That’s Judge Morrison’s advice to IRS counsel, and all parties who want to preclude testimony but find they must avail themselves thereof on the trial.

Here’s Eric Maurice Pinckney, Docket No. 5050-19, filed 4/26/24. Setting the scene, “…respondent filed a Motion in Limine asking the Court to ‘preclude petitioner from examining Revenue Agent . . . M regarding his manner and motives in examining petitioner’s income tax liabilities for the years at issue.’ In the motion, respondent relied on Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974). The Court did not rule on the Motion in Limine.” Order, at p. 1. (Name and citation omitted).

Ol’ Greenberg has been throwing out tales of woe at Exam for fifty (count ’em, fifty) years, with no end in sight.

Most pro ses never got the word that, when a SNOD is on the menu, the past is off the table. De novo means tabula rasa.

But IRS counsel calls M as a rebuttal witness, and saves Judge Morrison the trouble of deciding the motion. “Some of the testimony adduced by respondent from M involved ‘his manner and motives in examining petitioner’s income tax liabilities.’ Putting this testimony into the record suggests that respondent was no longer standing by its broad position in its Motion in Limine that all testimony by M as to his manner and motives in examining petitioner’s income tax liabilities is inadmissible. Later petitioner also examined M. During this examination, respondent made several oral objections to portions of M’s testimony. At least one objection was based on Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Commissioner. Making these specific oral objections suggests that respondent was no longer standing by its broad Motion in Limine position that all testimony by M as to his manner and motives in examining petitioner’s income tax liability is inadmissible.” Order, at p. 1. (Name and citations omitted).

Motions in Limine are the usual thing in Tax Court litigation. Might be a good idea to put one in up front, and ask the judge to reserve ruling until trial. But remember, if you decide (or are forced by the other side or the judge) to cross the threshold, the motion won’t save you if you miss an objection to testimony or documents.

“We conclude that the Motion in Limine did not preserve any objections that were not made by respondent orally during the testimony of M. All such oral objections were considered and resolved during the trial. Therefore the Motion in Limine is moot.” Order, at p. 1. (Name omitted).

So, if you need to object, say it loud.