- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent settled the tax dispute with the federal government over income from his former hedge fund.
- The case concerned the 3.8% self-employment tax and how limited partnership income should be classified.
- The settlement amount and date remain undisclosed; the $910,000 figure came from Senate Democrats’ estimate.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent settled a yearslong dispute with the federal government this summer over taxes tied to his former hedge-fund business. The case centered on whether income from the fund should have been subject to a Medicare-related levy.
The settlement followed years of disagreement with the IRS over the treatment of the income. The payment amount and precise settlement date remain undisclosed.
Free toolSubstantial Presence Test Calculator
Bessent previously managed Key Square Group and now serves in President Donald J. Trump’s Cabinet. Accounts dated September 30, 2026, October 1, 2026, and October 2, 2026 described the agreement as having been reached during the summer, without specifying the day.
A ruling by the Second Circuit had strengthened the government’s position before the settlement. The dispute also drew scrutiny during Bessent’s confirmation process, when he said he would reserve money against potential liability.
The tax fight turned on how the fund classified partnership income
The case involved the 3.8% Medicare-related self-employment tax. The strategy used a limited partnership structure, classifying much of the fund income as business earnings that were not subject to the levy.
Hedge-fund managers have used partnership structures of this kind on Wall Street. The IRS has argued that people in Bessent’s position owe the tax on all income earned at their funds, rather than only a portion.
Senate Democrats said the arrangement avoided $910,000 in taxes over three years. Bessent disputed their calculation. The figure was the lawmakers’ estimate, not a disclosed settlement amount.
During his confirmation hearing, Bessent said he would keep a reserve fund while the courts considered the agency’s position. That pledge addressed possible future liability as the legal dispute continued; it did not establish the amount ultimately paid.
The appeals decision backed the IRS view of limited partners
The U.S. Tax Court had ruled for the IRS in an earlier challenge involving the strategy. The appeals court upheld that decision, supporting the government’s position that limited partners can owe the tax in some circumstances.
The dispute involves whether a partner is active in the business, not simply whether the fund uses a limited partnership. The IRS has contested the approach since the first Trump administration.
The ruling gave the government legal support in its dispute with Bessent before the parties settled. It did not establish that every limited partner owes the levy in every circumstance.
Wyden pressed Bessent to pay after the court ruling
Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, pressed Bessent on whether he would pay. In a letter, Wyden wrote:
“avoidance and delay tactics have already cost the Medicare trust fund hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Wyden’s office argued that Bessent should pay what he owed after the appellate ruling. The senator’s criticism followed the dispute over the tax treatment and the Democrats’ estimate, which Bessent had rejected.
The settlement resolved the federal dispute, but the publicly described terms do not establish that Bessent paid the $910,000 figure cited by Democrats. The agreement’s amount and date remain undisclosed.
The settlement leaves enforcement and payment details open
Bessent’s former tax position now sits alongside his Cabinet role overseeing the Treasury Department and the IRS. The broader question involves a partnership strategy used by hedge-fund managers, not only his individual settlement.
Legal and trade commentary has pointed to staffing losses and the Treasury and IRS abandonment of a Biden-era regulatory project as factors that could weaken broad enforcement of the agency’s position. Those developments concern the wider effort to police the tax treatment, separate from the undisclosed terms of Bessent’s agreement.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute tax advice. Consult a qualified tax professional or CPA about your specific situation.
