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. 

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.

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.

Former jailer sentenced for sexual abuse of county prisoner

MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Contract talks between Deere &amp; Co. and its 10,000 striking workers have resumed, but it wasn't immediately clear how far apart the two sides remained Monday.

Both the Moline,&nbsp;Illinois-based company and the United Auto Workers union confirmed that talks had resumed.

The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.

Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company remains “committed to the collective bargaining process and resolving the strike.”

The last major strike at the maker of agricultural and construction equipment came in 1986. This year's strike comes as companies are dealing with worker shortages. Deere had predicted it would report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion on strong sales.

The contracts under negotiation cover 14 Deere plants, including seven in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>, four in Illinois and one each in&nbsp;Kansas,&nbsp;Colorado&nbsp;and&nbsp;Georgia.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634596496067.png" alt="The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV" />
 <figcaption>The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.-Photo courtesy WQAD TV</figcaption>
 </figure>MOLINE, Ill. (AP) — Contract talks between Deere &amp; Co. and its 10,000 striking workers have resumed, but it wasn't immediately clear how far apart the two sides remained Monday.Both the Moline,&nbsp;Illinois-based company and the United Auto Workers union confirmed that talks had resumed.The strike began last Thursday after union members overwhelmingly rejected a proposed contract that would have delivered 5% raises to some workers and 6% raises to others depending on their positions in the factory.Deere spokeswoman Jen Hartmann said the company remains “committed to the collective bargaining process and resolving the strike.”The last major strike at the maker of agricultural and construction equipment came in 1986. This year's strike comes as companies are dealing with worker shortages. Deere had predicted it would report record profits this year between $5.7 billion and $5.9 billion on strong sales.The contracts under negotiation cover 14 Deere plants, including seven in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa">Iowa</a>, four in Illinois and one each in&nbsp;Kansas,&nbsp;Colorado&nbsp;and&nbsp;Georgia.

Contract talks resume between Deere and its striking workers

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. health officials are setting the stage for a national COVID-19 vaccination campaign for younger children, inviting state officials to order doses before the shots are authorized.

Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is currently being given to people as young as 12 in the U.S. In the next three weeks, federal officials plan to discuss making smaller-dose versions available to the nation’s 28 million children between the ages of 5 and 11.

To help states and cities prepare, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent out a seven-page document with guidance on how to set up expanded vaccination programs.

For example, it notes pharmacies in every state can give COVID-19 shots to children, but it clarifies that only doses prepared and packaged specifically for children are to be used for those under 12.

It doesn’t speak to some thornier questions, however, such as how much school-based clinics should be relied on or whether kids should be required to get then shots as a condition of school attendance.

Those questions will have to be worked out in each state and city.

The guidance comes as communities are gearing up for a new phase in the 10-month-old effort to vaccinate as many people as possible against a virus that has killed more than 720,000 in the U.S.

The disease has been most dangerous to older adults, who have higher rates of death and hospitalization than children. But some kids are at risk for severe illness, and more than 540 U.S. children have died from COVID-19, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Just as important, health officials believe that vaccinating children will reduce virus spread to vulnerable adults.

Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech are furthest along in researching use of their vaccine in younger children. They say a two-dose vaccine series — one-third as potent as the version giving to people over 12 years old — is safe and effective in 5- to 11-year-olds.

An independent expert panel that advises the Food and Drug Administration is scheduled to publicly debate the evidence at a meeting in late October. If the FDA authorizes the kid-size doses, a different expert panel advising the CDC would take up the matter in early November, and then offer a recommendation to the CDC.

It’s not yet clear how many people will get shots for their younger kids right away, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

“We’re going to have potentially a very busy, and perhaps modestly chaotic time” initially, he said.

But there probably will not be the kind of heavy demand seen when shots first became available for adults, he added.

The new CDC guidance calls for shots to be given at the offices of pediatricians and family-practice doctors, and at pharmacies, rural health clinics and federally-qualified health centers.

The CDC discussed the option of vaccination clinics at schools, but stopped short of endorsing that as a primary way to get kids vaccinated. School clinics are logistically appealing, but many parents may not be comfortable with the idea, Plescia said.

The guidance also warns health care providers to only use doses that have been prepared especially for kids, and not try to fraction adult doses, Plescia noted.

CDC guidance said immunization program managers can start ordering doses Wednesday, though vials wouldn’t be delivered until the FDA and CDC sign off.

When the coronavirus vaccines were first authorized in December, the U.S. government prioritized having hospitals and pharmacies administer them. Some office-based physicians felt left out.

Dr. Jesse Hackell registered early with New York state to be able to administer the shots to teens. He said his office, located 25 miles north of New York City, didn’t receive doses for that until May.

But Hackell said the CDC has reassured pediatricians that once authorization happens for 5- to-11-year-olds, the process will go more smoothly and pediatricians’ offices will be able to get shipments quickly.

Dr. Richard Besser called on the government to do more to address racial and economic disparities that might emerge in the push to vaccinate younger kids.

For example, kids may not get shots if parents can’t get time off from work to bring them in.

“It’s really important that we recognize the barriers to vaccinations,” said Besser, chief executive of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former acting director of the CDC.

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. health officials are setting the stage for a national COVID-19 vaccination campaign for younger children, inviting state officials to order doses before the shots are authorized.Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is currently being given to people as young as 12 in the U.S. In the next three weeks, federal officials plan to discuss making smaller-dose versions available to the nation’s 28 million children between the ages of 5 and 11.To help states and cities prepare, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent out a seven-page document with guidance on how to set up expanded vaccination programs.For example, it notes pharmacies in every state can give COVID-19 shots to children, but it clarifies that only doses prepared and packaged specifically for children are to be used for those under 12.It doesn’t speak to some thornier questions, however, such as how much school-based clinics should be relied on or whether kids should be required to get then shots as a condition of school attendance.Those questions will have to be worked out in each state and city.The guidance comes as communities are gearing up for a new phase in the 10-month-old effort to vaccinate as many people as possible against a virus that has killed more than 720,000 in the U.S.The disease has been most dangerous to older adults, who have higher rates of death and hospitalization than children. But some kids are at risk for severe illness, and more than 540 U.S. children have died from COVID-19, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.Just as important, health officials believe that vaccinating children will reduce virus spread to vulnerable adults.Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech are furthest along in researching use of their vaccine in younger children. They say a two-dose vaccine series — one-third as potent as the version giving to people over 12 years old — is safe and effective in 5- to 11-year-olds.An independent expert panel that advises the Food and Drug Administration is scheduled to publicly debate the evidence at a meeting in late October. If the FDA authorizes the kid-size doses, a different expert panel advising the CDC would take up the matter in early November, and then offer a recommendation to the CDC.It’s not yet clear how many people will get shots for their younger kids right away, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.“We’re going to have potentially a very busy, and perhaps modestly chaotic time” initially, he said.But there probably will not be the kind of heavy demand seen when shots first became available for adults, he added.The new CDC guidance calls for shots to be given at the offices of pediatricians and family-practice doctors, and at pharmacies, rural health clinics and federally-qualified health centers.The CDC discussed the option of vaccination clinics at schools, but stopped short of endorsing that as a primary way to get kids vaccinated. School clinics are logistically appealing, but many parents may not be comfortable with the idea, Plescia said.The guidance also warns health care providers to only use doses that have been prepared especially for kids, and not try to fraction adult doses, Plescia noted.CDC guidance said immunization program managers can start ordering doses Wednesday, though vials wouldn’t be delivered until the FDA and CDC sign off.When the coronavirus vaccines were first authorized in December, the U.S. government prioritized having hospitals and pharmacies administer them. Some office-based physicians felt left out.Dr. Jesse Hackell registered early with New York state to be able to administer the shots to teens. He said his office, located 25 miles north of New York City, didn’t receive doses for that until May.But Hackell said the CDC has reassured pediatricians that once authorization happens for 5- to-11-year-olds, the process will go more smoothly and pediatricians’ offices will be able to get shipments quickly.Dr. Richard Besser called on the government to do more to address racial and economic disparities that might emerge in the push to vaccinate younger kids.For example, kids may not get shots if parents can’t get time off from work to bring them in.“It’s really important that we recognize the barriers to vaccinations,” said Besser, chief executive of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former acting director of the CDC.___

States set to reserve COVID-19 shots for younger kids 

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that 
beginning October 18, the IRS's large business division will accept all 
taxpayer requests to meet with IRS employees using secure 
videoconferencing. This step extends the practice used during the 
pandemic to accommodate taxpayers who sought more than meeting with an 
IRS employee over telephone calls.

"Since 2020, we advanced several measures to better interact 
virtually and digitally with large business taxpayers," said Nikole 
Flax, IRS commissioner of the Large Business and International Division 
(LB&amp;I). "Our success in using these tools and the convenience and 
efficiency for taxpayers and their representatives convinced us that the
 way forward will continue to involve the use of 
video-teleconferencing."

The new guidance, <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/foia/ig/lmsb/lbi-04-0821-0011.pdf">Video Meetings with LB&amp;I Taxpayers and their Representatives</a>&nbsp;PDF,
 requires LB&amp;I employees to grant large business taxpayer requests 
for a secure video meeting with IRS-approved platforms in lieu of an 
in-person or telephone discussion with a compliance function.

Today's announcement represents a step forward in the IRS's effort to
 work with taxpayers in a virtual environment, including the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/foia/ig/spder/nhq-01-0421-0001.pdf">expanded use of secure email</a>&nbsp;PDF
 and the launch of a virtual reading room environment to enable large 
LB&amp;I taxpayers and IRS agents to share certain privileged taxpayer 
documents in a read-only capacity. In addition, LB&amp;I also launched 
and expanded its use of paperless processes so that cases can continue 
to move swiftly through examination and resolution.

These efforts are aimed at continuing to improve service to meet the 
needs of large business taxpayers and their representatives and are a 
part of the IRS's ongoing commitment to find more convenient and 
effective ways to interact with taxpayers and the community of tax 
professionals.

LB&amp;I is responsible for tax administration activities for 
domestic and foreign businesses with a United States tax reporting 
requirement and assets equal to or exceeding $10 million, as well as the
 Global High Wealth and International Individual Compliance programs.

IRSWASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that 
beginning October 18, the IRS's large business division will accept all 
taxpayer requests to meet with IRS employees using secure 
videoconferencing. This step extends the practice used during the 
pandemic to accommodate taxpayers who sought more than meeting with an 
IRS employee over telephone calls."Since 2020, we advanced several measures to better interact 
virtually and digitally with large business taxpayers," said Nikole 
Flax, IRS commissioner of the Large Business and International Division 
(LB&amp;I). "Our success in using these tools and the convenience and 
efficiency for taxpayers and their representatives convinced us that the
 way forward will continue to involve the use of 
video-teleconferencing."The new guidance, <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/foia/ig/lmsb/lbi-04-0821-0011.pdf">Video Meetings with LB&amp;I Taxpayers and their Representatives</a>&nbsp;PDF,
 requires LB&amp;I employees to grant large business taxpayer requests 
for a secure video meeting with IRS-approved platforms in lieu of an 
in-person or telephone discussion with a compliance function.Today's announcement represents a step forward in the IRS's effort to
 work with taxpayers in a virtual environment, including the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/foia/ig/spder/nhq-01-0421-0001.pdf">expanded use of secure email</a>&nbsp;PDF
 and the launch of a virtual reading room environment to enable large 
LB&amp;I taxpayers and IRS agents to share certain privileged taxpayer 
documents in a read-only capacity. In addition, LB&amp;I also launched 
and expanded its use of paperless processes so that cases can continue 
to move swiftly through examination and resolution.These efforts are aimed at continuing to improve service to meet the 
needs of large business taxpayers and their representatives and are a 
part of the IRS's ongoing commitment to find more convenient and 
effective ways to interact with taxpayers and the community of tax 
professionals.LB&amp;I is responsible for tax administration activities for 
domestic and foreign businesses with a United States tax reporting 
requirement and assets equal to or exceeding $10 million, as well as the
 Global High Wealth and International Individual Compliance programs.

IRS extends videoconferencing to large business taxpayers

KEARNEY, Neb. (AP) — A 36-year-old California man charged after a traffic crash killed three people in Nebraska is expected to take a plea bargain in the case.

 KNOP reports Kenneth Kratt, of Madera, California, was scheduled to go to trial Monday on three counts of felony manslaughter.

 His attorney notified Buffalo County District Court last month that Kratt is expected to enter a plea during a hearing scheduled for Tuesday. 

Kratt was charged after a crash in September 2019 on Interstate 80 near Gibbon, Nebraska.

 Authorities say traffic was slowed or stopped for construction when Kratt, who was speeding, hit two vehicles. 

The chain reaction involved four vehicles and resulted in three deaths.

KEARNEY, Neb. (AP) — A 36-year-old California man charged after a traffic crash killed three people in Nebraska is expected to take a plea bargain in the case. KNOP reports Kenneth Kratt, of Madera, California, was scheduled to go to trial Monday on three counts of felony manslaughter. His attorney notified Buffalo County District Court last month that Kratt is expected to enter a plea during a hearing scheduled for Tuesday. Kratt was charged after a crash in September 2019 on Interstate 80 near Gibbon, Nebraska. Authorities say traffic was slowed or stopped for construction when Kratt, who was speeding, hit two vehicles. The chain reaction involved four vehicles and resulted in three deaths.

California man expected to plead in Nebraska triple fatality

WASHIINGTON (AP) — Colin Powell, who served Democratic and Republican presidents in war and peace but whose sterling reputation was forever stained when he went before the U.N. and made faulty claims to justify the U.S. war in Iraq, has died of COVID-19 complications. He was 84.

A veteran of the Vietnam War, Powell rose to the rank of four-star general and in 1989 became the first Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In that role he oversaw the U.S. invasion of Panama and later the U.S. invasion of Kuwait to oust the Iraqi army in 1991.

But his legacy was marred when, in 2003, he went before the U.N. Security Council as secretary of state and made the case for U.S. war against Iraq at a moment of great international skepticism. He cited faulty information claiming Saddam Hussein had secretly stashed away weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s claims that it had no such weapons represented “a web of lies,” he told the world body.

In announcing his death on social media, Powell’s family said he had been fully vaccinated.

“We have lost a remarkable and loving husband, father and grandfather and a great American,” the family said. Powell had been treated at Walter Reed National Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

Powell was the first American official to publicly lay the blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network and made a lightning trip to Pakistan in October, 2001 to demand that then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf cooperate with the United States in going after the Afghanistan-based group, which also had a presence in Pakistan, where bin Laden was later killed.

As President George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, Powell led a State Department that was dubious of the military and intelligence communities’ conviction that Saddam Hussein possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction. And yet, despite his reservations, he presented the administration’s case that Saddam indeed posed a major regional and global threat in a speech to the UN Security Council in the run-up to the war.

That speech, replete with his display of a vial of what he said could have been a biological weapon, was later derided as a low-point in Powell’s career, although he had removed some elements that he deemed to have been based on poor intelligence assessments.

Bush said Monday that he and former first lady Laura Bush were “deeply saddened” by Powell’s death.

“He was a great public servant” and “widely respected at home and abroad,” Bush said. “And most important, Colin was a family man and a friend. Laura and I send Alma and their children our sincere condolences as they remember the life of a great man.”

Powell rose to national prominence under Republican presidents and considered a presidential bid of his own, but ultimately moved away from the party. He endorsed Democrats in the last four presidential elections, starting with former President Barack Obama. He emerged as a vocal Donald Trump critic in recent years, describing Trump as “a national disgrace” who should have been removed from office through impeachment. Following the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, Powell said he no longer considers himself a Republican.

Powell rose from a childhood in a fraying New York neighborhood to become the nation’s chief diplomat. “Mine is the story of a black kid of no early promise from an immigrant family of limited means who was raised in the South Bronx,” he wrote in his 1995 autobiography “My American Journey.”

At City College, Powell discovered the ROTC. When he put on his first uniform, “I liked what I saw,” he wrote.

He joined the Army and in 1962 he was one of more than 16,000 military advisers sent to South Vietnam by President John F. Kennedy. A series of promotions led to the Pentagon and assignment as a military assistant to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who became his unofficial sponsor. He later became commander of the Army’s 5th Corps in Germany and later was national security assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

During his term as Joint Chiefs chairman, his approach to war became known as the Powell Doctrine, which held that the United States should only commit forces in a conflict if it has clear and achievable objectives with public support, sufficient firepower and a strategy for ending the war.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a retired Army general, said the news of Powell’s death left “a hole in my heart.”

“The world lost one of the greatest leaders that we have ever witnessed,” Austin said while traveling in Europe. “Alma lost a great husband and the family lost a tremendous father and I lost a tremendous personal friend and mentor. He has been my mentor for a number of years. He always made time for me and I can always go to him with tough issues, he always had great counsel.”

Powell’s appearances at the United Nations as secretary of state, including his Iraq speech, were often accompanied by fond reminiscing of his childhood in the city, where he grew up the child of Jamaican immigrants who got one of his first jobs at the Pepsi-Cola bottling plant directly across the East River from the UN headquarters.

A fan of calypso music, Powell was the subject of criticism from, among others, singing legend Harry Belafonte, who likened Powell to a “house slave” for going along with the decision to invade Iraq. Powell declined to get into a public spat with Belafonte, but made it known that he was not a fan and much preferred the Trinidadian calypso star the “Mighty Sparrow.”

Powell maintained, in a 2012 interview with The Associated Press, that on balance, U.S. succeeded in Iraq.

“I think we had a lot of successes,” Powell said. “Iraq’s terrible dictator is gone.” Saddam was captured by U.S. forces while hiding out in northern Iraq in December 2003 and later executed by the Iraqi government. But the insurgency grew, and the war dragged on far longer than had been foreseen. Obama pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011, but he sent advisers back in 2014 after the Islamic State group swept into the country from Syria and captured large swaths of Iraqi territory.

WASHIINGTON (AP) — Colin Powell, former Joint Chiefs chairman and secretary of state, has died from COVID-19 complications, his family said Monday. In an announcement on social media, the family said Powell had been fully vaccinated. 

Powell was the first African American to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state. But his reputation also suffered a painful setback when, in 2003, Powell went before the U.N. Security Council and made the case for U.S. war against Iraq. 

He cited faulty information claiming Saddam Hussein had secretly stashed away weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s claims that it had not represented “a web of lies,” he told the world body.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634560584731.png" alt=" Former Secretary of State Colin Powell interviewed at a Virtual Leadership Conference in February of 2021-photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption> Former Secretary of State Colin Powell interviewed at a Virtual Leadership Conference in February of 2021-photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHIINGTON (AP) — Colin Powell, who served Democratic and Republican presidents in war and peace but whose sterling reputation was forever stained when he went before the U.N. and made faulty claims to justify the U.S. war in Iraq, has died of COVID-19 complications. He was 84.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">My statement on the passing of former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell: <a href="https://t.co/7uwRtsk0K9">pic.twitter.com/7uwRtsk0K9</a>&mdash; Governor Laura Kelly (@GovLauraKelly) <a href="https://twitter.com/GovLauraKelly/status/1450115133267644416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>A veteran of the Vietnam War, Powell rose to the rank of four-star general and in 1989 became the first Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In that role he oversaw the U.S. invasion of Panama and later the U.S. invasion of Kuwait to oust the Iraqi army in 1991.But his legacy was marred when, in 2003, he went before the U.N. Security Council as secretary of state and made the case for U.S. war against Iraq at a moment of great international skepticism. He cited faulty information claiming Saddam Hussein had secretly stashed away weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s claims that it had no such weapons represented “a web of lies,” he told the world body.In announcing his death on social media, Powell’s family said he had been fully vaccinated.“We have lost a remarkable and loving husband, father and grandfather and a great American,” the family said. Powell had been treated at Walter Reed National Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.Powell was the first American official to publicly lay the blame for the 9/11 terrorist attacks on Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida network and made a lightning trip to Pakistan in October, 2001 to demand that then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf cooperate with the United States in going after the Afghanistan-based group, which also had a presence in Pakistan, where bin Laden was later killed.As President George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, Powell led a State Department that was dubious of the military and intelligence communities’ conviction that Saddam Hussein possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction. And yet, despite his reservations, he presented the administration’s case that Saddam indeed posed a major regional and global threat in a speech to the UN Security Council in the run-up to the war.That speech, replete with his display of a vial of what he said could have been a biological weapon, was later derided as a low-point in Powell’s career, although he had removed some elements that he deemed to have been based on poor intelligence assessments.Bush said Monday that he and former first lady Laura Bush were “deeply saddened” by Powell’s death.“He was a great public servant” and “widely respected at home and abroad,” Bush said. “And most important, Colin was a family man and a friend. Laura and I send Alma and their children our sincere condolences as they remember the life of a great man.”Powell rose to national prominence under Republican presidents and considered a presidential bid of his own, but ultimately moved away from the party. He endorsed Democrats in the last four presidential elections, starting with former President Barack Obama. He emerged as a vocal Donald Trump critic in recent years, describing Trump as “a national disgrace” who should have been removed from office through impeachment. Following the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, Powell said he no longer considers himself a Republican.Powell rose from a childhood in a fraying New York neighborhood to become the nation’s chief diplomat. “Mine is the story of a black kid of no early promise from an immigrant family of limited means who was raised in the South Bronx,” he wrote in his 1995 autobiography “My American Journey.”At City College, Powell discovered the ROTC. When he put on his first uniform, “I liked what I saw,” he wrote.He joined the Army and in 1962 he was one of more than 16,000 military advisers sent to South Vietnam by President John F. Kennedy. A series of promotions led to the Pentagon and assignment as a military assistant to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who became his unofficial sponsor. He later became commander of the Army’s 5th Corps in Germany and later was national security assistant to President Ronald Reagan.During his term as Joint Chiefs chairman, his approach to war became known as the Powell Doctrine, which held that the United States should only commit forces in a conflict if it has clear and achievable objectives with public support, sufficient firepower and a strategy for ending the war.Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a retired Army general, said the news of Powell’s death left “a hole in my heart.”“The world lost one of the greatest leaders that we have ever witnessed,” Austin said while traveling in Europe. “Alma lost a great husband and the family lost a tremendous father and I lost a tremendous personal friend and mentor. He has been my mentor for a number of years. He always made time for me and I can always go to him with tough issues, he always had great counsel.”Powell’s appearances at the United Nations as secretary of state, including his Iraq speech, were often accompanied by fond reminiscing of his childhood in the city, where he grew up the child of Jamaican immigrants who got one of his first jobs at the Pepsi-Cola bottling plant directly across the East River from the UN headquarters.A fan of calypso music, Powell was the subject of criticism from, among others, singing legend Harry Belafonte, who likened Powell to a “house slave” for going along with the decision to invade Iraq. Powell declined to get into a public spat with Belafonte, but made it known that he was not a fan and much preferred the Trinidadian calypso star the “Mighty Sparrow.”Powell maintained, in a 2012 interview with The Associated Press, that on balance, U.S. succeeded in Iraq.“I think we had a lot of successes,” Powell said. “Iraq’s terrible dictator is gone.” Saddam was captured by U.S. forces while hiding out in northern Iraq in December 2003 and later executed by the Iraqi government. But the insurgency grew, and the war dragged on far longer than had been foreseen. Obama pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011, but he sent advisers back in 2014 after the Islamic State group swept into the country from Syria and captured large swaths of Iraqi territory.------WASHIINGTON (AP) — Colin Powell, former Joint Chiefs chairman and secretary of state, has died from COVID-19 complications, his family said Monday. In an announcement on social media, the family said Powell had been fully vaccinated. Powell was the first African American to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state. But his reputation also suffered a painful setback when, in 2003, Powell went before the U.N. Security Council and made the case for U.S. war against Iraq. He cited faulty information claiming Saddam Hussein had secretly stashed away weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s claims that it had not represented “a web of lies,” he told the world body.

Kan. Gov. on the passing of former U.S. Sec. of State Colin Powell

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The Biden administration said it will turn next to the U.S. Supreme Court in another attempt to halt a Texas law that has banned most abortions since September.

The move comes as the Texas clinics are running out of avenues to stop the GOP-engineered law that bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-laws-government-and-politics-health-77c9ba98c4f4ab46fdbd5bcc47b5b938">which is usually around six weeks.</a>&nbsp;It amounts to the nation’s biggest curb to abortion in nearly 50 years.

The latest defeat for clinics came Thursday night when a federal appeals panel in New Orleans, in a 2-1 decision, allowed the restrictions to remain in place for a third time in the last several weeks alone.

Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said the federal government will now ask the Supreme Court to reverse that decision but did not say how quickly.

The Biden administration was under pressure from abortion rights supporters to go to the Supreme Court even before the announcement. The court already once&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-courts-us-supreme-court-32ee7ae7eeec9bdfd1471a848c163321">allowed the restrictions to take effect, but did so&nbsp;</a>without ruling on the law’s constitutionality.

Since the law took effect Sept. 1, Texas women&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-texas-louisiana-0cc666fde471f0fe2ce8a5f28977ad28">have sought out abortion clinics in neighboring states</a>, some driving hours through the middle of the night and including patients as young as 12 years old. The law makes no exception for cases of rape or incest.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office called Thursday night’s decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a “testament that we are on the right side of the law and life.”

A 1992 decision by the Supreme Court prevented states from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy. But Texas’ law has outmaneuvered courts so far because it offloads enforcement to private citizens. Anyone who brings a successful lawsuit against an abortion provider for violating the law is entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages, which the Biden administration says amounts to a bounty.

Only once has a court moved to put the restrictions on hold&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-austin-courts-health-8f8f701e4bb857e7cd39bd45daa02063">— and that order stood for only 48 hours</a>.

During that brief window, some Texas clinics rushed to perform abortions on patients past six weeks, but many more appointments were canceled after the 5th Circuit moved to swiftly reinstate the law last week.

Texas had roughly two dozen abortion clinics before the law took effect, and operators have said some may be forced to close if the restrictions stay in place for much longer.

Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, set up a tip line to receive allegations against abortion providers but has not filed any lawsuits. Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman, said Thursday the group expected the Biden administration to go to the Supreme Court next and was “confident Texas will ultimately defeat these attacks on our life-saving efforts.”

Already the stakes are high in the coming months over the future of abortion rights in the U.S. In December, the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court will hear Mississippi’s bid to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion.

On Wednesday, 18 state attorneys generals from mostly GOP-controlled states threw new support behind the Texas law, urging the court to let the restrictions stand while accusing the federal government of overstepping in bringing the challenge in the first place. Last month, more than 20 other states, mostly run by Democrats, had urged the lower court to throw out the law.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-justice-department-lawsuit-851b4ef55da816bda704be491bfc032c">has called the law “clearly unconstitutional”</a>&nbsp;and warned that it could become a model elsewhere in the country unless it’s struck down.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas can continue banning most abortions after a federal appeals court rejected the Biden administration’s latest attempt to stop a novel law that has become the nation’s biggest curb to abortion in nearly 50 years.

The decision Thursday could push the law closer to returning to the U.S. Supreme Court, which&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-courts-us-supreme-court-32ee7ae7eeec9bdfd1471a848c163321">has already once allowed the restrictions to take effect</a>&nbsp;without ruling on its constitutionality. The Texas law bans abortions&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-laws-government-and-politics-health-77c9ba98c4f4ab46fdbd5bcc47b5b938">once cardiac activity is detected</a>, usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant.

Since the law took effect in early September, Texas women&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-texas-louisiana-0cc666fde471f0fe2ce8a5f28977ad28">have sought out abortion clinics in neighboring states</a>, some driving hours through the middle of the night and including patients as young as 12 years old. The law makes no exception in cases of rape or incest.

“We hope the Department of Justice urgently appeals this order to the Supreme Court to restore Texans’ ability to obtain abortion care after six weeks in pregnancy,” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.

The Justice Department did not immediately react to the decision and a spokesperson had no comment late Thursday.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Texas’ request to keep the law in place as the court case proceeds. It marks the third time the conservative-leaning appeals court has sided with Texas and let the restrictions stand.

The panel said it would expedite the appeal and schedule oral arguments, but did not say when.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office called the decision a “testament that we are on the right side of the law and life.”

It marks another setback for the Justice Department and Texas abortion providers in their efforts to derail the law, which has thus far prevailed because of a unique structure that leaves enforcement up to private citizens. Anyone who brings a successful lawsuit against an abortion provider for violating the law is entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages, which the Biden administration says amounts to a bounty.

Despite numerous legal challenges both before and after the law took effect Sept. 1, only once has a court moved to put the restriction on hold&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-austin-courts-health-8f8f701e4bb857e7cd39bd45daa02063">— and that order only stood for 48 hours</a>.

A 1992 decision by the Supreme Court prevented states from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy. But Texas’ version has outmaneuvered courts so far due to the fact that it offloads enforcement to private citizens.

Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, set up a tipline to receive allegations against abortion providers but has not filed any lawsuits. Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman, said Thursday the group expected the Biden administration to go to the Supreme Court next and was “confident Texas will ultimately defeat these attacks on our life-saving efforts.”

On Wednesday, 18 state attorneys generals from mostly GOP-controlled states threw new support behind the Texas law, urging the court to let the restrictions stand while accusing the federal government of overstepping in bringing the challenge in the first place.

“The Attorney General has no authority to act as a roving reviser of state law, challenging as unconstitutional any rule with which he disagrees,” Indiana Attorney General Theodore Rokita told the appeals court in a brief filed Wednesday.

Last month, more than 20 other states, mostly run by Democrats, had urged the lower court to throw out the law.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/10/1634041318695.png" alt="Abortion protesters in Kansas City last month" />
 <figcaption>Abortion protesters in Kansas City last month</figcaption>
 </figure>AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The Biden administration said it will turn next to the U.S. Supreme Court in another attempt to halt a Texas law that has banned most abortions since September.The move comes as the Texas clinics are running out of avenues to stop the GOP-engineered law that bans abortions once cardiac activity is detected,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-laws-government-and-politics-health-77c9ba98c4f4ab46fdbd5bcc47b5b938">which is usually around six weeks.</a>&nbsp;It amounts to the nation’s biggest curb to abortion in nearly 50 years.The latest defeat for clinics came Thursday night when a federal appeals panel in New Orleans, in a 2-1 decision, allowed the restrictions to remain in place for a third time in the last several weeks alone.Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said the federal government will now ask the Supreme Court to reverse that decision but did not say how quickly.The Biden administration was under pressure from abortion rights supporters to go to the Supreme Court even before the announcement. The court already once&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-courts-us-supreme-court-32ee7ae7eeec9bdfd1471a848c163321">allowed the restrictions to take effect, but did so&nbsp;</a>without ruling on the law’s constitutionality.Since the law took effect Sept. 1, Texas women&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-texas-louisiana-0cc666fde471f0fe2ce8a5f28977ad28">have sought out abortion clinics in neighboring states</a>, some driving hours through the middle of the night and including patients as young as 12 years old. The law makes no exception for cases of rape or incest.The Texas Attorney General’s Office called Thursday night’s decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a “testament that we are on the right side of the law and life.”A 1992 decision by the Supreme Court prevented states from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy. But Texas’ law has outmaneuvered courts so far because it offloads enforcement to private citizens. Anyone who brings a successful lawsuit against an abortion provider for violating the law is entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages, which the Biden administration says amounts to a bounty.Only once has a court moved to put the restrictions on hold&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-austin-courts-health-8f8f701e4bb857e7cd39bd45daa02063">— and that order stood for only 48 hours</a>.During that brief window, some Texas clinics rushed to perform abortions on patients past six weeks, but many more appointments were canceled after the 5th Circuit moved to swiftly reinstate the law last week.Texas had roughly two dozen abortion clinics before the law took effect, and operators have said some may be forced to close if the restrictions stay in place for much longer.Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, set up a tip line to receive allegations against abortion providers but has not filed any lawsuits. Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman, said Thursday the group expected the Biden administration to go to the Supreme Court next and was “confident Texas will ultimately defeat these attacks on our life-saving efforts.”Already the stakes are high in the coming months over the future of abortion rights in the U.S. In December, the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court will hear Mississippi’s bid to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion.On Wednesday, 18 state attorneys generals from mostly GOP-controlled states threw new support behind the Texas law, urging the court to let the restrictions stand while accusing the federal government of overstepping in bringing the challenge in the first place. Last month, more than 20 other states, mostly run by Democrats, had urged the lower court to throw out the law.U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-justice-department-lawsuit-851b4ef55da816bda704be491bfc032c">has called the law “clearly unconstitutional”</a>&nbsp;and warned that it could become a model elsewhere in the country unless it’s struck down.-----------AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas can continue banning most abortions after a federal appeals court rejected the Biden administration’s latest attempt to stop a novel law that has become the nation’s biggest curb to abortion in nearly 50 years.The decision Thursday could push the law closer to returning to the U.S. Supreme Court, which&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-courts-us-supreme-court-32ee7ae7eeec9bdfd1471a848c163321">has already once allowed the restrictions to take effect</a>&nbsp;without ruling on its constitutionality. The Texas law bans abortions&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-laws-government-and-politics-health-77c9ba98c4f4ab46fdbd5bcc47b5b938">once cardiac activity is detected</a>, usually around six weeks and before some women know they are pregnant.Since the law took effect in early September, Texas women&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-texas-louisiana-0cc666fde471f0fe2ce8a5f28977ad28">have sought out abortion clinics in neighboring states</a>, some driving hours through the middle of the night and including patients as young as 12 years old. The law makes no exception in cases of rape or incest.“We hope the Department of Justice urgently appeals this order to the Supreme Court to restore Texans’ ability to obtain abortion care after six weeks in pregnancy,” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.The Justice Department did not immediately react to the decision and a spokesperson had no comment late Thursday.In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted Texas’ request to keep the law in place as the court case proceeds. It marks the third time the conservative-leaning appeals court has sided with Texas and let the restrictions stand.The panel said it would expedite the appeal and schedule oral arguments, but did not say when.The Texas Attorney General’s Office called the decision a “testament that we are on the right side of the law and life.”It marks another setback for the Justice Department and Texas abortion providers in their efforts to derail the law, which has thus far prevailed because of a unique structure that leaves enforcement up to private citizens. Anyone who brings a successful lawsuit against an abortion provider for violating the law is entitled to claim at least $10,000 in damages, which the Biden administration says amounts to a bounty.Despite numerous legal challenges both before and after the law took effect Sept. 1, only once has a court moved to put the restriction on hold&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-austin-courts-health-8f8f701e4bb857e7cd39bd45daa02063">— and that order only stood for 48 hours</a>.During that brief window, some Texas clinics rushed to perform abortions on patients past six weeks, but many more appointments were canceled after the 5th Circuit moved to swiftly reinstate the law last week.Texas had roughly two dozen abortion clinics before the law took effect, and operators have said some may be forced to close if the restrictions stay in place for much longer.Already the stakes are high in the coming months over the future of abortion rights in the U.S. In December, the new conservative majority on the Supreme Court will hear Mississippi’s bid to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion.A 1992 decision by the Supreme Court prevented states from banning abortion before viability, the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, around 24 weeks of pregnancy. But Texas’ version has outmaneuvered courts so far due to the fact that it offloads enforcement to private citizens.Texas Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion group, set up a tipline to receive allegations against abortion providers but has not filed any lawsuits. Kimberlyn Schwartz, a spokeswoman, said Thursday the group expected the Biden administration to go to the Supreme Court next and was “confident Texas will ultimately defeat these attacks on our life-saving efforts.”On Wednesday, 18 state attorneys generals from mostly GOP-controlled states threw new support behind the Texas law, urging the court to let the restrictions stand while accusing the federal government of overstepping in bringing the challenge in the first place.U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-justice-department-lawsuit-851b4ef55da816bda704be491bfc032c">has called the law “clearly unconstitutional”</a>&nbsp;and warned that it could become a model elsewhere in the country unless it’s struck down.“The Attorney General has no authority to act as a roving reviser of state law, challenging as unconstitutional any rule with which he disagrees,” Indiana Attorney General Theodore Rokita told the appeals court in a brief filed Wednesday.Last month, more than 20 other states, mostly run by Democrats, had urged the lower court to throw out the law.

Supreme Court asked to halt nation's most restrictive abortion law

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department
 announced today that millions of American families are now receiving 
their advance Child Tax Credit (CTC) payment for the month of October.

This fourth batch of advance monthly payments, totaling about $15 
billion, is reaching about 36 million families today across the 
country.&nbsp;The majority of payments will be issued by direct deposit.

Under the American Rescue Plan, most eligible families received 
payments dated July 15, August 13 and September 15. Future payments are 
scheduled for November 15 and December 15. For these families, 
each&nbsp;payment is up to $300 per month for each child under age 6 and up 
to $250 per month for each child ages 6 through 17. The vast majority 
will be issued by direct deposit.

The IRS is currently sending letters to some Americans reminding
 them it is not too late for families who haven't filed a 2020 income 
tax return — including those who are not normally required to file 
because their incomes are too low — to sign up for advance CTC payments.
 Most low-income families can get these monthly payments. The IRS urges 
families who normally aren't required to file a tax return to visit 
IRS.gov for more information on how to file a return and receive their 
credit.

Update on September advance Child Tax Credit payments

In September, the IRS successfully delivered a third monthly round of
 approximately 36 million Child Tax Credit payments, totaling more than 
$15 billion. Given the new components of this program, the IRS continues
 to work hard to make improvements and deliver payments timely.

After the September payment was issued, the IRS resolved a technical 
issue, which the agency estimates caused fewer than 2% of CTC recipients
 not to receive their September payment on the scheduled payment date. 
Payments have since gone out to affected individuals.

The impacted group primarily included taxpayers who recently made an 
update to their bank account or address information using the IRS Child 
Tax Credit Update Portal. In particular, the issue affected payments to 
married taxpayers filing jointly where only one spouse made a bank 
account or address change, which usually results in payments being split
 into two (between the existing account or address and the new account 
or address).

In some of these cases, the split payment caused a delay in making 
payments, and further caused individuals to receive slightly more than 
the correct payment in September. To address this, the payment that each
 spouse receives in October, November and December will be reduced 
slightly to adjust for the overpayment. For each taxpayer receiving a 
payment, the typical overpayment was $31.25 per child between 6 and 17 
years old and $37.50 per child under 6 years old. This will result in 
about a $10 to $13 reduction per child in the three remaining monthly 
payments.

The IRS will send letters to affected individuals with this 
information. The IRS continues to closely monitor this program and the 
agency appreciates the patience of those whose payments were affected.

The IRS encourages partners and community groups to share information and use available <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021">online tools and toolkits</a> to help non-filers, low-income families and other underserved groups sign up to receive these benefits.

Links to online tools, a step-by-step guide to using the Non-filer 
Sign-up Tool, answers to frequently asked questions and other helpful 
resources are available on the IRS' special advance CTC 2021 page. It's 
at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021">IRS.gov/childtaxcredit2021</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSWASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department
 announced today that millions of American families are now receiving 
their advance Child Tax Credit (CTC) payment for the month of October.This fourth batch of advance monthly payments, totaling about $15 
billion, is reaching about 36 million families today across the 
country.&nbsp;The majority of payments will be issued by direct deposit.Under the American Rescue Plan, most eligible families received 
payments dated July 15, August 13 and September 15. Future payments are 
scheduled for November 15 and December 15. For these families, 
each&nbsp;payment is up to $300 per month for each child under age 6 and up 
to $250 per month for each child ages 6 through 17. The vast majority 
will be issued by direct deposit.Here are more details on those payments:<ul>
 <li>Families will see the direct deposit payments in their accounts 
starting October 15. Like the prior payments, the vast majority of 
families will receive them by direct deposit.</li><li>For those receiving payments by paper check, be sure to allow extra
 time, through the end of October, for delivery by mail. Those wishing 
to receive future payments by direct deposit can make this change using 
the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/child-tax-credit-update-portal">Child Tax Credit Update Portal</a>, available only on IRS.gov. To access the portal or to get a new step-by-step guide for using it, visit <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021">IRS.gov/childtaxcredit2021</a>.</li><li>Payments went to eligible families who filed a 2019 or 2020 income 
tax return. Returns processed by October 4 are reflected in these 
payments. This includes people who don't typically file a return but 
during 2020 successfully registered for Economic Impact Payments using 
the IRS Non-Filers tool on IRS.gov or in 2021 successfully used the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/child-tax-credit-non-filer-sign-up-tool">Non-filer Sign-up Tool for advance CTC</a>, also available only on IRS.gov.</li><li>Payments are automatic. Aside from filing a tax return, including a
 simplified return from the Non-filer Sign-up Tool, families don't have 
to do anything if they are eligible to receive monthly payments.</li><li>Families who did not get a July, August or September payment and 
are getting their first monthly payment this month will still receive 
their total advance payment for the year. This means that the total 
payment will be spread over three months, rather than six, making each 
monthly payment larger.</li>
 </ul>The IRS is currently sending letters to some Americans reminding
 them it is not too late for families who haven't filed a 2020 income 
tax return — including those who are not normally required to file 
because their incomes are too low — to sign up for advance CTC payments.
 Most low-income families can get these monthly payments. The IRS urges 
families who normally aren't required to file a tax return to visit 
IRS.gov for more information on how to file a return and receive their 
credit.<h2>Update on September advance Child Tax Credit payments</h2>In September, the IRS successfully delivered a third monthly round of
 approximately 36 million Child Tax Credit payments, totaling more than 
$15 billion. Given the new components of this program, the IRS continues
 to work hard to make improvements and deliver payments timely.After the September payment was issued, the IRS resolved a technical 
issue, which the agency estimates caused fewer than 2% of CTC recipients
 not to receive their September payment on the scheduled payment date. 
Payments have since gone out to affected individuals.The impacted group primarily included taxpayers who recently made an 
update to their bank account or address information using the IRS Child 
Tax Credit Update Portal. In particular, the issue affected payments to 
married taxpayers filing jointly where only one spouse made a bank 
account or address change, which usually results in payments being split
 into two (between the existing account or address and the new account 
or address).In some of these cases, the split payment caused a delay in making 
payments, and further caused individuals to receive slightly more than 
the correct payment in September. To address this, the payment that each
 spouse receives in October, November and December will be reduced 
slightly to adjust for the overpayment. For each taxpayer receiving a 
payment, the typical overpayment was $31.25 per child between 6 and 17 
years old and $37.50 per child under 6 years old. This will result in 
about a $10 to $13 reduction per child in the three remaining monthly 
payments.The IRS will send letters to affected individuals with this 
information. The IRS continues to closely monitor this program and the 
agency appreciates the patience of those whose payments were affected.The IRS encourages partners and community groups to share information and use available <a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021">online tools and toolkits</a> to help non-filers, low-income families and other underserved groups sign up to receive these benefits.Links to online tools, a step-by-step guide to using the Non-filer 
Sign-up Tool, answers to frequently asked questions and other helpful 
resources are available on the IRS' special advance CTC 2021 page. It's 
at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/advance-child-tax-credit-payments-in-2021">IRS.gov/childtaxcredit2021</a>.

October Child Tax Credit payments sent to American families

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — An 11-year-old driver and two 14-year-old passengers were arrested Saturday after a police chase that topped 100 mph. 

The Nebraska State Patrol said the chase involving a Jeep Gladiator that had been stolen in Lincoln took place on Interstate 80 in Omaha around 1 a.m. Saturday.

 A trooper who spotted the stolen Jeep tried to stop the three boys, but the vehicle stopped only briefly before the boys fled. 

The boys threw one handgun out the window as the Jeep fled and officers found another gun after the driver stopped.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — An 11-year-old driver and two 14-year-old passengers were arrested Saturday after a police chase that topped 100 mph. The Nebraska State Patrol said the chase involving a Jeep Gladiator that had been stolen in Lincoln took place on Interstate 80 in Omaha around 1 a.m. Saturday. A trooper who spotted the stolen Jeep tried to stop the three boys, but the vehicle stopped only briefly before the boys fled. The boys threw one handgun out the window as the Jeep fled and officers found another gun after the driver stopped. Both guns were stolen.