I am sure Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland, Texas CPA for more than thirty-five (count ’em, thirty-five) years and three-time San Antonio Tax Lawyer of the Year, would not consider the documentation submitted on the trial by Andrew B. West, T. C. Memo. 2026-105, filed 10/7/26, an example of the best Texas accounting. Andy B was a TX domiciliary in years at issue and pro se on the trial.

Fortunately, the task of unscrambling the post-trial document dump (mostly ignored except to show what petitioner was contending)  and erratic trial testimony fell to Judge David Gustafson, who was apparently so deeply down this rabbit hole that he called the SND a NOD, confusing me also.

Read for yourself the unscrambling of this undigested frittata. Andy B does get a trifle greater deduction than IRS would allow, but the unreported income stays. 

Judge Gustafson does write an essay on the proper preparation and use of spreadsheets in post-trial briefing.

“In principle we heartily approve of the use of such spreadsheets in a brief to present evidence taken from voluminous exhibits. In fact, at the conclusion of trial, we suggested spreadsheets, warning Mr. West that his exhibits—almost 2,000 pages showing thousands of photocopied checks, invoices, and the like—were of such volume and apparent disorganization that, by themselves and without explication by him, they would be insufficient to prove his case. We emphasized that, for every specific fact that Mr. West wanted us to find, he should point either to a page and line of transcript or to an exhibit that proves the fact. We suggested that he could undertake to support his claimed deductions by preparing and attaching to his opening brief a spreadsheet for each category of deduction for each year. We explained that a given spreadsheet should point to where in the record we could find, for each deductible amount, evidence that substantiates the nature and amount of that expenditure with citations of the exhibit numbers, Bates numbers, and testimony that was given on that subject. We noted that while it might sometimes be appropriate to deal with some expenses in bulk, the citations of individual expenditures would be essential to his prevailing.” T. C. Memo 2026-105, at p. 22, footnote 19.

Alas, “Mr. West followed our suggestion imperfectly.” Idem.

“Stuff happens” has become a cliché, although the precise phraseology often used has no place in a blog intended for reading around the family dinner table. Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider, III, has a checklist (not in tabular form) for such mishaps in Simon Gradisnik & Marcia Pena Gradisnik, et al., Docket No. 3262-22, filed10/6/26.

With trial set for 10/19/26, long-time trusty attorney has medical issue. Si & Marcia try to file timely motion for continuance thirty-two (count ’em, thirty-two) days out (see Rule 133, penultimate sentence), but allege they “experienced issues with the United States Postal Service.” Order, at p. 1. 

You’re not alone, guys, I have a prescription refill sent eight (count ’em, eight) days from NJ and addressed to me at this Minor Outlying Island off the Coast of N. America, which this morning is sitting at a USPS distribution center in Fargo, ND. Don’t ask. Anyway, FedEx to the rescue.

Judge Trey Guider, III, is sympathetic, even though IRS says the parties haven’t yet begun the stipulation process. And this is the fourth continuance since consolidation.

So continuance (that’s adjournment for you State courtiers) granted.

Except.

Report by trial date plus ten whether and when petitioners’ counsel will resume work on these cases or whether petitioners intend to retain new counsel or proceed pro se, and describe petitioners’ plan to begin, or their efforts regarding, the stipulation process with respondent.

In short, get counsel, old or new, on board or go it alone, and hit the bedrock of Tax Court practice, the stips.

In this case, Taishoff says it helps that trusty attorney is an old-timer with 49 (count ’em, 49) years of experience at the Tax Court Bar.

Two (count ’em, two) gifts that keep on giving, Raju J. Mukhi, Docket No. 4329-22L, filed 10/5/26, making his fifth appearance in this my blog, and Section 6751(b) Boss Hossery, that hardy perennial, meet before Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler.

Raju is fighting about Appeals’ verification that Exam properly Boss Hossed the chops bestowed upon him, and whether the RA at Exam had indeed done so. “We see these as two separate issues.” Order, at p. 2. Note the RA may have done it right, but the AO may have blown verification.

Raju’s trusted (and trusty) advocates and litigators object to IRS’ motion to remand to Appeals, claiming it will delay the January trial.

Isn’t remand supposed to give the taxpayer a chance to fill in whatever was left out the first time around, and to supplement the record for judicial review?

Yss, but.

“Generally, we remand a case to the Appeals Office when a taxpayer did not receive a proper hearing, and the new hearing is necessary or will be productive. The resulting section 6330 hearing on remand is not a new hearing, but rather ‘provides the parties with the opportunity to complete the initial section 6330 hearing while preserving the taxpayer’s right to receive judicial review of the ultimate administrative determination.’. As noted earlier, we have remanded a case to the Appeals Office to clarify the record regarding an officer’s determination that a notice of deficiency was properly mailed.” Order, at p. 2. (Citations omitted).

Nevertheless, Judge Speedy Weiler, true to his cognomen, tells the parties to get ‘er done before the trial date.