The U.S. tax system reports income through Form 1099s and similar information returns. The payer fills out the form, sends one copy to the IRS, and mails another to the recipient. The recipient has no economic stake in whether that second copy ever arrives. He needs nothing from it. He takes no deduction that depends on it. If the form gets lost in the mail, his tax might be less, not more.

And the IRS might not find out. Maybe the payer’s copy also went astray. Maybe the payer never issued the form at all. Maybe the matching program misses it. Maybe the statute of limitations runs first. A taxpayer who never receives a 1099 has every rational reason to stay quiet and see what happens.

The recent decision in Reyes Barrios v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2026-32, provides an example of how this works. The taxpayer’s argument about not receiving a 1099 is a window into what happens when the gamble fails. But the one-sided information return system also provides an opportunity to consider the incentive structure of a value-added tax against the one-sided self-reporting that is the foundation of the U.S. income tax.

Facts & Procedural History

The taxpayer received contract payments from a floral and styling company in 2022. He reported total income of $8,964 on his 2022 federal income tax return. He did not report the $15,206 in nonemployee compensation paid to him by that company.

The payer issued a Form 1099-NEC reflecting the payment and filed a copy with the IRS. The IRS ran its standard matching process and found the mismatch between the 1099 and the taxpayer’s return. The agency then issued an IRS Notice of Deficiency determining an additional tax of $3,842.

The taxpayer filed a timely petition with the U.S. Tax Court. In the Tax Litigation that followed, he stated that the tax forms “were mailed to a [previous] address” and that he received them only after filing his return. He did not dispute receiving the payments themselves.

The IRS filed a motion for summary judgment. The taxpayer failed to respond. The court considered the motion on the merits without the taxpayer’s participation. The question was whether the taxpayer had to include the income on his return even though the payer never timely delivered a Form 1099.

Gross Income and the Statutory Duty to Report

The starting point for an income tax case involving unreported income is the tax code’s broad definition of gross income.

Section 61 defines gross income as “all income from whatever source derived.” The statute then lists several examples. These include compensation for services, gross income derived from business, gains from dealings in property, interest, rents, royalties, and dividends. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

The words “from whatever source derived” carry weight. The Supreme Court has read them as Congress’s effort to exert the full measure of its taxing power. Almost any accession to wealth clearly realized, over which the taxpayer has complete dominion, counts as income. A contract payment for services qualifies without question.

The rule has a mechanical simplicity to it. A worker performs services. A payer writes a check. The payment is income to the worker in the year received. The obligation to include that payment in gross income does not depend on the issuance of any particular form. It does not depend on whether the payer reports the payment to the IRS. It does not depend on whether the payer correctly classifies the worker as an employee or an independent contractor. The payment is income because it is income. The tax code requires the taxpayer to report it.

Information Returns and the Form 1099-NEC

The information return system exists to help the IRS verify that taxpayers report what they receive. Businesses that pay $600 or more to a nonemployee for services during a calendar year must issue a Form 1099-NEC to the recipient. They must also file a copy with the IRS. The form shows the payer’s name, the recipient’s name and taxpayer identification number, and the amount paid.

The 1099-NEC became the standard reporting form for nonemployee compensation starting with the 2020 tax year. Before that, payers reported nonemployee compensation in Box 7 of Form 1099-MISC. The IRS carved out nonemployee compensation onto its own form in part to accommodate earlier filing deadlines that apply to that category of payment. Our page on Information Reporting Returns walks through the broader landscape of these filings.

The IRS puts these information returns to work through its Automated Underreporter program. The system cross-references the income reported on a return against the third-party reporting. A discrepancy generates a notice. If the issue cannot be resolved informally through a CP2000 response, the matter can escalate to a notice of deficiency and end up as an IRS Adjustment to Income. The system has one weakness built into it. It only works if the payer actually filed a copy with the IRS in the first place. When that copy never lands in the agency’s hands, the recipient’s silence becomes invisible.

Does a Missing 1099 Excuse Failure to Report?

The duty to report income is a statutory obligation of the taxpayer. It is not a function of whether or when a third-party information return arrives in the mail. This is the heart of the case.

The Tax Court has rejected the “I didn’t get the form” argument before. In Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-112, the Court held that failure to receive tax information forms does not excuse a taxpayer from the obligation to report income. The Court echoed this rule in Du Poux v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-448, stating plainly that failure to receive tax documents does not excuse taxpayers from the duty to report income. The Reyes Barrios opinion stacks another citation onto this line of authority.

The legal rule is easy to state. A taxpayer knows what he was paid. A contractor knows what he collected for each job. A small business owner knows what he billed clients. The 1099 is a third-party confirmation that helps the IRS verify the taxpayer’s reporting. It is not the event that triggers the duty to report. The duty flows from the taxpayer’s own knowledge of his own affairs.

This is where the Court’s analysis stops. It is not where the real problem stops. The rule punishes a taxpayer who guessed wrong about whether the IRS would notice. It does nothing to change the calculation for the next taxpayer in the same spot. A missing 1099 still points in the direction of less tax, not more. The taxpayer still has every reason to stay quiet and see what happens. The structural fix, if there is one, has to come from a tax system that pushes in the other direction. That is what a value-added tax does.

How a Value-Added Tax Solves the Incentive Problem

A VAT is a consumption tax collected in stages along a supply chain. Every business pays tax on its sales and claims a credit for tax it paid on its purchases. The tax authority receives the net difference at each stage. The final consumer bears the full tax because consumers have no input credit to claim. The United States is the only country in the OECD that does not use a VAT. More than 170 countries worldwide use one in some form.

A short example shows the mechanics. Assume a 10 percent VAT. A lumber mill sells wood to a furniture maker for $100 plus $10 VAT and remits the $10 to the government. The furniture maker builds a chair and sells it to a retailer for $200 plus $20 VAT. The furniture maker owes $20 on its sale. It claims a $10 credit for the VAT it paid on the lumber. Net remittance is $10. The retailer sells the chair to a customer for $300 plus $30 VAT. The retailer owes $30, claims a $20 credit for VAT paid to the furniture maker, and remits $10. The government has collected $30, which matches a straight 10 percent tax on the $300 final sale.

The design puts buyer and seller on opposite sides of the invoice. The buyer wants the invoice because the invoice unlocks its input credit. Without a proper invoice, the buyer cannot claim the credit and absorbs the full cost of the purchase plus the full tax. The seller has to issue the invoice because the buyer will not pay without one. Once the buyer has the invoice, the seller cannot pretend the sale never happened. The buyer has already recorded it.

This is the point that matters for a case like Reyes Barrios. In a VAT system, a missing document does not give anyone a shot at paying less tax. It does the opposite. Absence of the invoice means more tax owed, not less, because the input credit that would have reduced the tax never materializes. The taxpayer who never received his paperwork is not sitting on a free option. He is sitting on a larger bill. Every incentive tells him to chase the document down, demand it from his counterparty, and keep a copy for his records. The tax authority does not have to motivate anyone. The design does the work.

Compare that to the case before the Court. The taxpayer’s entire argument was that he did not receive his 1099 in time. Under a VAT, he would not be making that argument. He would have no argument to make. The missing form would already have cost him the credit, and he would have complained loudly at the time rather than years later in Tax Court. The document would exist because he insisted on it. The counterparty’s reported sale would match his reported purchase because the two numbers came from the same invoice. The IRS equivalent would not need an Automated Underreporter program to surface the mismatch because there would be no mismatch to surface.

Tax authorities in VAT countries use invoice matching for exactly this reason. Every invoice shows up on both sides of the ledger. It appears as output on the seller’s return. It appears as input on the buyer’s return. If the two do not line up, questions follow. Several countries have pushed the design further with real-time electronic invoicing. Italy, Mexico, Brazil, and a growing list of others require invoices to flow through government platforms as the transaction takes place. The opportunity to hide a sale collapses to near zero.

Put the 1099 regime next to that. The payer sends the IRS its copy. The payer mails the recipient the other copy. The recipient does nothing with the form. He takes no credit, no deduction, no offset. The form creates a reporting obligation for him and nothing else. He would prefer the form not exist. If it never arrives, he has no reason to ask why. He has no reason to call the payer. He has no reason to check whether the IRS got its copy either. Every incentive cuts toward silence, and cases like this one are the predictable result.

The structural difference also explains why 1099 compliance depends so heavily on the IRS matching program. A VAT recruits the taxpayer’s counterparty as an unpaid enforcement agent. The 1099 regime recruits no one. The whole burden of cross-checking sits with the IRS, and the IRS only catches the mismatch if both copies of the form made it through the mail.

The Takeaway

Reyes Barrios v. Commissioner applies a settled rule to an easy set of facts, but the case is worth reading for what it reveals about the architecture around it. The U.S. income tax leans on one-sided information returns to keep taxpayers honest. The design asks a recipient to report income against his own interest, with no counterparty pulling in the same direction and no document in his hands that he actually wants. A VAT flips the direction of the pull. The missing document costs the taxpayer money up front, so the taxpayer demands it, and the record forms itself. The taxpayer in this case lost his bet, but the bet was rational given the system he was operating in. Until the U.S. adopts a structure that makes the paperwork valuable to the recipient, cases like this one will keep arriving at the tax court, and the rule they apply will keep working after the fact rather than before it.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.