WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today reminded employers that the next quarterly payroll tax return is <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/employment-tax-due-dates">due</a> November 1, 2021. The IRS urges employers to use the speed and convenience of filing the returns electronically.

E-filing is the most accurate method to file returns and saves 
taxpayers time by performing calculations and auto-populating forms and 
schedules with a step-by-step process. The IRS acknowledges receipt of 
e-filed returns within 24 hours, giving taxpayers reassurance that their
 return was not misplaced or lost in the mail. Electronically filed 
returns reduce processing time and have fewer errors,&nbsp;which reduces a 
taxpayer's chance of receiving an IRS notice. E-file users also receive 
missing information alerts.

Two options for electronically filing payroll tax returns:

The IRS requires all authorized IRS e-file providers to ensure 
only authorized users have access to secure information. Only the 
business owner, authorized signers and reporting agents can <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/use-an-on-line-signature-pin-to-e-file-employment-tax-forms">apply for an online signature PIN</a>.
 Third parties (such as attorneys, CPAs, tax return preparers or other 
tax professionals) can't request a PIN on behalf of the business, nor 
can they use the PIN to sign returns on behalf of their clients.

For more information on electronic filing of payroll tax returns, see the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/e-file-employment-tax-forms">E-file Employment Tax Forms</a>&nbsp;page.

The credit for qualified sick and family leave wages has been extended and amended.

The employer tax credits for qualified sick and family leave wages&nbsp;gives
 all American businesses with fewer than 500 employees funds to provide 
their employees with paid leave, either for the employee's own health 
needs or to care for family members. The American Rescue Plan of 
2021&nbsp;further amended and extended the tax credits (and the availability 
of advance payments of the tax credits) for paid sick and family leave. 
See <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-21-24.pdf">Notice 2021-24</a>&nbsp;PDF
 for guidance on the ability to reduce deposits and request advances for
 the credits for periods of leave through September 30, 2021.

The Employee Retention Credit&nbsp;has been extended and amended.

The Employee Retention Credit is a 
refundable tax credit against certain employment taxes equal to 50% of 
the qualified wages an eligible employer pays to employees.&nbsp;The modified
 and extended credit is available for qualified wages paid before 
January 1, 2022. Generally, the rules for the Employee Retention Credit 
for the second quarter of 2021 and the third and fourth quarters of 2021
 are substantially similar.

For more information about other coronavirus-related tax relief, visit <a href="https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus-tax-relief-and-economic-impact-payments">IRS.gov/coronavirus</a>.

The IRS encourages employers to help get the word out about the 
advance&nbsp;payments of the Child Tax Credit. Employers have direct access 
to many who may receive this credit. More information on the 
Advance&nbsp;Child Tax Credit is available on IRS.gov. The website has <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/2021-child-tax-credit-and-advance-child-tax-credit-payments-resources-and-guidance">tools employers can use</a>
 to deliver this information, including e-posters, drop-in articles (for
 paycheck stuffers, newsletters) and social media posts to share.

For more information see <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021">Advance Child Tax Credit Payments</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSWASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today reminded employers that the next quarterly payroll tax return is <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/employment-tax-due-dates">due</a> November 1, 2021. The IRS urges employers to use the speed and convenience of filing the returns electronically.E-filing is the most accurate method to file returns and saves 
taxpayers time by performing calculations and auto-populating forms and 
schedules with a step-by-step process. The IRS acknowledges receipt of 
e-filed returns within 24 hours, giving taxpayers reassurance that their
 return was not misplaced or lost in the mail. Electronically filed 
returns reduce processing time and have fewer errors,&nbsp;which reduces a 
taxpayer's chance of receiving an IRS notice. E-file users also receive 
missing information alerts.<h2>Two options for electronically filing payroll tax returns:</h2><ul>
 <li>Self file

	Purchase IRS-approved <a href="https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/94x-mef-providers">software</a>.Business owners may need to pay a fee to electronically file their returns.<a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/use-an-on-line-signature-pin-to-e-file-employment-tax-forms">Apply for an online signature PIN</a> or scan and attach <a href="https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-8453-emp">Form 8453-EMP</a> for the required signature.</li><li>Purchase IRS-approved <a href="https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/94x-mef-providers">software</a>.</li><li>Business owners may need to pay a fee to electronically file their returns.</li><li><a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/use-an-on-line-signature-pin-to-e-file-employment-tax-forms">Apply for an online signature PIN</a> or scan and attach <a href="https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-8453-emp">Form 8453-EMP</a> for the required signature.</li>
 </ul><ul>
 <li>Tax professional file

	Use the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/authorized-irs-e-file-provider-locator-service-for-tax-professionals">Authorized IRS e-file Provider Locator Service</a>&nbsp;to find a tax professional who can file on behalf of the business.</li><li>Use the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/authorized-irs-e-file-provider-locator-service-for-tax-professionals">Authorized IRS e-file Provider Locator Service</a>&nbsp;to find a tax professional who can file on behalf of the business.</li>
 </ul>The IRS requires all authorized IRS e-file providers to ensure 
only authorized users have access to secure information. Only the 
business owner, authorized signers and reporting agents can <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/use-an-on-line-signature-pin-to-e-file-employment-tax-forms">apply for an online signature PIN</a>.
 Third parties (such as attorneys, CPAs, tax return preparers or other 
tax professionals) can't request a PIN on behalf of the business, nor 
can they use the PIN to sign returns on behalf of their clients.For more information on electronic filing of payroll tax returns, see the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/e-file-employment-tax-forms">E-file Employment Tax Forms</a>&nbsp;page.<h2>COVID-related Employer Tax Credits</h2><h2>The credit for qualified sick and family leave wages has been extended and amended.</h2>The employer tax credits for qualified sick and family leave wages&nbsp;gives
 all American businesses with fewer than 500 employees funds to provide 
their employees with paid leave, either for the employee's own health 
needs or to care for family members. The American Rescue Plan of 
2021&nbsp;further amended and extended the tax credits (and the availability 
of advance payments of the tax credits) for paid sick and family leave. 
See <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-21-24.pdf">Notice 2021-24</a>&nbsp;PDF
 for guidance on the ability to reduce deposits and request advances for
 the credits for periods of leave through September 30, 2021.<h2>The Employee Retention Credit&nbsp;has been extended and amended.</h2>The Employee Retention Credit is a 
refundable tax credit against certain employment taxes equal to 50% of 
the qualified wages an eligible employer pays to employees.&nbsp;The modified
 and extended credit is available for qualified wages paid before 
January 1, 2022. Generally, the rules for the Employee Retention Credit 
for the second quarter of 2021 and the third and fourth quarters of 2021
 are substantially similar.For more information about other coronavirus-related tax relief, visit <a href="https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus-tax-relief-and-economic-impact-payments">IRS.gov/coronavirus</a>.<h2>Advance Child Tax Credit</h2>The IRS encourages employers to help get the word out about the 
advance&nbsp;payments of the Child Tax Credit. Employers have direct access 
to many who may receive this credit. More information on the 
Advance&nbsp;Child Tax Credit is available on IRS.gov. The website has <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/2021-child-tax-credit-and-advance-child-tax-credit-payments-resources-and-guidance">tools employers can use</a>
 to deliver this information, including e-posters, drop-in articles (for
 paycheck stuffers, newsletters) and social media posts to share.For more information see <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021">Advance Child Tax Credit Payments</a>.

IRS reminds employers to file e-file payroll tax returns timely

More COVID-19 booster shots may be on the way -- but when it’s your turn, you’ll get an extra dose of the original vaccine, not one updated to better match the extra-contagious delta variant.

And that has some experts wondering if the booster campaign is a bit of a missed opportunity to target delta and its likely descendants.

“Don’t we want to match the new strains that are most likely to circulate as closely as possible?” Dr. Cody Meissner of Tufts Medical Center, an adviser to the Food and Drug Administration, challenged Pfizer scientists recently.

“I don’t quite understand why this is not delta because that’s what we’re facing right now,” fellow adviser Dr. Patrick Moore of the University of Pittsburgh said last week as government experts debated whether it’s time for Moderna boosters. He wondered if such a switch would be particularly useful to block mild infection.

The simple answer: The FDA last month OK’d extra doses of Pfizer’s original recipe after studies showed it still works well enough against delta -- and those doses could be rolled out right away. Now the FDA is weighing evidence for boosters of the original Moderna and Johnson &amp; Johnson vaccines.

“It’s less churn and burn on the manufacturing” to only switch formulas when it’s really necessary, said FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks.

But Pfizer and Moderna are hedging their bets. They’re already testing experimental doses customized to delta and another variant, learning how to rapidly tweak the formula in case a change eventually is needed -- for today’s mutants or a brand new one. The tougher question for regulators is how they’d decide if and when to ever order such a switch.

CURRENT VACCINES ARE WORKING EVEN AGAINST DELTA

Vaccines used in the U.S. remain strongly effective against hospitalization and death from COVID-19, even after the delta variant took over, but authorities hope to shore up waning protection against less severe infection and for high-risk populations. Studies show an extra dose of the original formulas revs up virus-fighting antibodies that fend off infection, including antibodies that target delta.

MIGHT A DELTA-SPECIFIC BOOSTER WORK EVEN BETTER?

Vaccines target the spike protein that coats the coronavirus. Mutations in that protein made delta more contagious but to the immune system, it doesn’t look all that different, said virus expert Richard Webby of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.

That means there’s no guarantee a delta-specific booster would protect any better, said University of Pennsylvania immunologist John Wherry. Waiting for studies to settle that question -- and if necessary, brewing updated doses -- would have delayed rolling out boosters to people deemed to need them now.

Still, because delta is now the dominant version of the virus worldwide it almost certainly will be a common ancestor for whatever evolves next in a mostly unvaccinated world, said Trevor Bedford, a biologist and genetics expert at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

A delta-updated vaccine would “help to provide a buffer against those additional mutations,” he said. Bedford is paid by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports The Associated Press Health and Science Department.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are made with a piece of genetic code called messenger RNA that tells the body to make harmless copies of the spike protein so it’s trained to recognize the virus. Updating the formula merely requires swapping out the original genetic code with mRNA for a mutated spike protein.

Both companies first experimented with tweaked doses against a mutant that emerged in South Africa, the beta variant, that has been the most vaccine-resistant to date, more so than the delta variant. Lab tests showed the updated shots produced potent antibodies. But the beta variant didn’t spread widely.

Now the companies have studies underway of fully vaccinated people who agreed to test a booster dose tweaked to match delta. Moderna’s studies also include some shots that combine protection against more than one version of the coronavirus -- much like today’s flu vaccines work against multiple influenza strains.

The mRNA vaccines are considered the easiest kind to tweak but some other vaccine makers also are exploring how to change their recipes if necessary.

WHY STUDY UPDATED SHOTS IF THEY’RE NOT YET NEEDED?

Moderna’s Dr. Jacqueline Miller told an FDA advisory panel last week the company is studying variant-specific boosters now to learn if they offer advantages, and to be ready if they’re needed.

And Penn’s Wherry said it is critical to carefully analyze how the body reacts to updated shots because the immune system tends to “imprint” a stronger memory of the first virus strain it encounters. That raises questions about whether a subtly different booster would prompt a temporary jump in antibodies the body’s made before -- or the bigger goal, a broader and more durable response that might even be better positioned for the next mutations to come along.

“What is the tripping point?” asked Webby, who is part of a World Health Organization network that tracks influenza evolution. “A lot of what is going to need to go into that decision making is just going to be learned by experience, unfortunately.”

Bedford said now is the time to decide what drop in vaccine effectiveness would trigger a formula change, just as is done with flu vaccines every year.

That’s important not just if a dramatically worse variant suddenly develops. Like many scientists, Bedford expects the coronavirus to eventually evolve from a global crisis into a regular threat every winter -- which might mean more regular boosters, maybe even yearly in combination with the flu shot.

Timing between shots matters, too, Wherry noted.

“Your boostability may actually improve with longer intervals between stimulation,” he said. While scientists have learned a lot about the coronavirus, “the story’s not finished yet and we don’t know what the last chapters say.”

By LAURAN NEERGAARD, Associated PressMore COVID-19 booster shots may be on the way -- but when it’s your turn, you’ll get an extra dose of the original vaccine, not one updated to better match the extra-contagious delta variant.And that has some experts wondering if the booster campaign is a bit of a missed opportunity to target delta and its likely descendants.“Don’t we want to match the new strains that are most likely to circulate as closely as possible?” Dr. Cody Meissner of Tufts Medical Center, an adviser to the Food and Drug Administration, challenged Pfizer scientists recently.“I don’t quite understand why this is not delta because that’s what we’re facing right now,” fellow adviser Dr. Patrick Moore of the University of Pittsburgh said last week as government experts debated whether it’s time for Moderna boosters. He wondered if such a switch would be particularly useful to block mild infection.The simple answer: The FDA last month OK’d extra doses of Pfizer’s original recipe after studies showed it still works well enough against delta -- and those doses could be rolled out right away. Now the FDA is weighing evidence for boosters of the original Moderna and Johnson &amp; Johnson vaccines.“It’s less churn and burn on the manufacturing” to only switch formulas when it’s really necessary, said FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks.But Pfizer and Moderna are hedging their bets. They’re already testing experimental doses customized to delta and another variant, learning how to rapidly tweak the formula in case a change eventually is needed -- for today’s mutants or a brand new one. The tougher question for regulators is how they’d decide if and when to ever order such a switch.What we know so far:CURRENT VACCINES ARE WORKING EVEN AGAINST DELTAVaccines used in the U.S. remain strongly effective against hospitalization and death from COVID-19, even after the delta variant took over, but authorities hope to shore up waning protection against less severe infection and for high-risk populations. Studies show an extra dose of the original formulas revs up virus-fighting antibodies that fend off infection, including antibodies that target delta.MIGHT A DELTA-SPECIFIC BOOSTER WORK EVEN BETTER?Vaccines target the spike protein that coats the coronavirus. Mutations in that protein made delta more contagious but to the immune system, it doesn’t look all that different, said virus expert Richard Webby of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.That means there’s no guarantee a delta-specific booster would protect any better, said University of Pennsylvania immunologist John Wherry. Waiting for studies to settle that question -- and if necessary, brewing updated doses -- would have delayed rolling out boosters to people deemed to need them now.Still, because delta is now the dominant version of the virus worldwide it almost certainly will be a common ancestor for whatever evolves next in a mostly unvaccinated world, said Trevor Bedford, a biologist and genetics expert at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.A delta-updated vaccine would “help to provide a buffer against those additional mutations,” he said. Bedford is paid by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which also supports The Associated Press Health and Science Department.TWEAKING THE RECIPEThe Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are made with a piece of genetic code called messenger RNA that tells the body to make harmless copies of the spike protein so it’s trained to recognize the virus. Updating the formula merely requires swapping out the original genetic code with mRNA for a mutated spike protein.Both companies first experimented with tweaked doses against a mutant that emerged in South Africa, the beta variant, that has been the most vaccine-resistant to date, more so than the delta variant. Lab tests showed the updated shots produced potent antibodies. But the beta variant didn’t spread widely.Now the companies have studies underway of fully vaccinated people who agreed to test a booster dose tweaked to match delta. Moderna’s studies also include some shots that combine protection against more than one version of the coronavirus -- much like today’s flu vaccines work against multiple influenza strains.The mRNA vaccines are considered the easiest kind to tweak but some other vaccine makers also are exploring how to change their recipes if necessary.WHY STUDY UPDATED SHOTS IF THEY’RE NOT YET NEEDED?Moderna’s Dr. Jacqueline Miller told an FDA advisory panel last week the company is studying variant-specific boosters now to learn if they offer advantages, and to be ready if they’re needed.And Penn’s Wherry said it is critical to carefully analyze how the body reacts to updated shots because the immune system tends to “imprint” a stronger memory of the first virus strain it encounters. That raises questions about whether a subtly different booster would prompt a temporary jump in antibodies the body’s made before -- or the bigger goal, a broader and more durable response that might even be better positioned for the next mutations to come along.NO RULES YET FOR MAKING A SWITCH“What is the tripping point?” asked Webby, who is part of a World Health Organization network that tracks influenza evolution. “A lot of what is going to need to go into that decision making is just going to be learned by experience, unfortunately.”Bedford said now is the time to decide what drop in vaccine effectiveness would trigger a formula change, just as is done with flu vaccines every year.That’s important not just if a dramatically worse variant suddenly develops. Like many scientists, Bedford expects the coronavirus to eventually evolve from a global crisis into a regular threat every winter -- which might mean more regular boosters, maybe even yearly in combination with the flu shot.Timing between shots matters, too, Wherry noted.“Your boostability may actually improve with longer intervals between stimulation,” he said. While scientists have learned a lot about the coronavirus, “the story’s not finished yet and we don’t know what the last chapters say.”___

COVID boosters not updated to protect against delta variant

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to block a vaccine requirement imposed on Maine health care workers, the latest defeat for opponents of vaccine mandates.

It was the first time the Supreme Court weighed in on a statewide vaccine mandate. It previously rejected challenges of vaccine requirements for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-new-york-education-health-us-supreme-court-abd2fc93473aac7536257519bea71b02">New York City teachers</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-courts-coronavirus-pandemic-us-supreme-court-c10f02b467c86e2b61c6743aedd4fc69">Indiana University staff and students.</a>

Justice Stephen Breyer rejected the emergency appeal but left the door open to try again as the clock ticks on Maine’s mandate. The state will begin enforcing it Oct. 29.

The Maine vaccine requirement that was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-maine-university-of-maine-0f3d7527b8ff621da5f123db36b7b3c6">put in place by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills</a>&nbsp;requires hospital and nursing home workers to get vaccinated or risk losing their jobs.

Opponents tried to block the mandate, but a federal judge rejected the request Oct. 13. The judge said the record indicated regular testing alone wasn’t sufficient to stop the spread of the delta variant.

That decision set off a flurry of emergency appeals to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then the U.S. Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court in Boston quickly dismissed the emergency appeal but fast-tracked additional arguments. That timetable provides enough time for another ruling before enforcement of the vaccine mandate begins at the end of next week.

Mat Staver, founder and chair of the Liberty Counsel, which challenged the vaccine mandate, said the Supreme Court is ready to consider the case “if we do not get relief” from the appeals court in the coming days.

The Maine attorney general’s office declined to comment.

The Liberty Counsel, which filed the lawsuit in federal court in Maine in August, claimed to be representing more than 2,000 health care workers who don’t want to be forced to be vaccinated.

Dozens of health care workers have opted to quit, and Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston already curtailed some admissions because of an “acute shortage” of nurses. But most health workers have complied.

State agencies vowed to work with hospitals and nursing homes individually to address issues.

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to block a vaccine requirement imposed on Maine health care workers, the latest defeat for opponents of vaccine mandates.It was the first time the Supreme Court weighed in on a statewide vaccine mandate. It previously rejected challenges of vaccine requirements for&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-new-york-education-health-us-supreme-court-abd2fc93473aac7536257519bea71b02">New York City teachers</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/health-courts-coronavirus-pandemic-us-supreme-court-c10f02b467c86e2b61c6743aedd4fc69">Indiana University staff and students.</a>Justice Stephen Breyer rejected the emergency appeal but left the door open to try again as the clock ticks on Maine’s mandate. The state will begin enforcing it Oct. 29.The Maine vaccine requirement that was&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-maine-university-of-maine-0f3d7527b8ff621da5f123db36b7b3c6">put in place by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills</a>&nbsp;requires hospital and nursing home workers to get vaccinated or risk losing their jobs.Opponents tried to block the mandate, but a federal judge rejected the request Oct. 13. The judge said the record indicated regular testing alone wasn’t sufficient to stop the spread of the delta variant.That decision set off a flurry of emergency appeals to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then the U.S. Supreme Court.A three-judge panel of the appeals court in Boston quickly dismissed the emergency appeal but fast-tracked additional arguments. That timetable provides enough time for another ruling before enforcement of the vaccine mandate begins at the end of next week.Mat Staver, founder and chair of the Liberty Counsel, which challenged the vaccine mandate, said the Supreme Court is ready to consider the case “if we do not get relief” from the appeals court in the coming days.The Maine attorney general’s office declined to comment.The Liberty Counsel, which filed the lawsuit in federal court in Maine in August, claimed to be representing more than 2,000 health care workers who don’t want to be forced to be vaccinated.Dozens of health care workers have opted to quit, and Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston already curtailed some admissions because of an “acute shortage” of nurses. But most health workers have complied.State agencies vowed to work with hospitals and nursing homes individually to address issues.___

Supreme Court refuses to block a statewide vaccine mandate

Webinar to be conducted on October 28, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. Hawai’i time / 5:30 p.m. EDT

In partnership with the Hawai’i Attorney General, the Federal Communications Commission will host a virtual public webinar on spoofing and robocalls.   The event will follow up on the Hawai’i Attorney General’s spoofing alert issued last month, and will feature state government officials and other Hawai’i-based partners.  It will provide tips consumers can use to protect themselves from scams.  

The Webinar will begin at 11:30 a.m. Hawai’i time / 5:30 p.m. Eastern time and stream live on www.fcc.gov/live.  It is a free virtual event and does not require advanced registration.

Spoofing is when a caller deliberately falsifies the information transmitted to the recipient’s caller ID display to disguise their identity.  Scammers often use “neighbor spoofing” so it appears that an incoming call is from a local number, or spoof a number from a company or a government agency that consumers may know and trust.  Spoofing is often used in concert with a robocall by fraudsters seeking to steal consumers’ money and/or identity.

Questions can be submitted during or in advance of this event by sending an email to Outreach@fcc.gov. 

Open captioning will be provided for this event.  Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request.  Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer &amp; Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).  Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed.  In addition, please include a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request.  Last minute requests will be accepted, but it may not be possible to accommodate the request.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/3/1584977952684.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>FCCWebinar to be conducted on October 28, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. Hawai’i time / 5:30 p.m. EDT In partnership with the Hawai’i Attorney General, the Federal Communications Commission will host a virtual public webinar on spoofing and robocalls. The event will follow up on the Hawai’i Attorney General’s spoofing alert issued last month, and will feature state government officials and other Hawai’i-based partners. It will provide tips consumers can use to protect themselves from scams. The Webinar will begin at 11:30 a.m. Hawai’i time / 5:30 p.m. Eastern time and stream live on www.fcc.gov/live. It is a free virtual event and does not require advanced registration.Spoofing is when a caller deliberately falsifies the information transmitted to the recipient’s caller ID display to disguise their identity. Scammers often use “neighbor spoofing” so it appears that an incoming call is from a local number, or spoof a number from a company or a government agency that consumers may know and trust. Spoofing is often used in concert with a robocall by fraudsters seeking to steal consumers’ money and/or identity.Questions can be submitted during or in advance of this event by sending an email to Outreach@fcc.gov. Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer &amp; Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Last minute requests will be accepted, but it may not be possible to accommodate the request.

Consumer webinar will focus on plague of robocalls in US

WASHINGTON —&nbsp;Dr. Rachel Levine was sworn in Tuesday to the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, officially becoming the first openly transgender four-star officer in the uniformed services and first female four-star admiral of the U.S.P.H.S.

In March, the U.S. Senate confirmed the former Pennsylvania Health Secretary to be the nation's assistant secretary of health. 

She was the first openly transgender federal official to win Senate confirmation. The final vote was 52-48, mostly along party lines. Levine had been serving as Pennsylvania’s top health official since 2017, and emerged as the public face of the state’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.

As Assistant Secretary for Health, ADM Rachel Levine fights every day to improve the health and well-being of all Americans. She's working to help our nation overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and build a stronger foundation for a healthier future - one in which every American can attain their full health potential, according to a statement in her HHS bio. ADM Levine also is the head of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned one of the eight uniformed services.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634681586647.png" alt="Dr. Levine photo U.S. Health and Human services" />
 <figcaption>Dr. Levine photo U.S. Health and Human services</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON —&nbsp;Dr. Rachel Levine was sworn in Tuesday to the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, officially becoming the first openly transgender four-star officer in the uniformed services and first female four-star admiral of the U.S.P.H.S.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">I am deeply honored &amp; grateful to join the ranks of men &amp; women across this great nation who have committed to defend the United States against small &amp; large threats, known and unknown. I promise to uphold that trust to the fullest extent of my abilities. <a href="https://t.co/ryfwRqbAoz">https://t.co/ryfwRqbAoz</a>&mdash; ADM Rachel Levine (@HHS_ASH) <a href="https://twitter.com/HHS_ASH/status/1450446086645198851?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 19, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>In March, the U.S. Senate confirmed the former Pennsylvania Health Secretary to be the nation's assistant secretary of health. She was the first openly transgender federal official to win Senate confirmation. The final vote was 52-48, mostly along party lines. Levine had been serving as Pennsylvania’s top health official since 2017, and emerged as the public face of the state’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634682020466.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>As Assistant Secretary for Health, ADM Rachel Levine fights every day to improve the health and well-being of all Americans. She's working to help our nation overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and build a stronger foundation for a healthier future - one in which every American can attain their full health potential, according to a statement in her HHS bio. ADM Levine also is the head of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned one of the eight uniformed services.

🎥Transgender U.S. health official sworn in as four-star admiral

NORTH PLATTE&nbsp; — Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol have arrested two people following a pursuit in Dawson and Lincoln Counties overnight.

At approximately 12:00 a.m. Tuesday, a trooper performed a traffic stop on a Toyota 4Runner for failing to stop at a stop sign after exiting Interstate 80 at mile marker 231. During the traffic stop, the driver of the vehicle provided a fake name. As another trooper arrived on scene to assist, the driver accelerated and fled northbound on 24A Link. The troopers initiated a pursuit.

The Toyota fled westbound on Highway 30 toward Cozad, with speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The Cozad Police Department was able to successfully deploy stop sticks to slow the vehicle as it was in Cozad, but the vehicle continued to flee westbound on Highway 30.

As the vehicle approached Brady, a Lincoln County Sheriff’s Deputy was able to successfully deploy a second set of stop sticks. A short time later, the vehicle drove off the roadway, through a pasture fence, and came to a stop in a field. The occupants were then taken into custody without further incident.

The driver, a 17-year-old female, was lodged in Dawson County Jail for felony flight to avoid arrest, willful reckless driving, obstruction, criminal impersonation, and numerous traffic violations. A passenger, Emmanuel Reynoza, 28, of Rockford, Illinois, was lodged in Lincoln County Jail for obstruction, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and outstanding warrants from Illinois.

NORTH PLATTE&nbsp; — Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol have arrested two people following a pursuit in Dawson and Lincoln Counties overnight.At approximately 12:00 a.m. Tuesday, a trooper performed a traffic stop on a Toyota 4Runner for failing to stop at a stop sign after exiting Interstate 80 at mile marker 231. During the traffic stop, the driver of the vehicle provided a fake name. As another trooper arrived on scene to assist, the driver accelerated and fled northbound on 24A Link. The troopers initiated a pursuit.The Toyota fled westbound on Highway 30 toward Cozad, with speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The Cozad Police Department was able to successfully deploy stop sticks to slow the vehicle as it was in Cozad, but the vehicle continued to flee westbound on Highway 30.As the vehicle approached Brady, a Lincoln County Sheriff’s Deputy was able to successfully deploy a second set of stop sticks. A short time later, the vehicle drove off the roadway, through a pasture fence, and came to a stop in a field. The occupants were then taken into custody without further incident.The driver, a 17-year-old female, was lodged in Dawson County Jail for felony flight to avoid arrest, willful reckless driving, obstruction, criminal impersonation, and numerous traffic violations. A passenger, Emmanuel Reynoza, 28, of Rockford, Illinois, was lodged in Lincoln County Jail for obstruction, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and outstanding warrants from Illinois.

2 arrested following pursuit on Highway 30 near Cozad

WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s Washington’s enduring question: What does Joe Manchin want?

But increasingly the answer is crystal clear. The conservative West Virginia Democrat wants to dismantle&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-joe-biden-business-environment-and-nature-environment-e9b976d57b1b8b35e459c9950b34fca0">President Joe Biden’s proposed climate change strategies&nbsp;</a>and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-health-care-69c7bb592f8d73232bec1d8e15be82e3">social services expansion&nbsp;</a>in ways that are simply unacceptable for most in his party.

So the question becomes less about what Manchin wants and more about whether Biden can bring him, the party’s other centrist senators and its progressives to middle ground and salvage his&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-connecticut-child-care-hartford-ac1fed8393f5c3da92579608d41a350b">once-sweeping $3.5 trillion proposal&nbsp;</a>from collapse.

As the White House pushes its Democratic allies on Capitol Hill to wrap up slogging negotiations before end-of-the-month deadlines, pressure is mounting on the party to hold its slim majority in Congress together to deliver on Biden’s priorities. The president will meet with House lawmakers from both groups again Tuesday at the White House. Biden spoke by phone with Manchin Monday, and Manchin met separately with two progressive leaders: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state.

“We are at a point where we feel an urgency to move things forward,” Biden press secretary Jen Psaki acknowledged Monday.

For months, Manchin has publicly and repeatedly balked at the size and scale of Biden’s plan to expand the social safety net, tackle climate change and confront income inequality.

Already, he and fellow centrists, including&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-az-state-wire-government-and-politics-6632b84d43dcd5f897dbaea36d780bbb">Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona</a>, have forced Biden to concede that the final price tag will likely be much smaller, likely around $2 trillion — largely paid for with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-business-personal-taxes-137e00b41f113f85cc241438c780785b">higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy</a>, those earning more than $400,000 per year.

But as negotiators sift through the details of what’s in and out of the proposal, it’s Manchin’s priorities that are driving much of the debate, infuriating colleagues and complicating a deal.

To start, Manchin is on board with raising the corporate tax rate to 25%, though not quite as much as the 26.5% Democrats have proposed, to finance Biden’s expansive vision, agreeing that corporations should pay their “fair share” at a time when many have reported paying zero taxes.

But after that, the coal-state senator&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-joe-biden-business-climate-change-1b92217db8ce7f51e9543516c4be19e0">parts ways with progressives</a>&nbsp;and most others in his party.

By insisting on a “fuel neutral” approach to energy policies, he threatens to wreck a cornerstone of the climate change plan, the Clean Energy Payment Program, which would offer grants to power companies that increase clean energy generation by 4% each year and fine those that do not.

On another major issue, by interjecting work requirements or income thresholds for government aid recipients he wants to limit new child care and health care programs to the neediest Americans.

With a striking ability to saunter into the spotlight with wide-ranging demands, Manchin is testing the patience of his colleagues who see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape government programs slipping away to his personal preferences. With Republicans fully opposed to Biden’s plans, the president needs all Democrats in the 50-50 split Senate for passage.

“I would hope that we’re going to see some real action within the next week or so,” said Sanders, the Vermont Independent, after meeting privately with Manchin.

“We discussed the way forward,” Sanders said.

As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Manchin says he has been forthcoming both publicly and privately about his concern that some Democratic proposals may be detrimental to his coal and gas-producing state.

In conversations with the White House over the weekend, Manchin reiterated his opposition to the clean energy plan — this as Biden prepares to head to the U.N. Climate Summit at the end of the month and climate envoy John Kerry&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-business-john-kerry-united-states-european-union-2d7dd2aa3ffef336ff88fdde314c5549">warns against</a>&nbsp;failure as the administration seeks to regain leadership on the climate issue.

Under Biden’s proposal in the emerging bill, the U.S. would provide financial rewards to electric utilities that meet clean energy benchmarks and impose financial penalties on utilities that don’t, in line with the president’s goal of achieving 80% “clean electricity” by 2030.

While the Democratic plan focuses on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, Manchin insists the tax breaks received by fossil fuels should be preserved, along with breaks for wind and solar. He also says natural gas “has to be” part of the mix.

Natural gas produces fewer carbon emissions than coal or oil but has overtaken coal as the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S. power sector, thanks in part to the U.S. fracking boom.

“I am all for clean energy, but I am also for producing the amount of energy that we need to make sure that we have reliability,” Manchin said.

“No climate, no deal,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., at a recent Capitol news conference.

“And let me be clear: natural gas is not clean energy and it is not climate action,” he added.

Lawmakers are now considering a “menu” of other emission reduction options to replace Biden’s clean energy plan. Manchin has pushed for “carbon capture” technology that would allow coal and natural gas to be burned while trapping harmful emissions, but he laments it’s “so darn expensive that it makes it almost improbable to do.”

A middle ground could emerge in a proposal from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the chairman of the Finance Committee, who has said the bulk of greenhouse gas emission cuts would come from an energy tax overhaul he is spearheading.

Among tax changes his committee is considering are tax credits for energy producers that reduce emissions, and pollution fees to be paid by industries for every ton of planet-warming carbon dioxide they emit.

A carbon tax is seen by economists as the most effective way to cut fossil fuel emissions, and the American Petroleum Institute, the chief lobbying arm of the oil and gas industry, has endorsed the idea of a price on carbon emissions.

While Manchin’s climate-related objections are central to the debate, he is also pushing Democrats in other ways, by limiting the expanded social services to only people of modest or lower income levels.

Already, some of Biden’s proposals including a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/child-tax-credit-bank-accounts-0715-24023ed3ffba98e4a65dd6006518da7a">child tax credit</a>, come with income thresholds, in keeping with the president’s interest in targeting the help to middle class Americans. Other help, including the proposed expansion of Medicare to include dental, vision and hearing aid benefits, would be available to all seniors, regardless of income level.

The White House acknowledges there could be some income limits imposed.

“We’re talking about targeting and focusing the president’s proposals in some areas on people who need help the most,” Psaki said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632493649692.png" alt="The president will meet with House lawmakers from both groups again Tuesday -photo courtesy White House" />
 <figcaption>The president will meet with House lawmakers from both groups again Tuesday -photo courtesy White House</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s Washington’s enduring question: What does Joe Manchin want?But increasingly the answer is crystal clear. The conservative West Virginia Democrat wants to dismantle&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-joe-biden-business-environment-and-nature-environment-e9b976d57b1b8b35e459c9950b34fca0">President Joe Biden’s proposed climate change strategies&nbsp;</a>and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-health-care-69c7bb592f8d73232bec1d8e15be82e3">social services expansion&nbsp;</a>in ways that are simply unacceptable for most in his party.So the question becomes less about what Manchin wants and more about whether Biden can bring him, the party’s other centrist senators and its progressives to middle ground and salvage his&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-connecticut-child-care-hartford-ac1fed8393f5c3da92579608d41a350b">once-sweeping $3.5 trillion proposal&nbsp;</a>from collapse.As the White House pushes its Democratic allies on Capitol Hill to wrap up slogging negotiations before end-of-the-month deadlines, pressure is mounting on the party to hold its slim majority in Congress together to deliver on Biden’s priorities. The president will meet with House lawmakers from both groups again Tuesday at the White House. Biden spoke by phone with Manchin Monday, and Manchin met separately with two progressive leaders: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state.“We are at a point where we feel an urgency to move things forward,” Biden press secretary Jen Psaki acknowledged Monday.For months, Manchin has publicly and repeatedly balked at the size and scale of Biden’s plan to expand the social safety net, tackle climate change and confront income inequality.Already, he and fellow centrists, including&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-az-state-wire-government-and-politics-6632b84d43dcd5f897dbaea36d780bbb">Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona</a>, have forced Biden to concede that the final price tag will likely be much smaller, likely around $2 trillion — largely paid for with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-business-personal-taxes-137e00b41f113f85cc241438c780785b">higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy</a>, those earning more than $400,000 per year.But as negotiators sift through the details of what’s in and out of the proposal, it’s Manchin’s priorities that are driving much of the debate, infuriating colleagues and complicating a deal.To start, Manchin is on board with raising the corporate tax rate to 25%, though not quite as much as the 26.5% Democrats have proposed, to finance Biden’s expansive vision, agreeing that corporations should pay their “fair share” at a time when many have reported paying zero taxes.But after that, the coal-state senator&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-joe-biden-business-climate-change-1b92217db8ce7f51e9543516c4be19e0">parts ways with progressives</a>&nbsp;and most others in his party.By insisting on a “fuel neutral” approach to energy policies, he threatens to wreck a cornerstone of the climate change plan, the Clean Energy Payment Program, which would offer grants to power companies that increase clean energy generation by 4% each year and fine those that do not.On another major issue, by interjecting work requirements or income thresholds for government aid recipients he wants to limit new child care and health care programs to the neediest Americans.With a striking ability to saunter into the spotlight with wide-ranging demands, Manchin is testing the patience of his colleagues who see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape government programs slipping away to his personal preferences. With Republicans fully opposed to Biden’s plans, the president needs all Democrats in the 50-50 split Senate for passage.“I would hope that we’re going to see some real action within the next week or so,” said Sanders, the Vermont Independent, after meeting privately with Manchin.“We discussed the way forward,” Sanders said.As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Manchin says he has been forthcoming both publicly and privately about his concern that some Democratic proposals may be detrimental to his coal and gas-producing state.In conversations with the White House over the weekend, Manchin reiterated his opposition to the clean energy plan — this as Biden prepares to head to the U.N. Climate Summit at the end of the month and climate envoy John Kerry&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-business-john-kerry-united-states-european-union-2d7dd2aa3ffef336ff88fdde314c5549">warns against</a>&nbsp;failure as the administration seeks to regain leadership on the climate issue.Under Biden’s proposal in the emerging bill, the U.S. would provide financial rewards to electric utilities that meet clean energy benchmarks and impose financial penalties on utilities that don’t, in line with the president’s goal of achieving 80% “clean electricity” by 2030.While the Democratic plan focuses on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, Manchin insists the tax breaks received by fossil fuels should be preserved, along with breaks for wind and solar. He also says natural gas “has to be” part of the mix.Natural gas produces fewer carbon emissions than coal or oil but has overtaken coal as the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S. power sector, thanks in part to the U.S. fracking boom.“I am all for clean energy, but I am also for producing the amount of energy that we need to make sure that we have reliability,” Manchin said.Progressives have pushed back hard.“No climate, no deal,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., at a recent Capitol news conference.“And let me be clear: natural gas is not clean energy and it is not climate action,” he added.Lawmakers are now considering a “menu” of other emission reduction options to replace Biden’s clean energy plan. Manchin has pushed for “carbon capture” technology that would allow coal and natural gas to be burned while trapping harmful emissions, but he laments it’s “so darn expensive that it makes it almost improbable to do.”A middle ground could emerge in a proposal from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the chairman of the Finance Committee, who has said the bulk of greenhouse gas emission cuts would come from an energy tax overhaul he is spearheading.Among tax changes his committee is considering are tax credits for energy producers that reduce emissions, and pollution fees to be paid by industries for every ton of planet-warming carbon dioxide they emit.A carbon tax is seen by economists as the most effective way to cut fossil fuel emissions, and the American Petroleum Institute, the chief lobbying arm of the oil and gas industry, has endorsed the idea of a price on carbon emissions.While Manchin’s climate-related objections are central to the debate, he is also pushing Democrats in other ways, by limiting the expanded social services to only people of modest or lower income levels.Already, some of Biden’s proposals including a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/child-tax-credit-bank-accounts-0715-24023ed3ffba98e4a65dd6006518da7a">child tax credit</a>, come with income thresholds, in keeping with the president’s interest in targeting the help to middle class Americans. Other help, including the proposed expansion of Medicare to include dental, vision and hearing aid benefits, would be available to all seniors, regardless of income level.The White House acknowledges there could be some income limits imposed.“We’re talking about targeting and focusing the president’s proposals in some areas on people who need help the most,” Psaki said.

Biden's dilemma as democrats feud over $3.5T budget plan

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Police in Omaha are investigating the shooting death of an 18-year-old. 

Police responded Monday night to a ShotSpotter alert and found KorVanta Hill on the sidewalk at 39th and Pratt Street. 

Hill was taken to a hospital, where he was declared dead. 

No arrests have been made. Police are asking anyone with information to reach out.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Police in Omaha are investigating the shooting death of an 18-year-old. Police responded Monday night to a ShotSpotter alert and found KorVanta Hill on the sidewalk at 39th and Pratt Street. Hill was taken to a hospital, where he was declared dead. No arrests have been made. Police are asking anyone with information to reach out.

18-year-old fatally shot in Omaha

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Federal health officials are rethinking their approach to controlling salmonella in poultry plants in the hope of reducing the number of illnesses linked to the bacteria each year.

 The USDA says the industry has succeeded in reducing the level of salmonella contamination found in poultry plants in recent years, but that hasn’t translated into a significant reduction in the 1.35 million salmonella illnesses reported each year. 

So the agency wants to set up pilot projects that focus more on the strains of salmonella that cause the most illnesses and on steps farmers can take to reduce salmonella before chickens and turkeys are slaughtered.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Federal health officials are rethinking their approach to controlling salmonella in poultry plants in the hope of reducing the number of illnesses linked to the bacteria each year. The USDA says the industry has succeeded in reducing the level of salmonella contamination found in poultry plants in recent years, but that hasn’t translated into a significant reduction in the 1.35 million salmonella illnesses reported each year. So the agency wants to set up pilot projects that focus more on the strains of salmonella that cause the most illnesses and on steps farmers can take to reduce salmonella before chickens and turkeys are slaughtered.

USDA rethinks approach to controlling salmonella in poultry

PAWNEE COUNTY—A third accomplice arrested in connection with the escape of John Freeman Colt from the sex offender treatment program at the Larned State Hospital made her first court appearance Monday.

Sydni Eileen Hartman, 29, is charged with Obstructing in the Apprehension or Prosecution of a Registered Sex Offender; Traffic in Contraband in a Care and Treatment Facility while employed by the Kansas Dept. for Aging and Disability Services and Conspiracy to commit Aggravated Escape from the Sexual Predator Treatment Program, ccording to Pawnee County Attorney Doug McNett.

The other two accomplices in the escape identified as&nbsp;Rachel Rena Perez, 50, Larned, and Liliana Guadalupe Houser, 45 now of Garden City,  were employed by Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services leading up to the time of the escape.&nbsp;

Perez is charged with a 15 count Felony Criminal Complaint. Houser is charged with a 13 count Felony Criminal Complaint, according to the Pawnee Co. Attorney's office.

<a href="https://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2021/colt.pdf"> John Freeman Colt</a>, 42, was sentenced on Dec. 14, 2001, to five years in state prison for aggravated sexual battery, attempted rape, aggravated burglary, and four counts of aggravated battery against law enforcement. He was required to register as a sexual offender for the remainder of his life.

After his criminal sentence was completed, the State of Kansas courts deemed him a Sexually Violent Predator at high risk to commit a future sex offense and too dangerous to be released. He was indefinitely civilly committed and sent to the Larned State Hospital’s Sexual Predator Treatment Program in 2007, where he has resided until the escape.

Investigators believe Colt planned his escape several months in advance, obtaining a replica of a staff ID badge and dress clothes. The morning of his escape he shaved off his long hair and beard. He put blankets under his bed covers making it appear he was still in bed sleeping. He was then able to convince a new staff worker (that he targeted) that he was in fact a new doctor and needed help finding his way out. Posing as a doctor, Colt was able to make his way past five secured doors and ultimately outside the gates.

Several hours passed before staff noticed he was missing and alerted the Pawnee County Sheriff’s Office.

After escaping, Colt received a ride from a local farmer into Larned, where he was last seen leaving a hardware store on a motorcycle he’d purchased prior to his escape with the help of an accomplice.&nbsp; U.S. Marshals arrested him in Wayne County Utah on Sept. 27.

A Preliminary Hearings for Hartman has been scheduled for November 1, 2021. She remains jailed on a 75,000 bond, according to the county attorney.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634300894930.png" alt="Hartman -photo Pawnee Co." />
 <figcaption>Hartman -photo Pawnee Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>PAWNEE COUNTY—A third accomplice arrested in connection with the escape of John Freeman Colt from the sex offender treatment program at the Larned State Hospital made her first court appearance Monday.Sydni Eileen Hartman, 29, is charged with Obstructing in the Apprehension or Prosecution of a Registered Sex Offender; Traffic in Contraband in a Care and Treatment Facility while employed by the Kansas Dept. for Aging and Disability Services and Conspiracy to commit Aggravated Escape from the Sexual Predator Treatment Program, ccording to Pawnee County Attorney Doug McNett.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/9/1632850718422.png" alt="Colt-photo Sevier Co. Utah Sheriff" />
 <figcaption>Colt-photo Sevier Co. Utah Sheriff</figcaption>
 </figure>The other two accomplices in the escape identified as&nbsp;Rachel Rena Perez, 50, Larned, and Liliana Guadalupe Houser, 45 now of Garden City, were employed by Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services leading up to the time of the escape.&nbsp;<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634076399777.png" alt="Perez -photo Pawnee Co." />
 <figcaption>Perez -photo Pawnee Co.</figcaption>
 </figure>Perez is charged with a 15 count Felony Criminal Complaint. Houser is charged with a 13 count Felony Criminal Complaint, according to the Pawnee Co. Attorney's office.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634076547899.png" alt="Houser photo Pawnee Co." />
 <figcaption>Houser photo Pawnee Co.</figcaption>
 </figure><a href="https://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2021/colt.pdf"> John Freeman Colt</a>, 42, was sentenced on Dec. 14, 2001, to five years in state prison for aggravated sexual battery, attempted rape, aggravated burglary, and four counts of aggravated battery against law enforcement. He was required to register as a sexual offender for the remainder of his life.After his criminal sentence was completed, the State of Kansas courts deemed him a Sexually Violent Predator at high risk to commit a future sex offense and too dangerous to be released. He was indefinitely civilly committed and sent to the Larned State Hospital’s Sexual Predator Treatment Program in 2007, where he has resided until the escape.Investigators believe Colt planned his escape several months in advance, obtaining a replica of a staff ID badge and dress clothes. The morning of his escape he shaved off his long hair and beard. He put blankets under his bed covers making it appear he was still in bed sleeping. He was then able to convince a new staff worker (that he targeted) that he was in fact a new doctor and needed help finding his way out. Posing as a doctor, Colt was able to make his way past five secured doors and ultimately outside the gates.Several hours passed before staff noticed he was missing and alerted the Pawnee County Sheriff’s Office.After escaping, Colt received a ride from a local farmer into Larned, where he was last seen leaving a hardware store on a motorcycle he’d purchased prior to his escape with the help of an accomplice.&nbsp; U.S. Marshals arrested him in Wayne County Utah on Sept. 27.A Preliminary Hearings for Hartman has been scheduled for November 1, 2021. She remains jailed on a 75,000 bond, according to the county attorney.

3rd employee charged in escape from Kan. sex offender program

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Washington State fired football coach Nick Rolovich and four of his assistants on Monday for refusing a state mandate that all employees get vaccinated against COVID-19, making him the first major college coach to lose his job over vaccination status.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, had set a deadline of Monday for thousands of state employees, including the Cougars’ coach, to be vaccinated. Rolovich applied for a religious exemption, which was denied Monday, Washington State athletic director Pat Chun said.

Defensive coordinator Jake Dickert will be elevated to acting coach and his first game in charge will be Saturday at home against BYU.

“This is a tough day for Washington State football,” Chun said at a news conference. “Nobody wants to be here.”

Also fired for refusing vaccination were assistant coaches Ricky Logo, John Richardson, Craig Stutzmann and Mark Weber. Chun said there may be no precedent for a team losing its head coach and so many assistants in the middle of a season.

“Our student-athletes are the biggest losers in this,” he said.

Rolovich was not immediately available for comment.

The 42-year-old Rolovich was the highest-paid state employee with an annual salary of more than $3 million in a contract that runs through 2025. He had said he wouldn’t get vaccinated but wouldn’t specify his reasons. He was the only unvaccinated head coach in the Pac-12 and had worn a mask during games.

Rolovich was fired for cause, which means the university does not have to honor the rest of his contract, although lawsuits over the decision are likely. The Washington State athletic department is currently facing a shortfall of more than $30 million.

Around the country, many college football coaches have publicly advocated for vaccination, including Clemson’s Dabo Swinney and Alabama’s Nick Saban. Mississippi coach Lane Kiffin said not getting vaccinated would be irresponsible and bragged about his team being 100% vaccinated.

Many coaches have talked about their teams’ high vaccination rates, though schools are not under any obligation to share those numbers.

Unlike last season, when COVID-19 cases swept through major college football, postponing and canceling games weekly, no games have needed to be rescheduled because of a COVID-19 outbreak.

Rolovich was hired from Hawaii two years ago, after Mike Leach left for Mississippi State, and led Washington State to a 1-3 record in the Pac-12 in a 2020 season cut short because of the pandemic. Washington State has won its past three games and is 4-3 this season, including a 34-31 win over Stanford last Saturday. He finishes with a 5-6 record at the Pullman campus in southeastern Washington.

Rolovich revealed in July that he would not get vaccinated and couldn’t attend Pac-12 media day in person because of it.

He said in mid-August that he intended to follow the new mandate requiring vaccinations for every state employee but repeatedly declined to say how.

After refusing for weeks to reveal his plans, Rolovich on Oct. 9 confirmed he was seeking a religious exemption to the mandate. He has not specified his religious beliefs.

Chun said he met with Rolovich over a period of several months, but could not change the coach’s mind.

“He was resolute in his stance,” Chun said.

Rolovich needed to prove a sincerely held religious belief that prevented him from getting vaccinated in his exemption application. The application was put before a committee that reviewed the requests without knowing names of the applicants.

To continue coaching, Rolovich needed to receive the religious exemption and also to have Chun determine that Rolovich could do his job while keeping the public safe. In addition to his work as a coach, Rolovich oversaw a youth football program and participated in promotional and fundraising events.

Dickert is in his second season as Washington State’s defensive coordinator and came to Pullman after three seasons at Wyoming. He has not previously been a head coach.

Chun said the school is looking to hire assistants immediately to fill the vacancies on the staff.

Washington State President Kirk Schulz said nearly 90% of WSU employees and 97% of students had been vaccinated. Fewer than 50 of some 10,000 employees have sought exemptions, Schulz said.

The vaccine issue has percolated all season, dividing Washington State fans and providing a continual distraction.

“There was a lot of frustration with such a prominent employee choosing to be unvaccinated,” Schulz said.

Players stood up for their coach as the season progressed. Quarterback Jayden de Laura told a sideline reporter after Saturday’s win: “Stop hating on Rolo. We love him.”

Wide receiver Travell Harris commended Rolovich after the game for being a “players’ coach.”

“He’s a coach we all love to play for,” Harris said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634639299144.png" alt="Coach Rolovich&nbsp;photo courtesy Washington State University" />
 <figcaption>Coach Rolovich&nbsp;photo courtesy Washington State University</figcaption>
 </figure>SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Washington State fired football coach Nick Rolovich and four of his assistants on Monday for refusing a state mandate that all employees get vaccinated against COVID-19, making him the first major college coach to lose his job over vaccination status.Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, had set a deadline of Monday for thousands of state employees, including the Cougars’ coach, to be vaccinated. Rolovich applied for a religious exemption, which was denied Monday, Washington State athletic director Pat Chun said.Defensive coordinator Jake Dickert will be elevated to acting coach and his first game in charge will be Saturday at home against BYU.“This is a tough day for Washington State football,” Chun said at a news conference. “Nobody wants to be here.”Also fired for refusing vaccination were assistant coaches Ricky Logo, John Richardson, Craig Stutzmann and Mark Weber. Chun said there may be no precedent for a team losing its head coach and so many assistants in the middle of a season.“Our student-athletes are the biggest losers in this,” he said.Rolovich was not immediately available for comment.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">WHAT A GAME! COUGS WIN!<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GoCougs?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GoCougs</a> | <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BackHome?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BackHome</a> <a href="https://t.co/WmNdP57HmJ">pic.twitter.com/WmNdP57HmJ</a>&mdash; Washington State Football (@WSUCougarFB) <a href="https://twitter.com/WSUCougarFB/status/1449571261055582208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 17, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The 42-year-old Rolovich was the highest-paid state employee with an annual salary of more than $3 million in a contract that runs through 2025. He had said he wouldn’t get vaccinated but wouldn’t specify his reasons. He was the only unvaccinated head coach in the Pac-12 and had worn a mask during games.Rolovich was fired for cause, which means the university does not have to honor the rest of his contract, although lawsuits over the decision are likely. The Washington State athletic department is currently facing a shortfall of more than $30 million.Around the country, many college football coaches have publicly advocated for vaccination, including Clemson’s Dabo Swinney and Alabama’s Nick Saban. Mississippi coach Lane Kiffin said not getting vaccinated would be irresponsible and bragged about his team being 100% vaccinated.Many coaches have talked about their teams’ high vaccination rates, though schools are not under any obligation to share those numbers.Unlike last season, when COVID-19 cases swept through major college football, postponing and canceling games weekly, no games have needed to be rescheduled because of a COVID-19 outbreak.Rolovich was hired from Hawaii two years ago, after Mike Leach left for Mississippi State, and led Washington State to a 1-3 record in the Pac-12 in a 2020 season cut short because of the pandemic. Washington State has won its past three games and is 4-3 this season, including a 34-31 win over Stanford last Saturday. He finishes with a 5-6 record at the Pullman campus in southeastern Washington.Rolovich revealed in July that he would not get vaccinated and couldn’t attend Pac-12 media day in person because of it.He said in mid-August that he intended to follow the new mandate requiring vaccinations for every state employee but repeatedly declined to say how.After refusing for weeks to reveal his plans, Rolovich on Oct. 9 confirmed he was seeking a religious exemption to the mandate. He has not specified his religious beliefs.Chun said he met with Rolovich over a period of several months, but could not change the coach’s mind.“He was resolute in his stance,” Chun said.Rolovich needed to prove a sincerely held religious belief that prevented him from getting vaccinated in his exemption application. The application was put before a committee that reviewed the requests without knowing names of the applicants.To continue coaching, Rolovich needed to receive the religious exemption and also to have Chun determine that Rolovich could do his job while keeping the public safe. In addition to his work as a coach, Rolovich oversaw a youth football program and participated in promotional and fundraising events.Dickert is in his second season as Washington State’s defensive coordinator and came to Pullman after three seasons at Wyoming. He has not previously been a head coach.Chun said the school is looking to hire assistants immediately to fill the vacancies on the staff.Washington State President Kirk Schulz said nearly 90% of WSU employees and 97% of students had been vaccinated. Fewer than 50 of some 10,000 employees have sought exemptions, Schulz said.The vaccine issue has percolated all season, dividing Washington State fans and providing a continual distraction.“There was a lot of frustration with such a prominent employee choosing to be unvaccinated,” Schulz said.Players stood up for their coach as the season progressed. Quarterback Jayden de Laura told a sideline reporter after Saturday’s win: “Stop hating on Rolo. We love him.”Wide receiver Travell Harris commended Rolovich after the game for being a “players’ coach.”“He’s a coach we all love to play for,” Harris said.___

NCAA Division 1 head football coach fired for refusing vaccine

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to block the Texas law banning most abortions, while the fight over the measure’s constitutionality plays out in the courts.

The administration also took the unusual step of telling the justices they could grant the Texas law full review and decide its fate this term, which already includes a major case about the future of abortion rights in the U.S.

No court has yet reached a decision on the constitutionality of the Texas law, and the Supreme Court rarely grants such requests.

The law has been in effect since September, aside from a district court-ordered pause that lasted just 48 hours, and bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant.

The Justice Department asked the high court Monday to lift an order imposed by a conservative federal appeals court that has allowed Texas to continue enforcing the nation’s strictest curbs on abortion through a novel law that was written to make it hard to challenge in the federal court system. The department had&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-health-texas-aeedf9630e395f9115909ce5fb63eea5">announced its intentions</a>&nbsp;last Friday.

The Texas law defies the Supreme Court’s major decisions on abortion rights “by banning abortion long before viability -- indeed, before many women even realize they are pregnant,” the Justice Department wrote in its plea to the court.

“The question now is whether Texas’ nullification of this Court’s precedents should be allowed to continue while the courts consider the United States’ suit. As the district court recognized, it should not,” the Justice Department wrote.

The administration also said the court could short-circuit the usual process and rule on the law’s constitutionality this term, even though lower courts have yet to do so. The justices have done this only a handful of times in recent decades, the last occasion being a 2019 dispute over the Trump administration’s ultimately failed effort to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. In that case, a deadline for finalizing the census was fast approaching.

In this case, the administration said, Texas’ attempt to evade federal court review of its law and the possibility that other states could adopt similar measures justify the court’s early involvement.

The high court ordered Texas to respond by midday Thursday.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at Monday’s news briefing that President Joe Biden would protect abortion rights, and that the Justice Department would lead efforts to ensure that women have “access to fundamental rights that they have to protect their own health.”

It’s not clear whether the administration will prevail at a Supreme Court with a conservative majority that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump and already has agreed to hear a major challenge to abortion rights in a case from Mississippi.

The Trump appointees, joined by two other conservatives, have once before rejected a plea to keep the law on hold, in a separate lawsuit filed by abortion providers. There was no immediate timetable for Supreme Court action on this latest motion.

While courts have blocked other state laws effectively banning abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb, roughly around 24 weeks, the Texas law has so far avoided a similar fate because of its unique structure that leaves enforcement up to private citizens, rather than state officials. Anyone who brings a successful lawsuit against an abortion provider for violating the law is entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages.

In the 5-4 vote last month to allow the law to remain in effect, the high court acknowledged in an unsigned order that there were “serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law” but also “complex and novel” procedural questions about whom to sue and whether federal courts had the power to stop the law from being enforced.

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that he would have put the “unprecedented” law on hold so that court could consider “whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws” by handing off enforcement. The court’s three liberal justices also dissented.

The question now is whether the administration’s presence in the new lawsuit will make a difference. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals provided its answer late Thursday, extending its earlier order that allows the law to remain in effect. In a 2-1 vote, the court said it was siding with Texas for the same reasons the Supreme Court and a different 5th Circuit panel cited in the providers’ lawsuit — questioning whether anyone could march into federal court to challenge the law.

Texas sought help from the appeals court after U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the Justice Department did have the ability to sue and that he had the authority to stop the law from being enforced, writing that “women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution.”

The judge conceded, however, that “other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration is asking the Supreme Court to block the Texas law banning most abortions, while the fight over the measure’s constitutionality plays out in the courts.The administration also took the unusual step of telling the justices they could grant the Texas law full review and decide its fate this term, which already includes a major case about the future of abortion rights in the U.S.No court has yet reached a decision on the constitutionality of the Texas law, and the Supreme Court rarely grants such requests.The law has been in effect since September, aside from a district court-ordered pause that lasted just 48 hours, and bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant.The Justice Department asked the high court Monday to lift an order imposed by a conservative federal appeals court that has allowed Texas to continue enforcing the nation’s strictest curbs on abortion through a novel law that was written to make it hard to challenge in the federal court system. The department had&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-supreme-court-health-texas-aeedf9630e395f9115909ce5fb63eea5">announced its intentions</a>&nbsp;last Friday.The Texas law defies the Supreme Court’s major decisions on abortion rights “by banning abortion long before viability -- indeed, before many women even realize they are pregnant,” the Justice Department wrote in its plea to the court.“The question now is whether Texas’ nullification of this Court’s precedents should be allowed to continue while the courts consider the United States’ suit. As the district court recognized, it should not,” the Justice Department wrote.The administration also said the court could short-circuit the usual process and rule on the law’s constitutionality this term, even though lower courts have yet to do so. The justices have done this only a handful of times in recent decades, the last occasion being a 2019 dispute over the Trump administration’s ultimately failed effort to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. In that case, a deadline for finalizing the census was fast approaching.In this case, the administration said, Texas’ attempt to evade federal court review of its law and the possibility that other states could adopt similar measures justify the court’s early involvement.The high court ordered Texas to respond by midday Thursday.White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at Monday’s news briefing that President Joe Biden would protect abortion rights, and that the Justice Department would lead efforts to ensure that women have “access to fundamental rights that they have to protect their own health.”It’s not clear whether the administration will prevail at a Supreme Court with a conservative majority that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump and already has agreed to hear a major challenge to abortion rights in a case from Mississippi.The Trump appointees, joined by two other conservatives, have once before rejected a plea to keep the law on hold, in a separate lawsuit filed by abortion providers. There was no immediate timetable for Supreme Court action on this latest motion.While courts have blocked other state laws effectively banning abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb, roughly around 24 weeks, the Texas law has so far avoided a similar fate because of its unique structure that leaves enforcement up to private citizens, rather than state officials. Anyone who brings a successful lawsuit against an abortion provider for violating the law is entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages.In the 5-4 vote last month to allow the law to remain in effect, the high court acknowledged in an unsigned order that there were “serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law” but also “complex and novel” procedural questions about whom to sue and whether federal courts had the power to stop the law from being enforced.In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that he would have put the “unprecedented” law on hold so that court could consider “whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws” by handing off enforcement. The court’s three liberal justices also dissented.The question now is whether the administration’s presence in the new lawsuit will make a difference. A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals provided its answer late Thursday, extending its earlier order that allows the law to remain in effect. In a 2-1 vote, the court said it was siding with Texas for the same reasons the Supreme Court and a different 5th Circuit panel cited in the providers’ lawsuit — questioning whether anyone could march into federal court to challenge the law.Texas sought help from the appeals court after U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the Justice Department did have the ability to sue and that he had the authority to stop the law from being enforced, writing that “women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution.”The judge conceded, however, that “other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion.”

Court could review nation's most restrictive abortion law this term

WASHINGTON — Today, the Internal Revenue Service is updating its 
process for certain frequently asked questions (FAQs) on newly enacted 
tax legislation. The IRS is updating this process to address concerns 
regarding transparency and the potential impact on taxpayers when these 
FAQs are updated or revised. At the same time, the IRS is also 
addressing concerns regarding the potential application of penalties to 
taxpayers who rely on FAQs by providing clarity to taxpayers as to their
 ability to rely on FAQs for penalty protection.

Significant FAQs on newly enacted tax legislation, as well as any 
later updates or revisions to these FAQs, will now be announced in a 
news release and posted on IRS.gov in a separate Fact Sheet. These Fact 
Sheet FAQs will be dated to enable taxpayers to confirm the date on 
which any changes to the FAQs were made. Additionally, prior versions of
 Fact Sheet FAQs will be maintained on IRS.gov to ensure that, if a Fact
 Sheet FAQ is later changed, taxpayers can locate the version they 
relied on if they later need to do so. In addition to significant FAQs 
on new legislation, the IRS may apply this updated process in other 
contexts, such as when FAQs address emerging issues.

To address concerns about the potential application of penalties to 
taxpayers who rely on an FAQ, the IRS is today releasing a statement 
clarifying that if a taxpayer relies on any FAQ (including FAQs released
 before today) in good faith and that reliance is reasonable, the 
taxpayer will have a "reasonable cause" defense against any negligence 
penalty or other accuracy-related penalty if it turns out the FAQ is not
 a correct statement of the law as applied to the taxpayer's particular 
facts. For more information on taxpayer reliance, see the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/general-overview-of-taxpayer-reliance-on-guidance-published-in-the-internal-revenue-bulletin-and-faqs">General Overview of Taxpayer Reliance on Guidance Published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and FAQs</a>.

As part of today's revision of the FAQ process, the following legend will be added to Fact Sheet FAQs:

These FAQs are being issued to provide general 
information to taxpayers and tax professionals as expeditiously as 
possible. Accordingly, these FAQs may not address any particular 
taxpayer's specific facts and circumstances, and they may be updated or 
modified upon further review. Because these FAQs have not been 
published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, they will not be relied on 
or used by the IRS to resolve a case. Similarly, if an FAQ turns out to 
be an inaccurate statement of the law as applied to a particular 
taxpayer's case, the law will control the taxpayer's tax liability. Nonetheless, a taxpayer who reasonably and in good faith relies on these FAQs will not be subject to a
 penalty that provides a reasonable cause standard for relief, including
 a negligence penalty or other accuracy-related penalty, to the extent 
that reliance results in an underpayment of tax. Any later 
updates or modifications to these FAQs will be dated to enable taxpayers
 to confirm the date on which any changes to the FAQs were made. 
Additionally, prior versions of these FAQs will be maintained on IRS.gov
 to ensure that taxpayers, who may have relied on a prior version, can 
locate that version if they later need to do so.

General Overview of Taxpayer Reliance on&nbsp;Guidance Published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and FAQs

Guidance Published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin

The Internal Revenue Bulletin (Bulletin) is the authoritative 
instrument of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for announcing 
official rulings and procedures of the Internal Revenue Service and for 
publishing Treasury Decisions, Executive Orders, Tax Conventions, 
legislation, court decisions, and other items of general interest.

It is the policy of the Service to publish in the Bulletin all 
substantive rulings necessary to promote a uniform application of the 
tax laws, including all rulings that supersede, revoke, modify, or amend
 any of those previously published in the Bulletin. All published 
rulings apply retroactively unless otherwise indicated. Procedures 
relating solely to matters of internal management are not published; 
however, statements of internal practices and procedures that affect the
 rights and duties of taxpayers are published.

Revenue rulings represent the conclusions of the Service on the 
application of the law to the pivotal facts stated in the revenue 
ruling. In those based on positions taken in rulings to taxpayers or 
technical advice to Service field offices, identifying details and 
information of a confidential nature are deleted to prevent unwarranted 
invasions of privacy and to comply with statutory requirements.

Rulings and procedures reported in the Bulletin do not have the force
 and effect of Treasury Department Regulations, but they may be used as 
precedents. Rulings not published in the Bulletin will not be relied on,
 used, or cited as precedents by Service personnel in the disposition of
 other cases. In applying published rulings and procedures, the effect 
of subsequent legislation, regulations, court decisions, rulings and 
procedures must be considered, and Service personnel and others 
concerned are cautioned against reaching the same conclusions in other 
cases unless the facts and circumstances are substantially the same.

FAQs are a valuable alternative to guidance published in the Bulletin
 because they allow the IRS to more quickly communicate information to 
the public on topics of frequent inquiry and general applicability. FAQs
 typically provide responses to general inquiries rather than applying 
the law to taxpayer-specific facts and may not reflect various special 
rules or exceptions that could apply in any particular case. FAQs that 
have not been published in the Bulletin will not be relied on, used or 
cited as precedents by Service personnel in the disposition of cases. 
Similarly, if an FAQ turns out to be an inaccurate statement of the law 
as applied to a particular taxpayer's case, the law will control the 
taxpayer's tax liability. Only guidance that is published in the 
Bulletin has precedential value.

Notwithstanding the non-precedential nature of FAQs, a taxpayer's 
reasonable reliance on an FAQ (even one that is subsequently updated or 
modified) is relevant and will be considered in determining whether 
certain penalties apply. Taxpayers who show that they relied in good 
faith on an FAQ and that their reliance was reasonable based on all the 
facts and circumstances will have a valid reasonable cause defense and 
will not be subject to a negligence penalty or other accuracy-related 
penalty to the extent that reliance results in an underpayment of tax. 
See <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1b2b14f0922063e6b00b93d0237127a1&amp;mc=true&amp;node=se26.15.1_16664_64&amp;rgn=div8">Treas. Reg. § 1.6664-4(b)</a>
 for more information. In addition, FAQs that are published in a Fact 
Sheet that is linked to an IRS news release are considered authority for
 purposes of the exception to accuracy-related penalties that applies 
when there is substantial authority for the treatment of an item on a 
return. See <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1b2b14f0922063e6b00b93d0237127a1&amp;mc=true&amp;node=se26.15.1_16662_64&amp;rgn=div8">Treas. Reg. § 1.6662-4(d)</a> for more information.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSWASHINGTON — Today, the Internal Revenue Service is updating its 
process for certain frequently asked questions (FAQs) on newly enacted 
tax legislation. The IRS is updating this process to address concerns 
regarding transparency and the potential impact on taxpayers when these 
FAQs are updated or revised. At the same time, the IRS is also 
addressing concerns regarding the potential application of penalties to 
taxpayers who rely on FAQs by providing clarity to taxpayers as to their
 ability to rely on FAQs for penalty protection.Significant FAQs on newly enacted tax legislation, as well as any 
later updates or revisions to these FAQs, will now be announced in a 
news release and posted on IRS.gov in a separate Fact Sheet. These Fact 
Sheet FAQs will be dated to enable taxpayers to confirm the date on 
which any changes to the FAQs were made. Additionally, prior versions of
 Fact Sheet FAQs will be maintained on IRS.gov to ensure that, if a Fact
 Sheet FAQ is later changed, taxpayers can locate the version they 
relied on if they later need to do so. In addition to significant FAQs 
on new legislation, the IRS may apply this updated process in other 
contexts, such as when FAQs address emerging issues.To address concerns about the potential application of penalties to 
taxpayers who rely on an FAQ, the IRS is today releasing a statement 
clarifying that if a taxpayer relies on any FAQ (including FAQs released
 before today) in good faith and that reliance is reasonable, the 
taxpayer will have a "reasonable cause" defense against any negligence 
penalty or other accuracy-related penalty if it turns out the FAQ is not
 a correct statement of the law as applied to the taxpayer's particular 
facts. For more information on taxpayer reliance, see the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/general-overview-of-taxpayer-reliance-on-guidance-published-in-the-internal-revenue-bulletin-and-faqs">General Overview of Taxpayer Reliance on Guidance Published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and FAQs</a>.As part of today's revision of the FAQ process, the following legend will be added to Fact Sheet FAQs:These FAQs are being issued to provide general 
information to taxpayers and tax professionals as expeditiously as 
possible. Accordingly, these FAQs may not address any particular 
taxpayer's specific facts and circumstances, and they may be updated or 
modified upon further review. Because these FAQs have not been 
published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, they will not be relied on 
or used by the IRS to resolve a case. Similarly, if an FAQ turns out to 
be an inaccurate statement of the law as applied to a particular 
taxpayer's case, the law will control the taxpayer's tax liability. Nonetheless, a taxpayer who reasonably and in good faith relies on these FAQs will not be subject to a
 penalty that provides a reasonable cause standard for relief, including
 a negligence penalty or other accuracy-related penalty, to the extent 
that reliance results in an underpayment of tax. Any later 
updates or modifications to these FAQs will be dated to enable taxpayers
 to confirm the date on which any changes to the FAQs were made. 
Additionally, prior versions of these FAQs will be maintained on IRS.gov
 to ensure that taxpayers, who may have relied on a prior version, can 
locate that version if they later need to do so.<h2>General Overview of Taxpayer Reliance on&nbsp;Guidance Published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin and FAQs</h2><h2>Guidance Published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin</h2>The Internal Revenue Bulletin (Bulletin) is the authoritative 
instrument of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for announcing 
official rulings and procedures of the Internal Revenue Service and for 
publishing Treasury Decisions, Executive Orders, Tax Conventions, 
legislation, court decisions, and other items of general interest.It is the policy of the Service to publish in the Bulletin all 
substantive rulings necessary to promote a uniform application of the 
tax laws, including all rulings that supersede, revoke, modify, or amend
 any of those previously published in the Bulletin. All published 
rulings apply retroactively unless otherwise indicated. Procedures 
relating solely to matters of internal management are not published; 
however, statements of internal practices and procedures that affect the
 rights and duties of taxpayers are published.Revenue rulings represent the conclusions of the Service on the 
application of the law to the pivotal facts stated in the revenue 
ruling. In those based on positions taken in rulings to taxpayers or 
technical advice to Service field offices, identifying details and 
information of a confidential nature are deleted to prevent unwarranted 
invasions of privacy and to comply with statutory requirements.Rulings and procedures reported in the Bulletin do not have the force
 and effect of Treasury Department Regulations, but they may be used as 
precedents. Rulings not published in the Bulletin will not be relied on,
 used, or cited as precedents by Service personnel in the disposition of
 other cases. In applying published rulings and procedures, the effect 
of subsequent legislation, regulations, court decisions, rulings and 
procedures must be considered, and Service personnel and others 
concerned are cautioned against reaching the same conclusions in other 
cases unless the facts and circumstances are substantially the same.<h2>FAQs</h2>FAQs are a valuable alternative to guidance published in the Bulletin
 because they allow the IRS to more quickly communicate information to 
the public on topics of frequent inquiry and general applicability. FAQs
 typically provide responses to general inquiries rather than applying 
the law to taxpayer-specific facts and may not reflect various special 
rules or exceptions that could apply in any particular case. FAQs that 
have not been published in the Bulletin will not be relied on, used or 
cited as precedents by Service personnel in the disposition of cases. 
Similarly, if an FAQ turns out to be an inaccurate statement of the law 
as applied to a particular taxpayer's case, the law will control the 
taxpayer's tax liability. Only guidance that is published in the 
Bulletin has precedential value.Notwithstanding the non-precedential nature of FAQs, a taxpayer's 
reasonable reliance on an FAQ (even one that is subsequently updated or 
modified) is relevant and will be considered in determining whether 
certain penalties apply. Taxpayers who show that they relied in good 
faith on an FAQ and that their reliance was reasonable based on all the 
facts and circumstances will have a valid reasonable cause defense and 
will not be subject to a negligence penalty or other accuracy-related 
penalty to the extent that reliance results in an underpayment of tax. 
See <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1b2b14f0922063e6b00b93d0237127a1&amp;mc=true&amp;node=se26.15.1_16664_64&amp;rgn=div8">Treas. Reg. § 1.6664-4(b)</a>
 for more information. In addition, FAQs that are published in a Fact 
Sheet that is linked to an IRS news release are considered authority for
 purposes of the exception to accuracy-related penalties that applies 
when there is substantial authority for the treatment of an item on a 
return. See <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1b2b14f0922063e6b00b93d0237127a1&amp;mc=true&amp;node=se26.15.1_16662_64&amp;rgn=div8">Treas. Reg. § 1.6662-4(d)</a> for more information.

IRS updates process for FAQs on new tax laws

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A 62-year-old former jailer in Saline County has been sentenced to one year and a day in prison for sexually abusing a federal inmate. 

Monty Roesler, of Beatrice, was sentenced Monday after pleading guilty to sexually abusing a ward. 

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A 62-year-old former jailer in Saline County has been sentenced to one year and a day in prison for sexually abusing a federal inmate. Monty Roesler, of Beatrice, was sentenced Monday after pleading guilty to sexually abusing a ward. He will also serve five years of supervised release after his jail term. Prosecutors said Roesler had sexual contact several times with a person being held on federal charges in the county jail in Wilber. Roesler's attorney had asked for probation, noting that Roesler previously had a limited criminal history. The female inmate has sued Roesler, Saline County and Sheriff Alan Moore.