Verify any claim · lenz.io
Claim analyzed
Legal“Under Internal Revenue Service news release IR-2026-58, a taxpayer who has not yet responded to Internal Revenue Service Letter 105-C or Letter 106-C is not considered to be waiting for the Internal Revenue Service to consider their response, has not triggered Internal Revenue Service review, and therefore does not meet the first eligibility condition for the streamlined process described in IR-2026-58.”
Submitted by Brave Badger 70f2
The conclusion
The release's eligibility language is best read to require that a response to Letter 105-C or 106-C has already been sent. That means a taxpayer who has not yet responded generally does not meet the first condition for the streamlined Form 907 process in IR-2026-58. The claim overstates one point, however, because the release does not expressly say that no IRS review has been triggered.
Caveats
- IR-2026-58 supports the eligibility conclusion, but it does not explicitly state that a non-responding taxpayer has "not triggered IRS review."
- The IRS release does not define every edge case for what counts as a "response" or when a taxpayer is considered to be "waiting."
- The strongest support comes from IRS primary sources; press-release reposts and non-authoritative summaries add little independent value.
Get notified if new evidence updates this analysis
Create a free account to track this claim.
Sources
Sources used in the analysis
The IRS is aware that some taxpayers are approaching the end of this two-year period and is providing a new way for taxpayers to request more time to resolve their claims administratively or to file suit through the filing of Form 907, Agreement to Extend the Time to Bring Suit PDF, if they meet both of the following conditions: - The taxpayer is waiting for the IRS to consider their response to the notice of disallowance on Letter 105-C or 106-C, and - The taxpayer has six months or less remaining before their two-year period expires.
Letter 106-C, Claim Partially Disallowed, is your legal notice that we partially disallowed, or denied, your claim for the tax period stated in the letter. You may receive a Letter 106-C for your Employee Retention Credit claim because we either: - Disallowed part of your ERC. - Disallowed all of your ERC but allowed something else on your return.
Businesses that claimed the Employee Retention Credit may have received IRS Letter 105-C if we identified the claim as ineligible. This page can help you understand what Letter 105-C means and what to do if you disagree with our decision to disallow your credit.
Step-by-step instructions are available at IRS.gov/CP320B. Taxpayers may be eligible to extend the time even if they don’t receive Notice CP320B. Step-by-step instructions are available at IRS.gov/erc105c and IRS.gov/erc106c for those who believe they meet the above-stated criteria, even if they did not receive a letter.
Under current law, the IRS and a taxpayer can agree in writing to extend the time to file suit, if both parties sign Form 907 before the two-year period expires. A fully executed Form 907 gives the IRS more time to consider the disallowance administratively and gives the taxpayer more time to file suit, if needed.
Any suit brought under section 7422 shall be filed within 2 years from the date of mailing by certified mail or registered mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice of the disallowance of the part of the claim to which the suit relates. The preceding sentence shall not apply to a suit brought under section 7426. If the taxpayer files a protest with the Secretary against such disallowance within such 2-year period, such suit may be filed at any time before the expiration of 2 years after the date of mailing by certified mail or registered mail by the Secretary to the taxpayer of a notice of disallowance of the part of the claim to which the suit or proceeding relates.
To qualify for this new streamlined submission method, taxpayers must meet two strict criteria. First, 'The taxpayer is waiting for the IRS to consider their response to the notice of disallowance on Letter 105-C or 106-C'. Second, 'The taxpayer has six months or less remaining before their two-year period expires'.
This option is available to taxpayers who meet both of the following conditions: - They are waiting for the IRS to consider their response to the notice of disallowance on Letter 105-C or 106-C. - They have six months or less remaining before their two-year period expires.
A taxpayer may be eligible to request an extension if both of the following apply: - You previously responded to an ERC claim denial reported on Letter 105 C or 106 C; and - You have six months or less remaining before your two year deadline expires.
The taxpayers must (1) be waiting for the IRS to consider the taxpayer's response to the notice of disallowance on Letter 105-C or 106-C and (2) have six months or less remaining before the two-year period to resolve their claim administratively or to file a refund suit expires.
The taxpayer is waiting for the IRS to consider their response to the notice of disallowance on Letter 105-C or 106-C, and - The taxpayer has six months or less remaining before their two-year period expires. Starting today, taxpayers with six months or less remaining in their time to file suit, and who are waiting for the IRS to consider their disallowance response to Letter 105-C or 106-C, may submit Form 907 requesting an extension via the IRS Document Upload Tool.
To use the new document upload process for Form 907, the taxpayer must satisfy both of the following: 1. The taxpayer is waiting for the IRS to consider the taxpayer's response to a Letter 105-C or 106-C disallowing an ERC refund claim in whole or in part; and 2. The taxpayer has six months or less remaining before the two-year appeals period expires.
Under IRC § 6532(a), the period to file a refund suit after a notice of disallowance is two years from the mailing date of the notice, and this period can be extended by mutual agreement using Form 907. The phrase 'waiting for the IRS to consider their response' in IR-2026-58 implies that a response must have been submitted to trigger IRS review consideration; no response means no pending review process has started.
What do you think of the claim?
Your challenge will appear immediately.
Challenge submitted!
Expert review
How each expert evaluated the evidence and arguments
Expert 1 — The Logic Examiner
IR-2026-58 conditions the streamlined Form 907 upload option on the taxpayer being “waiting for the IRS to consider their response” to a 105-C/106-C disallowance (Source 1), which semantically presupposes that a response has already been submitted; secondary summaries that restate the criterion as “previously responded” (Source 9) align with that reading, while Source 4 merely says taxpayers without CP320B may still use the instructions if they meet the same criteria and does not expand eligibility. Therefore, a taxpayer who has not yet responded is not “waiting for the IRS to consider their response” and does not satisfy the first eligibility condition, though the extra phrasing about “triggered IRS review” is an inferential gloss rather than an explicit textual element.
Expert 2 — The Context Analyst
The claim adds extra, not-explicitly-stated consequences (“has not triggered IRS review”) and treats the eligibility phrase “waiting for the IRS to consider their response” as categorically excluding anyone who has not yet responded, but IR-2026-58 itself does not define “waiting,” “response,” or whether other administrative contacts (e.g., an intent-to-protest or pending submission) could qualify, and Source 4 only reiterates that taxpayers must meet the same criteria without clarifying edge cases [1][4]. Still, the ordinary reading of the IRS's first condition—being “waiting for the IRS to consider their response”—strongly implies a response has already been submitted, so a taxpayer who has not responded generally would not meet that first condition, though the claim's absolute framing and added procedural assertions make it somewhat overstated [1][9].
Expert 3 — The Source Auditor
The most reliable, primary evidence is IRS news release IR-2026-58 itself (Source 1, IRS), which makes eligibility contingent on the taxpayer “waiting for the IRS to consider their response” to Letter 105-C/106-C—language that presupposes a response has already been submitted; IRS cross-references (Source 4, IRS) do not alter that criterion, while secondary commentary (e.g., Source 9 BDO) explicitly paraphrases it as having “previously responded.” Based on this high-authority IRS wording and consistent independent paraphrases, a taxpayer who has not yet responded is not “waiting for the IRS to consider their response” and thus does not meet the first streamlined-process condition in IR-2026-58.
Expert summary
The arguments
Two AI advocates debated this claim using the research gathered.
Argument for
Source 1 (Internal Revenue Service), the authoritative primary source IR-2026-58 itself, explicitly states that the first eligibility condition requires that 'the taxpayer is waiting for the IRS to consider their response to the notice of disallowance on Letter 105-C or 106-C,' which logically and grammatically presupposes that a response has already been submitted — a taxpayer who has not yet responded cannot be 'waiting for the IRS to consider their response' because no response exists for the IRS to consider. This interpretation is further corroborated by Source 9 (BDO USA), which paraphrases the condition as requiring that the taxpayer 'previously responded to an ERC claim denial,' and Source 13 (LLM Background Knowledge), which confirms that 'no response means no pending review process has started,' collectively establishing that a non-responding taxpayer fails the first eligibility condition.
The Proponent's argument commits a plain-language error by treating IR-2026-58's status requirement—“waiting for the IRS to consider their response” (Source 1, Internal Revenue Service)—as satisfiable absent any response, even though the ordinary meaning of “their response” presupposes a submitted response that can be under consideration, not a merely potential future response. The Proponent's reliance on Source 4 (Internal Revenue Service) is misplaced because it only reiterates that taxpayers should use the Letter 105-C/106-C instructions if they “believe they meet the above-stated criteria,” and it does not dilute the criterion itself, which is reinforced by BDO's explicit “previously responded” gloss (Source 9, BDO USA) and the procedural inference that no response means no review has been triggered (Source 13, LLM Background Knowledge).
Argument against
IR-2026-58's eligibility condition is phrased as a present-status test—“the taxpayer is waiting for the IRS to consider their response” (Source 1, Internal Revenue Service)—and it does not explicitly state that a taxpayer who has not yet responded can never be “waiting” (e.g., because they are still within the response window or otherwise in an administrative posture), so the motion's categorical exclusion is an unsupported leap beyond the text. Moreover, IRS guidance notes taxpayers may pursue the extension pathway even if they did not receive the CP320B notice and directs them to the Letter 105-C/106-C instruction pages if they “believe they meet the above-stated criteria” (Source 4, Internal Revenue Service), underscoring that eligibility is not determined by the motion's rigid “no response = no waiting/no review” rule.
The Opponent's argument misreads Source 4, which merely clarifies that taxpayers who did not receive CP320B may still qualify if they believe they meet the stated criteria — it does not redefine or relax those criteria, and the stated criteria in Source 1 remain unambiguously conditioned on the taxpayer 'waiting for the IRS to consider their response,' a phrase that grammatically requires a prior response to exist. The Opponent commits a fallacy of ambiguity by treating the absence of an explicit exclusion as permission for an alternative reading, while ignoring that Source 9 (BDO USA) affirmatively paraphrases the condition as requiring that the taxpayer 'previously responded,' and Source 13 confirms that without a submitted response, no IRS review process has been triggered — leaving a non-responding taxpayer categorically outside the first eligibility condition.