STJ Peter J. (“HB”) Panuthos has a chicken-and-egg in Simon R. Workman, Docket No. 7107-16W, filed 1/16/26. This saga began 17 (count ’em, 17) years ago when Workman dropped info on Individual 1 and Companies 1 and 2.

IRS gave the whole thing one claim number, sent the info off to SB/SE who audited and no-changed Individual 1, whereupon the Ogden Sunseteers blew off Workman in 2013.

In the meantime (2015), Workman sends in a new Form 211, blowing further on Individual 1, Companies 1 and 2, and adding Companies 3 and 4. The Ogden Sunseteers don’t bother with a new file number, don’t send the stuff to any operating division or subject-matter expert, and just blow off Workman in 2016, saying their 2013 determination remains the same.

Whereupon IRS moves to toss for want of jurisdiction as Workman didn’t timely petition the 2013 shootdown  and for summary J, to which Workman counters with document demands. There’s even a trip to USDCDC.

STJ Panuthos sorts it out.

“The record demonstrates respondent did not take any action based on the additional information petitioner provided in the second submitted Form 211 on June 26, 2015. Respondent did not refer petitioner’s June 26, 2015, submission to another office of the IRS and did not initiate an examination, and therefore respondent contends he did not proceed with any relevant administrative or judicial action under section 7623(b). However, respondent did take administrative action based on the information provided by petitioner in his 2008 submission. The WBO opened a claim number, referred petitioner’s claim to SBSE, examined the target taxpayer, and issued a determination denying petitioner’s claim in the February 1, 2013, letter and then again in the February 10, 2016, letter. While respondent contends that the February 10, 2016, letter amounts to a rejection of the second Form 211, the letter is clearly in reference to Claim 2009-005937 and states that petitioner does not meet the criteria for an award.

“As such, the Court concludes that the February 10, 2016, letter was a ‘determination’ per section 7623(b)(4) and, accordingly, the Court has jurisdiction over this case.  Therefore, we will deny respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.” Order, at p. 4. (Citations and footnote omitted.)

Workman’s document demands get dissed. Whistleblowers are record-rulers. The parties can either stip to an administrative record or IRS can put in the whole thing under seal and with a privilege log if needed and Workman can move to supplement per Rule 93(b).

Tommy Nashe’s 1592 dirge forms the backdrop for the last-ditch efforts of the Schulers, the non-TMP in North Wall Holdings, LLC, Schuler Investments, LLC, A Partner Other Than the Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 277730-21, filed 1/15/26, to escape the 18-day guillotine that fell on their Rule 162 reconsideration.

For the backstory, see my blogpost “Boechler, Meet TEFRA,” 10/21/25. Although my colleague Lyle (“Full-Court”) Pres, Esq., has announced his retirement (for the second time), he’s still onboard for the Schulers. We old hound dogs still jump up when we hear the horn.

Howbeit, the Schulers’ trusty attorneys have found hope in Kwong, a CFC opinion extending the statutory deadline for a refund suit due to Section 7508A COVID extension.

Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch won’t have it.

The Schulers claim change in law. But Section 7508A (whether the 2019 or the 2021 version) was around throughout. All the Schulers’ trusty attorneys have is a legal argument they failed to make the last time. Rule 162s, especially late Rule 162s, aren’t mulligans.

And Kwong is a CFC case. No Golsenization of a lower-court opinion; CFC doesn’t bind USTC, although USTC might think about it; see Order at p. 4, footnote 2.

Even if Kwong were sustained on appeal, appeal would lie in 9 Cir, and the Schulers are Golsenized to 11 Cir, not Federal Cir.

Tax Court has blown off the Jarkesy-based challenges to the Section 6662 variety chops on the public rights principle (see my blogpost “Full House,” 8/21/25), but Section 6663 fraud chops come a lot closer to the “commonlaw equivalent” than classic revenue collection.

Howbeit, Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber won’t swing at that curveball. He says it’s too late when it’s first raised in a brief accompanying a Rule 155 beancount. It was neither raised on the trial nor in the two (count ’em, two) post-trial briefs.

Rule 155 beancounts are no place to raise new legal arguments.

So Vincent Fumo, Docket No. 17603-13, filed 1/14/26, is mulcted for the agreed-upon deficiencies and the 75% chops.

Taishoff says I get the strong feeling that, as Mary Queen of Scots used to say, “my end is my beginning.” More to come on this one.

Edited to add, 1/14/26: Judge Scholar Al has issued a “Corrected” opinion in T. C. Memo. 2025-97. As it is 90 (count ’em, 90) pages long, I will not try to digest it, as the result seems to be the same.

And yes, Silver Moss Properties did involve Section 6663 fraud chops. But I doubt it is the last word, despite Tax Court’s unanimity.