2017 Key Tax Facts

• Tax Foundation 2017 Tax Brackets
  • IRS Tax Inflation Adjustments
    • 2017 Mileage Rates
• Charitable             .14 per mile,    .14 for 2018
• Moving                  .17 per mile,    .18 for 2018
• Medical                 .17 per mile,    .18 for 2018
• Business-related   .535 per mile,  .545 for 2018
• Depreciation component  .25 per mile, .25 for 2018

2017 Phaseouts & Income Limits

• Foreign Earned Income Exclusion:  102,100
• Itemized Deductions:  Single 261,500, MfJ 313,800
• Personal Exemption §151 :  4,050 for income under 261,500
• Standard Deduction §63 :    Single     6,350, MfJ   12,700 
• 25% Tax Bracket starts at:   Single   37,950, MfJ   75,900
• 39.6% "Top Rate" starts at:  Single 418,400, MfJ 470,700
• 15% Capital Gains start at:  Single   37,950, MfJ   75,900
• 20% Capital Gains start at:  Single 418,400, MfJ 470,700      
• plus 3.8% Medicare surtax (NIIT) on lessor of Net Investment Income or MAGI Single > 200,000, MfJ > 250,000
• Tax on "§1250 gain" depreciation recapture:  25%
• Capital gains tax rate on collectibles: (gold, coins, art, antiques) & Qualified Small Business Stock §1202 :  28% 
• Wage Limit for FICA Tax:  127,200
• Monthly transit and parking benefits:  255

2017 Child Related Phaseouts

• Adoption Credit Income:  203,540
• Adoption credit amount:    13,570
• Child Tax Credit Income:  Single 75,000, MfJ 110,000 
• Kiddie Tax exemption §1(g)(4):  2,100
•  EITC is Zero @ AGI:
  • with 3+ children:    Single 48,340, MfJ 53,930
  • with 2 children:      Single 45,007, MfJ 50,597
  • with 1 child:           Single 39,617, MfJ 45,207
  • with no children:    Single 15,051, MfJ 20,600
• EITC Investment Income limit:  3,450
• EITC max credit (Single or MfJ):
  • with 3+ children:     6,318
  • with 2 children:       5,616
  • with 1 child:            3,400
  • with no children:       510
• Child Tax Credit (per child under age 17; max refundable: 3 kids):  1,000  

2017 Medical & Health Care Related Phaseouts & Limits

• Flexible Spending Account Contributions:  2,600
  • FSA unused carryover amount : 500  
• HSA Contributions: Single plan 3,400, Family plan 6,750, Age 55+ catch-up  1,000 

2017 Gift & Estate Limits

• Annual Exclusion:  14,000
• §529 Plan Gifts:     70,000
• Unified Gift & Estate (Lifetime) Exemption:  Single 5,490,000, MfJ 10,980,000
• Gift & Estate tax rates: 40%

2017 Education Related Phaseouts & Limits

• Lifetime Learning Credits: Single 56,000, MfJ 112,000
• American Opportunity Credit:  Single 80,000, MfJ 160,000
• Savings Bond Interest exclusion for education:  Single 77,500, MfJ 116,300
• American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) (modified HOPE Credit) per Student (1st 4-years of college) (40% refundable:  1,000):  2,500 
•  Lifetime Learning Credit (20% of 1st $10K tuition) per family: 2,000

2017 Retirement Related Phaseouts & Limits 

• Simple Plan contribution limit:  12,500, Age 50+ catch-up:  3,000 
• 401-K, 403b, 457 & SAR-SEP contribution limit:  18,000, Age 50+ catch-up:  6,000
• Solo 401-K/SEP/Profit-Sharing total contribution (§415)  limit:  (profit sharing limited to 25% of comp): 54,000, Age 50+ catch-up:  6,000  
• IRA & Roth contribution limit:  5,500, Age 50+ catch-up:  1,000
• Roth compensation:  Single 118,000, MfJ 186,000
• Traditional IRA compensation, if covered by a plan:  Single 62,000, MfJ 99,000  186,000 (one spouse covered)  
• Traditional IRA (non-deductible) compensation:  No limit

2017 AMT Exemption Amount & Income Phaseouts Begin

• AMT Exemption:                       Single 54,300,   MfJ   84,000 
• AMT Exemption phaseout:       Single 120,700, MfJ 160,900  
• 28% AMT rate starts at AMTI:  Single 93,900,   MfJ 187,800 

2017 Property exempt from levy §6334(a)(2): 

• Furniture & Personal Effects:  9,200 
• Tools/Books:  4,600 

2017 Attorney fee award limitation (per hour) §7430(c)(1)(B)(iii):  200/hour

2017 §179 Property:

• Maximum deduction year placed in service:  510,000
• Phase-out threshold (Total equipment purchased):  2,030,000 
• TCJA allows 100% first-year "Bonus Depreciation" in Year-1 for qualifying assets placed in-service between September 28, 2017, and December 31, 2022.  

Please copy & distribute freely.  This information is provided for general information and educational purposes only.  It is based upon publicly available information from sources believed to be reliable.  No assurance to accuracy or completeness can be made, and information may change at any time and without notice.  

2018 Key Tax Facts

• Tax Foundation 2018 Tax Brackets 
  • IRS Tax Inflation Adjustments
    • 2018 Mileage Rates
• Charitable - .14 per mile, .14 for 2019
• Moving - .18 per mile, .20 for 2019
• Medical - .18 per mile, .20 for 2019
• Business-related - .545 per mile, .58 for 2019
• Depreciation component - .25 per mile, .26 for 2019

2018 Income Limits & Phaseouts Begin

• Foreign Earned Income Exclusion:  103,900
• Itemized Deductions: (Does Not Apply) 
• State & Local tax deduction limit:   Single 5,000, MfJ 10,000
• Personal Exemption §151 :  -0- (Does Not Apply)
• Standard Deduction §63 :   Single 12,000, MfJ 24,000 
• 24% Tax Bracket starts at:  Single 82,500, MfJ 165,000
• 37% "Top Rate" starts at:  Single 500,000, MfJ 600,000
• 15% Capital Gains start at: Single 38,600, MfJ 77,200 
• 20% Capital Gains start at: Single 425,800, MfJ 479,000  
• plus 3.8% Medicare surtax (NIIT) on lessor of 
• Net Investment Income or MAGI 
• Single > 200,000, MfJ > 250,000 MfJ 
• Tax on "§1250 gain" depreciation recapture:  25%
• Capital gains tax rate on collectibles: 
• (gold, coins, art, antiques) & 
• Qualified Small Business Stock §1202 :  28% 
• Wage Limit for FICA Tax:  128,400
• Monthly transit and parking benefits:  260

2018 Child Related Income Phaseouts Begin

• Adoption Credit Income:  207,140
• Adoption credit amount:  13,810
• Child Tax Credit Income:  
• Single 200,000, MfJ 400,000  
• Kiddie Tax exemption §1(g)(4):  2,100
• EITC is Zero @ AGI:
  • with 3+ children: Single 49,194, MfJ 54,884
  • with 2 children:   Single 45,802, MfJ 51,492
  • with 1 child:        Single 40,320, MfJ 46,010
  • with no children: Single 15,270, MfJ 20,950
• EITC Investment Income limit:  3,500
• EITC max credit (Single or MfJ):
  • with 3+ children:    6,431
  • with 2 children:      5,716
  • with 1 child:           3,461
  • with no children:      519
• Child Tax Credit (1,400 refundable) 
• (per child under age 17; max refundable: 3 kids):  2,000   

2018 Medical & Health Care Related Limits

• Flexible Spending Account Contributions: 2,650
  • FSA unused carryover amount : 500 
• HSA Plan Contributions: Single plan 3,450, Family plan 6,850, Age 55+ catch-up:  1,000 

2018 Gift & Estate Limits

• Annual Exclusion:  15,000
• §529 Plan Gifts:  75,000
• Unified Gift & Estate (Lifetime) Exemption:  Single 11,180,000, MfJ 22,360,000
• Gift & Estate tax rates: 40%

2018 Education Related Income Phaseouts Begin

• Lifetime Learning Credits:  Single 57,000, MfJ 114,000
• American Opportunity Credit:  Single 80,000, MfJ 160,000
• Savings Bond Interest exclusion for education:  Single 79,550, MfJ 119,300
• American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) 
• (modified HOPE Credit) per Student 
• (1st 4-years of college) (40% refundable:  1,000):  2,500
• Lifetime Learning Credit 
• (20% of 1st $10K tuition) per family: 2,000

2018 Retirement Related Contribution & Income 

Phaseouts Begin 

• Simple Plan contribution limit:  12,500 
• Age 50+ catch-up:  3,000 
• 401-K, 403b, 457 & SAR-SEP contribution limit:  18,500
• Age 50+ catch-up:  6,000
• Solo 401-K/SEP/Profit-Sharing total contribution(§415)limit:  
• (profit sharing limited to 25% of comp): 55,000
• Age 50+ catch-up:  6,000  
• IRA & Roth contribution limit:  5,500, Age 50+ catch-up: 1,000
• Roth compensation:  Single 120,000, MfJ 189,000
• Traditional IRA compensation, if covered by a plan: 
• Single 63,000 
• MfJ 101,000  189,000 (one spouse covered)  
• Traditional IRA (non-deductible) compensation:  No limit

2018 AMT Exemption Amount & Income Phaseouts Begin

• AMT Exemption:  Single 70,300, MfJ 109,400 
• AMT Exemption phaseout:  Single 500,000, MfJ 1,000,000  
• 28% AMT rate starts at AMTI:  Single 95,750, MfJ 191,500  

2018 Property exempt from levy §6334(a)(2): 

• Furniture & Personal Effects:  9,380  
• Tools/Books:  4,690 

2018 Attorney fee award limitation (per hour) 

    §7430(c)(1)(B)(iii):  200/hour  

2018 §179 Property:

• Maximum deduction year placed in service:  1,000,000
• Phase-out threshold (Total equipment purchased):  
• 2,500,000
  • TCJA allows 100% first-year "Bonus Depreciation" in Year-1 
  • for qualifying assets placed in-service between September 28, 2017, and December 31, 2022.     

Please copy & distribute freely.  

This information is provided for general information and educational purposes 

  only.  It is based upon publicly available information from sources believed to be reliable.  

No assurance to accuracy or completeness can be made, 

  and information may change at any time and without notice. 

Stephen B. Jordan, EA tax & accounting firm specializing in supporting QuickBooks® users

Stephen B. Jordan, EA 

• Full service tax & accounting firm specializing in supporting QuickBooks® users, consulting & tax services for individuals and growing businesses. 
• If you or your company want to reduce taxes or optimize cash-flow, give us a call. We will give you our best people. Mr. Jordan is a national tax expert and has a reputation for diligent and comprehensive preparation of individual and business returns to maximize your options. 
• Mr. Jordan, owner and Enrolled Agent, has 42 years of professional experience. Steve is an all around hard-working guy, family man and small business owner. 
• Mr. Jordan has testified and deposed as an "expert witness" on accounting and tax issues at pre-trial hearings and in NH State Superior Court on behalf of his clients. 
• Steve specializes in small business, individual, rentals, tax counseling and complicated returns. The firm focuses on individuals and entrepreneurs, while offering a level of personal and direct involvement to meet our clients' needs and business. 
• We are accountants who think ahead so you can get ahead! We offer quality service at affordable rates to help you keep what you have worked to earn! In today's global economy, effective tax advice planning can give your business a competitive advantage. 
• We offer a range of "tax services" which are designed for clients' innovative tax planning. 
• With the new economy developing rapidly, you and your business deserve high quality tax advice. 
• We are committed to delivering this and surpassing your expectations.

IRC §6404 - Abatements of Tax, Interest, and Penalties

 IRC §6404 is the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section on abatements of tax, interest, and penalties. Which part matters depends on what you're working on, so here is a quick map:

§6404(a): General abatement authority

• The IRS may abate any assessment that is excessive, assessed after the limitations period expired, or erroneously or illegally assessed.

§6404(b): No claim for abatement of income, estate, or gift tax

• No claim for abatement may be filed for income, estate, or gift taxes. Taxpayers use other avenues (e.g., amended returns, audit reconsideration, refund claims).

§6404(c): Small balances

• The IRS may abate uncollectible amounts when administration and collection costs would exceed the expected recovery.

§6404(e): Interest abatement for unreasonable IRS errors or delays

• Applies to interest attributable to unreasonable errors or delays by an IRS employee in performing a ministerial or managerial act.
• Only applies after the IRS has contacted the taxpayer in writing about the deficiency or payment (for deficiencies, the period begins after that notice).
• The taxpayer must not have significantly contributed to the delay.
• §6404(e)(2) extends this to unreasonable delays or errors due to erroneous written advice (in some contexts).
• Tax Court review is available under §6404(h) (petition within 180 days of the IRS's final determination; the case is filed via Form 5/ standard petition procedures with jurisdiction limited to cases where the net worth and size limits in §7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) are met).

§6404(f): Abatement for erroneous written advice

• Penalties and additions to tax can be abated if they resulted from reasonable reliance on written advice from the IRS (the advice must have been in response to a specific written request by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer must have provided adequate and accurate information).

§6404(g): Suspension of interest and certain penalties

• Interest, failure-to-file, failure-to-pay, and certain other penalties are suspended if the IRS fails to send a notice of liability within 36 months of the later of the filing date or due date (without extensions). It does not apply to fraud, listed transactions, or cases where the taxpayer's underreported income is significant (the statute has several exclusions).
• Suspension ends 21 days after the IRS sends the notice.

§6404(h): Tax Court review

• Provides Tax Court jurisdiction to review the IRS's refusal to abate interest under §6404(e). The petition must be filed within 180 days after the IRS mails its final determination.

§6404(i): Authority to abate interest on certain disaster-related situations (and related provisions)

A few practical points in collection resolution work:

• First-time abatement (FTA) for penalties is an administrative policy under the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM 20.1.1.3.3.2.1), not a statutory provision of §6404. Reasonable cause relief comes from §6651 and §6724, among others.
• Interest abatement under §6404(e) is requested on Form 843, and the request should identify the specific ministerial or managerial act and the period of delay.
• Interest abatement requests are often limited by the "ministerial or managerial" definitions in Treas. Reg. §301.6404-2.

Tax Court Help irs-interest-abatement-section-6404

Referral Fees: Justifiable or Unethical?

credit: Thomas A. Gorczynski

Referral Fees: Justifiable or Unethical?
Should tax practitioners pay referral fees to other practitioners?
September 16, 2026
READ IN APP

The Gorczynski Group LLC attended two of the IRS Nationwide Tax Forums this year: Chicago and San Diego. One of the advertised opportunities was that I am happy to accept case referrals for IRS and U.S. Tax Court representation engagements.

I was surprised when every single tax professional who asked about referrals demanded to know what referral fee they would earn for sending a client to me to handle a matter that the tax professional admitted they did not have the knowledge, experience, or license to handle themselves.

While I appreciate every referral I receive from a colleague, I refuse to pay referral fees because I believe there are ethical issues inherent in doing so.

If you find value in Tom Talks Taxes, please become a free, paid, or Tax Toolbox subscriber.
Upgrade to paid

Ethical Standards
Circular 230 does not address referral fees at all. §10.27 prohibits unconscionable fees and restricts contingent fees; nothing in prohibits referral fees or requires disclosure of referral fees.

The AICPA Code of Professional Conduct addresses referral fees directly. The Commissions and Referral Fees Rule (ET §1.520.001) prohibits commissions only for attest clients; referral fees between professionals are governed by paragraph .04:

Any member who accepts a referral fee for recommending or referring any service of a CPA to any person or entity or who pays a referral fee to obtain a client shall disclose such acceptance or payment to the client.

The rule permits a CPA to pay or accept a referral fee, but the obligation runs in both directions: the CPA who pays to obtain the client must disclose the payment, and the CPA who accepts a fee for the recommendation must disclose it as well. Neither side of the transaction can be kept from the client.

The NAEA Code of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct takes the same approach for enrolled agents. Rule 12 states in part:

No Member or Associate will accept or pay a commission for the sale or referral of products or services to a client unless they are properly licensed and all facts are fully disclosed in writing to the client.

The U.S. Tax Court goes further. Tax Court Rule 201(a) requires practitioners before the Court to practice “in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association.” ABA Model Rule 7.2(b) provides that a lawyer “shall not compensate, give or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services,” subject to narrow exceptions. A USTCP cannot pass a tax professional for a U.S. Tax Court engagement referral.

The standards that permit referral fees require written disclosure to the client, and the standard governing U.S. Tax Court practice prohibits them. Not one practitioner who asked me about a referral fee offered mentioned disclosing it to the client in writing.
Referrals and Competence

Circular 230 §10.35 requires a practitioner to “possess the necessary competence to engage in practice before the Internal Revenue Service.” A practitioner who lacks the knowledge, experience, or license for a federal tax matter has two options:
1. Gain competence through education and/or consultation, or

2. Decline the matter and refer the client to someone competent.

A referral often is the referring practitioner meeting their own ethical obligation. Demanding payment to meet an ethical obligation turns the relationship backward.
Taxpayer’s Best Interest Comes First

A referral fee changes the question the referring practitioner asks. Without one, the question is “who is best for this client?” With one, it is “who will pay me the most for this client?” They are not always the same person, and the client cannot tell which question was asked unless the fee is properly disclosed.

Here’s the truth: the client ultimately pays the referral fee because a practitioner who passes a portion of the engagement fee to the referring practitioner is pricing the referral fee into the engagement fee.

Eliminating the Scarcity Mindset
The referral fee demand comes from a scarcity mindset: a belief that any client walking out the door, even for a matter that cannot be handled by the practitioner, is lost revenue that must be recovered somehow. It is not.

A client referred to a competent professional for representation or advisory matters returns to the referring practitioner for tax return preparation, usually with a stronger relationship, because the practitioner solved a problem.

Referrals run in both directions. A practitioner who refers out matters beyond their expertise without expecting anything in return builds relationships with the professionals who receive those referrals, and those professionals send work back because the relationship rests on trust and competence, not on a ledger.

A referral made for the client's benefit is the best business development a tax professional can do, and it costs nothing.

**Judicial estoppel** / **Collateral estoppel** (issue preclusion) / **Equitable estoppel**

 Here's how the three separate out:

---

**Judicial estoppel** —

 bars a party from taking a position *inconsistent with one it successfully argued and won on* in an earlier proceeding.

• Why is it called that?

Judicial: 

 Relating to a [court] or [judge] (from the Latin judicium).

Estoppel: 

 A legal principle that [stops] or ["plugs"] someone from contradicting what they previously established as true (from the Old French estouper, meaning "to stop up" or "plug"). Purpose: 

  Protect the integrity of the courts, stop parties from "playing fast and loose." 

Elements: 

(1) clearly inconsistent later position, 

(2) the earlier position was *judicially adopted* (party actually succeeded on it), 

(3) unfair advantage if allowed. It doesn't require reliance by the other party — the "victim" is the court system itself. *New Hampshire v. Maine*, 532 U.S. 742 (2001).

---

**Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion)** —

 Bars *relitigating an issue* that was actually litigated and necessarily decided in a prior case between the same parties (or their privies). 

  It's about the *issue*, not a party's position — and it applies whether or not the party "won." 

  Collateral estoppel, also known as "issue preclusion," is a legal rule that stops a party from arguing an issue of fact or law that a court already decided in a past case. 

• Elements generally: 

  Same issue, actually litigated, necessarily decided, final judgment, same parties/privity.

---

**Equitable estoppel** —

 Bars a party from asserting a claim or right where its own conduct (a misrepresentation of fact) induced another party's *detrimental reliance*.

  This one is about protecting the reliant party, not the courts. Elements: 

• False representation, knowledge of the truth by the party estopped,

• Ignorance of the truth by the other party, intent that the other party act on it, and actual detrimental reliance. 

  Against the IRS specifically, equitable estoppel is rarely successful — courts require affirmative misconduct, not mere silence or an erroneous ruling.

---

**The core distinctions:**

- Judicial estoppel =

 Protects the *court's integrity*, triggered by a party's own prior *success* on an inconsistent position.

- Collateral estoppel =

 Protects *finality of issues*, triggered by prior *litigation and decision* of that specific issue.

- Equitable estoppel =

 Protects a *party's reliance*, triggered by *misrepresentation + detrimental reliance*, no prior judgment needed at all.

---

A quick tell for fact patterns: 

• No prior lawsuit involved

 → it's equitable estoppel or nothing. 

• Prior lawsuit, same issue decided

 → collateral estoppel.

• Prior lawsuit, party won by taking position X and now wants position Y 

→ judicial estoppel 

USTCP Q&A

2026 S-29 (1 point). 

TP owned unimproved land which she purchased 10 years ago. TP’s adjusted basis in the land was $20,000. On April 1, Year 1, TP donated the land to a qualified charitable organization. At the time of the donation, the fair market value of the land was $70,000. In Year 1, TP’s adjusted gross income is $100,000. 

 What is the amount of charitable deduction that TP will be able to use in Year 1 for donating the land? 

$70,000

 $30,000 

$20,000 

Zero 

None of the above 

 Points Awarded: $30,000.

---

S-29: Why $30,000

The land is long-term capital gain property (held 10 years, appreciated from $20,000 to $70,000), donated to a public charity. For gifts of appreciated capital gain property to a 50%-limit (public) charity, the deduction is normally based on FMV, but it's capped at 30% of AGI for the year — not the usual 60% that applies to cash gifts.

30% × $100,000 AGI = $30,000 deductible in Year 1.

(She could instead elect to reduce the gift to basis — $20,000 — and use the 50%/60% AGI limit, but that election isn't the default and isn't what's being tested here; the standard FMV/30%-of-AGI answer is $30,000.)

---

 (1/1)  2026 S-30 (1 point). 

TP owned unimproved land which she purchased 10 years ago. TP’s adjusted basis in the land was $20,000. On April 1, Year 1, TP donated the land to a qualified charitable organization. At the time of the donation, the fair market value of the land was $70,000. In Year 1, TP’s adjusted gross income is $100,000. 

 What is the amount of charitable donation that will carryforward? 

$70,000 

$40,000

 $20,000

 Zero 

None of the above

---

S-30: Why $40,000 carries forward

Her total charitable contribution amount (the deductible FMV of the gift) is $70,000. She was only able to use $30,000 of it in Year 1 because of the 30%-of-AGI ceiling.

$70,000 total − $30,000 used = $40,000 carryforward

This carries forward up to 5 additional years, subject each year to the same 30%-of-AGI limit for that type of property, until it's fully absorbed or expires.

Thank you President Donald Trump

THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN!

---

NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY. Strongest Border in the History of our Country - 15 months, zero releases. Safest Communities in decades, lowest murder rate in 125 years. More jobs, record investment pouring in, American Energy Dominance, and Peace through Strength restored.

---

Promises made, promises kept.

How many Accountants does it take to change a lightbulb?

Q: How many Accountants does it take to change a lightbulb?

A1: How many do you want it to take?

A2: How many did it take last year?
A3: What number did you have in mind?

USTCP Q&A

Q:  "The evidence section of the exam has questions like this: 'On cross-examination, IRS asks taxpayer's brother if he lied about his university degree on his job application two years ago. Taxpayer objects. How should the Tax Court rule?'

A: This is a classic FRE 608(b) fact pattern — testing whether you know the difference between asking about a specific instance of untruthful conduct and proving it up.

Ruling: Objection overruled. The court should allow the question.

Why:

FRE 608(b) governs this exactly. The general rule is that specific instances of a witness's conduct, offered only to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness, cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence. But the rule carves out an exception for cross-examination itself: the court has discretion to allow inquiry into specific instances on cross-examination if they're probative of the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

Lying about a university degree on a job application is a classic example of conduct probative of untruthfulness — it's a deliberate misrepresentation for personal gain, which fits squarely within what 608(b) is aimed at (as opposed to, say, a prior traffic violation, which wouldn't qualify).

So the mechanics here:

• Asking the Taxpayer on cross whether he lied about his degree → permissible, subject to the court's discretion, because it's inquiry into conduct probative of untruthfulness.
• If he denies it → the examiner is stuck with the answer. IRS cannot then bring in extrinsic evidence (documents, another witness) to prove he actually lied. That's the "extrinsic evidence" bar in 608(b) doing its work.

A few things the exam likes to test around this pattern that are worth having cold:

• 608(b) instances must go to truthfulness, not general bad character — a fistfight or a DUI wouldn't qualify, but fraud, lying on a resume, or falsifying records would.
• This is distinct from 609, which deals with impeachment by criminal conviction — no conviction is mentioned here, so 609 isn't in play.
• The rule limits this to cross-examination of the witness himself (or someone whose character the witness testified about); you can't just call a rebuttal witness to testify "he's a liar, I know because of the resume thing."
• Tax Court, per its own Rules of Practice and Procedure, generally follows the FRE (see Tax Court Rule 143), so this isn't a special Tax Court carve-out — it's straight federal evidence law.