Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler judge-splains withdrawing Rule 90(f) deemed admissions to Simon Barkagan & Tatyana Barkagan, Docket No. 17023-21, filed 12/22/25, a;though I am sure their trusty attorneys, the Jersey Boys, need no such explanation.

The Barkagans left some IRS Requests fir Admissions unanswered, so deeming same admitted, IRS seeks summary J. Of course, the admissions encompass “the ultimate issues of this case; alleged understatement of income, the substantiation and business purpose of deductions claimed, and the existence of fraud.” Order, at p. 2. Properly-drawn requests for admissions should be entitled “Come out with your hands up.”

Withdrawing deemed admissions requires the party opposing to show that witnesses are now unavailable, additional expense and delay now needed to obtain evidence; having to go to trial to prover what is now withdrawn is not reason to deny withdrawal.

Here, though for want of evidence the Barkagans’ trusty attorneys can’t withdraw all deemed admissions, those related to fraudulent intent are withdrawn. These are questions of fact and are inappropriate for summary adjudication.

So IRS’ summary J motion is held in abeyance until the parties file status reports stating what they can stip out.

Translated from Judgespeak, that means settle this case, guys.

No, not Oliver Stone’s 1986 war story; rather I am referring to Paul Dietzel’s pioneering LSU aggregations, The White Team, The Go Team, and The Chinese Bandits. We cardcarrying Medicare members remember their counterparts’ appearances in the 1962 Army-Navy game, with the hats and raucous cheers. Gone, alas, like our youth, too soon.

When OCC tries this move on the eve of trial in Habitat Green Investments, LLC, MM Bulldawg Tax Matters Partner, et al. , Docket No. 14433-17, filed 12/19/25, the Habs claim illegal substitution.

“…petitioner filed an Objection to respondent’s Motion to Withdraw Longstanding Trial Counsel Shortly Before Trial (Objection). In the Objection, petitioner states how ‘[r]espondent’s newly entered counsel’s failure to identify any reason for withdrawal, let alone good cause, is sufficient to deny his Motion.’ The Objection goes on to state how ‘allowing respondent’s main trial counsel to withdraw would materially harm petitioners, would violate the Court’s Rules and prior precedent, and would unnecessarily increase the cost of litigation in this, and the companion case St. Andrews.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Christian N.(“Speedy”) Weiler brushes this aside.

Rule 24 governs, not 5 Cir learning. Besides, it’s not that IRS is without counsel. It recently filed EoAs for the new batch and they haven’t asked for timeouts. “While petitioner points to other proceedings with newly enrolled counsel as evidence of their assertions, in these consolidated cases we determine petitioner’s allegations raised in their Objection to be wholly unfounded.” Order, at p. 6.

Will petitioners seek Section 6673(a)(2) sanctions against the new arrivals?

That’s Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland’s advice to Kawekiulani Swain, Docket No. 12081-23L, filed 12/19/25. After Appeals sorted through Kawekiulani’s 433A and backups, they found he could pay via an IA, so denied CNC. He claimed Appeals didn’t substantiate his numbers, but they went from the pay stubs he supplied, and didn’t include did not include any income from leasing his extra car, or any of his other non-payroll bank deposits.

Still, Kawekiulani wasn’t done.

“… Mr. Swain also states that, ‘[t]he petitioner believes that he called [SO H] back from his business line and we are in the process of looking through call logs to see if a phone call was attempted by the petitioner. If the petitioner had called back, but [SO H] missed that call, this would be abuse of discretion.’” Order, at p. 6. (Name omitted).

True, Appeals misplaced Kawekiulani’s originally-submitted Form 433-A and backups and closed his appeal, but that got sorted out. Appeals’ paperwork handling lately has been less than stellar.

As for telephoning, Judge Tex Copeland is unimpressed.

Even construing the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Swain, this is not an abuse of discretion. SO H left two voicemails for Mr. Swain and then waited for more than a month to hear back from him before closing the case. During that time, Mr. Swain could have left a voicemail for SO H, attempted to call again, or submitted something in writing.” Order, at p. 6.

NITL sustained.