 to 2023. A liquidating trust holding investor-assigned claims then sued Columbia Bank (formerly Umpqua Bank), which held the accounts.

The bank moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint showed only routine banking; the court disagreed. Actual knowledge was plausibly alleged through the bank’s own know-your-customer work: high-risk classifications, at least seventeen enhanced due diligence reviews, and monitoring that allegedly let it see investor money coming in, roughly $585 million in withdrawals going out, commingling, and transfers landing in a principal’s personal accounts. Substantial assistance followed from keeping the accounts open and processing transactions anyway. It is a pleading-stage decision — nothing is proven — but it shows a compliance paper trail can become the victims’ best evidence.

What must a fraud victim prove to hold a bank liable for aiding and abetting?

Aiding-and-abetting liability generally follows Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(b): an underlying fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant’s actual knowledge of it, and substantial assistance. Constructive knowledge — red flags the bank should have investigated — is not enough in most jurisdictions, and routine banking rarely counts as substantial assistance, which is why most of these suits fail; in O’Dell v. Berkshire Bank, No. 5:24-cv-00652 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2024), claims built on an unusually active account and generic anti-money-laundering duties were dismissed with prejudice.

Two lessons follow. First, winning complaints tie knowledge to what the bank’s own systems generated — due diligence memos, risk classifications, monitoring reports. Second, claim ownership matters as much as the merits: in Isaiah v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 960 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2020), a receiver’s claims failed because the receiver stood in the shoes of the fraud’s own corporate instruments — a trap the iCap Trust avoided by taking direct assignments from individual investors.

Where does recovery actually come from when a Ponzi scheme collapses?

The first source is the estate: victims file claims with the receiver or bankruptcy trustee and share pro rata in what is recovered — typically over years, often at pennies on the dollar. The estate’s strongest tool is fraudulent transfer law: under the judicially developed Ponzi-scheme presumption, transfers in furtherance of the scheme are presumed made with actual intent to defraud creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A) and parallel state law — in New Mexico, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 56-10-14 through 56-10-25, reachable through 11 U.S.C. § 544(b).

That presumption cuts both ways. Investors who cashed out early with a profit — “net winners” — face clawback suits for everything above principal, because courts net withdrawals against contributions, Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2008); good faith protects principal under § 548(c), but never fictitious profits. Anyone holding a trustee’s demand letter should review clawback defenses before responding. SIPC, finally, protects cash and securities up to $500,000 ($250,000 cash) only at member broker-dealers — real estate programs like iCap, private oil-and-gas deals, and crypto platforms sit outside it. Because the promoter is usually judgment-proof, the realistic deep pockets are third parties — banks, auditors, brokers, promoters; the iCap litigation named dozens. That is why the Columbia Bank theory matters to victims, and why preserving subscription documents, wire confirmations, and communications early can determine whether a viable claim exists.

How does the federal theft loss deduction work after the OBBBA?

While litigation grinds on, the tax code often delivers the fastest real dollars. Under 26 U.S.C. § 165(e), a theft loss is deductible in the year of discovery, to the extent there is no reasonable prospect of recovery, and Rev. Rul. 2009-9 confirmed a Ponzi loss is a theft loss from a transaction entered into for profit under § 165(c)(2) — an ordinary deduction, not a capital loss trapped behind the $3,000 annual limit.

That distinction became critical after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, whose § 165(h)(5) suspended personal casualty and theft losses outside federally declared disasters — a suspension the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 made permanent while extending it to certain state-declared disasters. Profit-motivated theft losses were never suspended, and the IRS reinforced the line in Chief Counsel Memorandum 202511015 (Mar. 2025): investment-style scam victims — including crypto “pig butchering” targets — can show profit motive; purely personal scams generally cannot. The firm’s pig butchering theft loss analysis walks through that line.

Get a Free Fraud Recovery Consultation

What would the safe harbor look like for a Santa Fe retiree who lost $250,000?

Rev. Proc. 2009-20 (as modified by Rev. Proc. 2011-58) gives qualified investors a safe harbor that avoids IRS fights over discovery year and recovery prospects. It applies once the scheme’s lead figure is criminally charged (or a civil complaint is paired with an admission or an appointed receiver or trustee), and fixes the deduction at 95 percent of the qualified loss for an investor forgoing third-party recovery claims, or 75 percent for one pursuing them, reduced by insurance or SIPC recoveries.

Take a Santa Fe retiree who invested $220,000 cash, reported and reinvested $30,000 of Form 1099 “interest” that never existed, and withdrew nothing. Her qualified investment is $250,000 — deposits plus previously taxed phantom income, minus withdrawals. The 95 percent option yields a $237,500 ordinary deduction in the year charges are filed; joining the bank litigation drops it to $187,500, a $50,000 swing to weigh against the lawsuit’s realistic value. New Mexico’s income tax builds on federal taxable income, so the deduction cuts state tax too. If it exceeds her income, § 172(d)(4)(C) treats a theft loss as a business deduction for net operating loss purposes, though under current 26 U.S.C. § 172 the NOL cannot generally be carried back — it carries forward against up to 80 percent of taxable income. Even so, a certain deduction next April routinely beats a contingent recovery five years out.

What red flags should New Mexico investors and their advisors watch for?

The Columbia Bank ruling carries an uncomfortable inversion: the facts said to establish the bank’s knowledge — commingling, investor money paying investor “returns,” insider personal-account transfers — are facts a diligent advisor can probe before wiring a dollar. Ask where funds are custodied and whether accounts are segregated; demand audited financials; insist on third-party escrow for real estate deals. Steady above-market returns, pressure to roll over rather than withdraw, and paperwork that swaps entity names midstream are the signals a bank’s due diligence flags.

New Mexico’s fraud landscape has its own patterns: affinity fraud in Santa Fe and Las Cruces churches and retirement communities, unregistered oil-and-gas working-interest offerings sold off the Permian Basin boom in Hobbs and the Lea and Eddy County oilfields, and crypto pig-butchering operations targeting professionals statewide. In each, the pitch borrows credibility — a congregation, a producing basin, a slick app — the numbers never earn.

Recovery avenue	Who pays	Typical timeline	Key limitation
Receivership / bankruptcy claim	Estate assets, clawed-back transfers	3–10 years	Pro rata; often pennies on the dollar
Third-party suits (banks, auditors, promoters)	Deep-pocket defendants, insurers	3–7 years if claims survive	Actual knowledge + substantial assistance is a high bar
SIPC protection	Securities Investor Protection Corp.	1–3 years	Member broker-dealers only; $500,000 cap ($250,000 cash)
Theft loss deduction (Rev. Proc. 2009-20)	Reduced federal and NM income tax	Next filing season after charges	95%/75% of net investment; profit motive required

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a Ponzi scheme loss still deductible after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the OBBBA?

Yes. The § 165(h)(5) suspension, made permanent by the OBBBA, applies only to personal casualty and theft losses. A Ponzi loss from an investment made for profit remains fully deductible as an ordinary loss under § 165(c)(2) per Rev. Rul. 2009-9.

Do I have to sue anyone to use the Rev. Proc. 2009-20 safe harbor?

No. The safe harbor is triggered by government action against the scheme’s lead figure — a criminal charge, or a civil complaint paired with an admission or an appointed receiver or trustee. Choosing not to pursue third-party recovery actually raises the percentage from 75 to 95 percent.

What happens if I withdrew money from the scheme before it collapsed?

Withdrawals reduce your deductible qualified investment dollar for dollar. If you withdrew more than you invested, you are a “net winner” who may face a clawback suit for the fictitious profits, because good faith protects only principal under 11 U.S.C. § 548(c) and New Mexico’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.

Can I amend old returns to remove the phantom income I reported?

You can amend open-year returns to strip out fictitious income instead of using the safe harbor — but that route forfeits Rev. Proc. 2009-20 protection, requires proving discovery year and recovery prospects the hard way, and cannot reach closed years. The safe harbor instead builds previously taxed phantom income into the deductible loss.

How fast can a fraud victim actually see money from the theft loss deduction?

Often within months. Once the lead figure is charged, the deduction goes on that year’s return — no lawsuit, no waiting for distributions. Excess losses become a net operating loss carrying forward against up to 80 percent of taxable income, since current § 172 generally allows no carryback.

How North Star Law Firm Can Help

North Star Law Firm helps investment fraud victims across New Mexico — Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, and beyond — coordinate estate claims, third-party recovery options, clawback demands, and the tax recovery most victims leave on the table. Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, represents New Mexico taxpayers before the IRS and the U.S. Tax Court under Circular 230, and the firm’s combined federal tax defense and tax planning perspective fits a problem where safe-harbor elections, netting computations, and litigation strategy intertwine. If you have lost money in a Ponzi scheme or suspect an investment is not what it claims, contact the firm for a free consultation before deadlines close any doors.

If you sell pottery on Etsy from Taos, drive for a delivery app in Albuquerque, or run a side business through Venmo or PayPal anywhere in New Mexico, the IRS just finished rewriting the rules that decide when your payment platform must report you — and when it must start skimming 24 percent off your gross sales. On August 10, 2026, Treasury and the IRS published final regulations, T.D. 10053, 91 Fed. Reg. 51391 (Aug. 10, 2026), conforming the backup withholding rules under 26 U.S.C. § 3406 to the restored $20,000-and-200-transaction Form 1099-K threshold under 26 U.S.C. § 6050W(e), effective for payments in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024. The five-year saga behind the rule explains why your platform may have demanded a Form W-9 — and what happens if you ignore it.

What did the IRS’s final backup withholding regulations actually change?

Backup withholding under § 3406 applies only to “reportable payments” — payments a payor must report to the IRS on an information return. The old regulations no longer matched the threshold Congress restored to § 6050W(e) in 2025, so T.D. 10053 amends Treas. Reg. §§ 31.3406(a)-1 and 31.3406(b)(3)-5, adopting January 2026 proposed regulations without change: a payment by a third party settlement organization — the entity behind a payment app or online marketplace — becomes a reportable payment subject to backup withholding only once the payee’s aggregate payments for the calendar year exceed $20,000 and the transaction count exceeds 200.

Two mechanical points matter. First, once a payee crosses the threshold, the crossing payment and every later payment that year are reportable — exposure attaches mid-year. Second, a payee who exceeded the threshold in one year is treated as reportable in the immediately following year regardless of volume: a Farmington eBay reseller with a big 2025 stays in the system for 2026.

How did the 1099-K threshold end up back at $20,000 — and why was your platform asking for a W-9?

Section 6050W was added to the Code in 2008 with a de minimis exception from the start: a third party settlement organization filed Form 1099-K only if the year’s payments exceeded $20,000 and 200 transactions. The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) cut the trigger to $600 with no transaction minimum, effective for 2022. The predictable result was panic — tens of millions of casual sellers faced 1099-Ks for selling a used couch — and the IRS blinked three times: Notice 2023-10 delayed the $600 threshold for 2022, Notice 2023-74 delayed it again for 2023, and Notice 2024-85 improvised a transition schedule of $5,000 for 2024, $2,500 for 2025, and $600 thereafter.

Congress ended the saga in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. No. 119-21 (July 4, 2025). Section 70432 restored the $20,000/200 threshold in § 6050W(e) retroactively, as if the ARPA change had never taken effect, and made a companion amendment to § 3406 for payments in calendar years beginning after December 31, 2024. T.D. 10053 is the final administrative step. That history explains platform behavior: while the threshold was headed to $600, platforms began collecting taxpayer identification numbers from nearly everyone — and many have kept those W-9 demands even with the trigger back at $20,000.

What is backup withholding, and how much can the IRS take?

Backup withholding is not a penalty, but it can feel like one. Under § 3406(a), a payor of a reportable payment must withhold tax at “the fourth lowest rate of tax applicable under section 1(c)” — currently 24 percent — when the payee fails to furnish a TIN, furnishes an obviously incorrect one, or when the IRS notifies the payor that the payee’s name and TIN do not match its records. For third party network transactions, § 3406(b) ties reportability to the § 6050W(e) thresholds — precisely what T.D. 10053 implements.

The critical feature is that the 24 percent comes out of gross payments. Backup withholding ignores cost of goods, platform fees, shipping, and rent; it is calculated on the full settlement amount and remitted to the IRS. You recover it as a credit on your income tax return — often a year or more after the cash left your account.

How much could a New Mexico online seller lose to backup withholding?

Consider a Taos potter selling through Etsy who grosses $30,000 across 220 transactions in 2026. She is past both prongs of the § 6050W(e) threshold, so Etsy will file a Form 1099-K. Now suppose she registered under her married name while Social Security records still show her maiden name. The IRS flags the mismatch, Etsy receives a notice, and if it is not cured, Etsy must withhold 24 percent of every settlement. On $30,000 gross, that is $7,200 per year diverted to the IRS — from a business whose actual profit, after clay, glazes, kiln costs, fees, and shipping, might be $12,000. Withholding would consume 60 percent of her real economics, recoverable only after her return processes the following spring. For a seller who depends on the Christmas and summer tourism markets, that cash-flow hit can be existential.

How do you fix a B-notice or TIN mismatch before withholding starts?

When the IRS notifies a payor of a name/TIN mismatch, the payor must send the payee a “B-notice.” A first B-notice can generally be cured with a corrected Form W-9. A second B-notice within three years is stricter: the payee must validate the number at the source — Social Security Administration documentation for an SSN, or IRS Letter 147C for an EIN. The common traps are mundane: a post-marriage name change that never reached the SSA; a single-member LLC’s business name paired with the owner’s SSN in the wrong boxes; an EIN whose IRS name control reflects an old d/b/a. The fix is clerical, but miss the platform’s response window and withholding begins on the next settlement — and does not stop until the cure is processed.

Does the $20,000 threshold mean income below it is tax-free?

No — and this is the most dangerous misreading of the saga. Section 6050W decides when a platform must tell the IRS about you, not when your income becomes taxable. Gross income under 26 U.S.C. § 61 includes gains from selling goods and compensation for services from the first dollar: an Albuquerque handyman paid $14,000 through a payment app owes income and self-employment tax on his profit though no 1099-K will ever issue. New Mexico adds a second layer — the state’s gross receipts tax generally applies regardless of any federal reporting threshold, and the Taxation and Revenue Department runs its own audits. The firm’s New Mexico gross receipts tax audit guide explains how those audits unfold and why marketplace sellers are a frequent target.

The flip side is unfiled-return risk. For every year a platform filed a Form 1099-K, the IRS holds a third-party record of your gross receipts; when no return matches it, the IRS can prepare a substitute for return treating the entire gross amount as profit — no cost of goods, no expenses. The firm’s unfiled tax returns page explains the path back into compliance.

Who still gets a 1099-K below the federal threshold?

The restored trigger is a federal floor for third party settlement organizations — not a universal rule. Several states, including Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Virginia, require platforms to report at $600; New Mexico has not enacted a lower threshold. Payment card transactions are a separate category entirely: the § 6050W(e) exception covers only third party settlement organizations, so a merchant acquiring bank reporting card swipes — the Santa Fe gallery running Visa transactions through a terminal — reports from the first dollar. Platforms may also file voluntarily below the threshold. The safe assumption for New Mexico sellers: the IRS either knows or can learn your gross receipts, whatever this year’s threshold is.

Calendar year	Federal 1099-K trigger	Governing authority
2011–2021	Over $20,000 and 200 transactions	§ 6050W(e) as enacted (2008)
2022–2023	$20,000/200 preserved by IRS delay	Notices 2023-10, 2023-74
2024	Over $5,000 (transition)	Notice 2024-85
2025 forward	Over $20,000 and 200 transactions, restored	OBBBA § 70432; § 6050W(e)
2025 forward (withholding)	Backup withholding aligned to $20,000/200	T.D. 10053; § 3406

Frequently Asked Questions

Is money I receive through Venmo or PayPal taxable if I never get a Form 1099-K?

Yes, if it is business or sales income. The 1099-K threshold controls only whether the platform files an information return. Income from selling goods or services is taxable from the first dollar, and New Mexico gross receipts tax applies under its own rules regardless of any federal form.

What is the backup withholding rate in 2026?

24 percent. Section 3406(a) sets the rate at the fourth lowest rate of tax under section 1(c), and it applies to the gross amount of each reportable payment — not to profit after expenses.

Do personal payments between friends count toward the $20,000 threshold?

No. Form 1099-K reporting covers payments settled through third party payment networks for goods and services. Reimbursing a roommate or splitting dinner does not belong in that category, but mislabeled payments can be misreported — keep personal and business accounts separate.

How do I stop backup withholding once a platform starts taking 24 percent?

Cure the underlying problem: respond to the B-notice with a corrected Form W-9, or after a second B-notice, validate your number with Social Security Administration documentation or IRS Letter 147C. Withholding already remitted is recovered as a credit on that year’s return.

Does New Mexico have its own lower 1099-K reporting threshold?

No. New Mexico follows the federal $20,000/200 trigger, but gross receipts tax applies to most sales and services independent of any reporting threshold, and the Taxation and Revenue Department audits online sellers on its own authority.

What if I have unfiled returns for years a platform issued a 1099-K?

The IRS holds the platform’s report of your gross receipts and can prepare a substitute for return treating the full gross amount as taxable profit. Filing accurate original returns with documented expenses is almost always better than fighting a substitute-for-return assessment later.

How North Star Law Firm Can Help

North Star Law Firm advises online sellers, gig workers, and small businesses across New Mexico — Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, and beyond — when platform reporting and tax filings do not line up. Phillip Zagotti, JD/CPA, represents New Mexico taxpayers before the IRS and the U.S. Tax Court under Circular 230, handling B-notice cures, recovery of withheld amounts, and the audits that 1099-K matching generates. The firm’s tax defense practice handles IRS examinations and collections, while its tax law practice helps sellers structure platform businesses before problems start. To discuss a 1099-K notice, backup withholding, or unfiled returns, contact North Star Law Firm for a free consultation.