October 7, 2026

Supreme Court Decision Means IRS May Pursue Tax Cases ‘Forever’ in Some Fraud Cases

Found In:

The phrase "forever" may sound dramatic, but it accurately reflects the attention surrounding a recent Supreme Court decision. By declining to hear a taxpayer's appeal, the Court left in place a ruling that allows the IRS to assess additional tax without the usual time limit when a fraudulent return has been filed, even if the alleged fraud was committed by the taxpayer's preparer rather than the taxpayer themselves. Here's what the decision means and why it matters for anyone who relies on a tax professional.

Many taxpayers are familiar with the IRS's general three-year statute of limitations for auditing a tax return. Once that window closes, many assume the return is effectively behind them.

A 2026 Supreme Court decision is a reminder that there are important exceptions.

The Court declined to hear Murrin v. Commissioner, leaving in place a ruling that allows the IRS to assess additional tax at any time if a fraudulent return was filed—even when the fraud was committed by a tax preparer rather than the taxpayer.

What Happened Over the Summer?

The case involved a taxpayer whose accountant filed fraudulent returns decades ago. The taxpayer maintained she had no knowledge of the fraud, and the IRS acknowledged she was not personally involved in the scheme.

Even so, because the returns were fraudulent, the IRS argued that the normal three-year deadline for assessing additional tax never began to run. The courts agreed, and the Supreme Court declined to review the case, leaving that interpretation in place.

Does This Mean the IRS Can Audit Anyone Forever?

No.

For most taxpayers, the standard statute of limitations still applies. Generally speaking:

The IRS has three years to assess additional tax after a return is filed.
Certain situations, such as substantial omissions of income, can extend that period.
Fraud has long been one of the exceptions.

What makes this case noteworthy is that the courts allowed the unlimited assessment period to apply even though the alleged fraud was committed by the tax preparer rather than the taxpayer.

Why This Matters

Most taxpayers rely heavily on their tax professional's expertise. That's exactly why this ruling has attracted so much attention within the accounting community.

Although the decision doesn't mean taxpayers are automatically responsible for intentional misconduct by a preparer, it does mean fraudulent returns can remain subject to IRS assessment long after the typical statute of limitations would have expired. In the case at issue, much of the taxpayer's balance resulted from decades of accumulated interest.

How to Protect Yourself

While most tax professionals provide honest, ethical service, there are several steps every taxpayer should take:

Work with a qualified, reputable tax professional.
Carefully review your tax return before signing it.
Ask questions about deductions or credits you don't understand.
Keep copies of supporting documentation.
Notify your tax professional immediately if you receive correspondence from the IRS.

Could the Law Change?

Possibly.

Lawmakers have introduced bipartisan legislation that would restore a time limit in situations where fraud was committed solely by a tax preparer and not by the taxpayer. That proposal has not yet become law, so the current rules remain in effect.

The Supreme Court's decision did not create a new IRS power, but it left intact an interpretation of existing law that has significant implications for taxpayers.

The case serves as an important reminder that choosing a trustworthy tax professional, reviewing your returns carefully, and maintaining good records are among the best ways to protect yourself. Even years after a return is filed, the quality and integrity of the preparation can still matter.

Where Things Stand Now

Several months after the Supreme Court declined to hear Murrin v. Commissioner, the decision continues to carry an important warning for taxpayers: the IRS may go back decades to assess taxes tied to a fraudulent return, even when the taxpayer wasn't the person who committed the fraud.

The Supreme Court's refusal to review the case left the Third Circuit's ruling intact. That court concluded that the fraud exception in the tax code does not require the taxpayer to have intended to evade taxes; fraudulent intent by a return preparer can be enough to eliminate the usual three-year assessment deadline.

The case is particularly striking because of just how far back the IRS went. Stephanie Murrin's disputed returns were filed for tax years 1993 through 1999, but the IRS didn't issue its notice of deficiency until 2019. The Third Circuit acknowledged the difficult position this creates for an innocent taxpayer but concluded that the language Congress used in the law does not limit the fraud exception to fraud committed by the taxpayer.

For taxpayers, that makes the practical takeaway as relevant heading into the 2027 filing season as it was when the Supreme Court acted this summer: choosing a trustworthy preparer matters, but so does reviewing your return before it is filed and keeping your own tax records.

Have a Question About This Topic?

Share this article...

Learning Center

Supreme Court Decision Means IRS May Pursue Tax Cases ‘Forever’ in Some Fraud Cases

Have a Question About This Topic?