IRS counsel are notorious devotees of the “Win Your Case at Discovery” gambit. But the trusty attorneys for Chad Burris & Julie Burris, et al., Docket No. 18712-22, filed 8/28/26, have been successfully slow playing IRS’ treasure hunt. For backstory, see my blogpost “Don’t Suppose You Can Depose – Indocumentado,” 4/29/26.

So IRS’ counsel unleash a barrage of motions seeking documents, admissions, and elucidations, which Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh grants in extenso. The wrangling “which has plagued this case” caused Judge C-Doug Pugh to continue the special trial session supposed to start on Monday.

Now said trusty attorneys have ten (count ’em, ten) days to pony up or show good cause at the trial next year why whatever they didn’t hand over should be allowed in.

For those of my readers who have led clean and sober lives, far from track and table, to “slow play” at poker is to bet weakly so as to entice an opponent into overvaluing his/her cards, springing a trap at the last. 

Here, IRS calls. And Judge C-Doug Pugh is waiting.

STJ Jennifer E. (“Publius”) Siegel has a 32 (count ’em, 32) page small-claimer. I’ll let Her Honor judge-‘splain.

“The simplest version of this small tax case Opinion is that petitioners are liable for the deficiencies determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for each of the four years before us because they failed to meet their burden of proof and establish entitlement to any of the deductions claimed. If that were the whole story, however, this Opinion would not be 32 pages long. There is also a fraud penalty at issue for each year, and that requires a few more pages to discuss what petitioners claimed on their tax returns and to make clear how the IRS proved fraud by clear and convincing evidence. But really, this Opinion is long because one of the factors we consider in evaluating fraud is the sophistication of the taxpayer. And Mr. Janangelo is a pretty sophisticated taxpayer; Mr. Janangelo is an auditor at the IRS.” Peter J. Janangelo, Jr. and Mary Ann Janangelo, T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-8, at p 2.

Mr. Janangelo is also a CPA and a member of the Bar of Our Fair State.

“Mr. Janangelo was employed full time at the IRS during the years at issue and, at the time of trial, had been for almost 20 years. In his capacity as a revenue agent for the IRS, Mr. Janangelo conducts audits and reviews tax returns. He belongs to the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and has been a union steward.” T. C. Sum. Op.  2026-8, at p.2. (Footnote omitted, but it says he works for IRS, not OCC.) 

I’ll spare you the rest, barring two points for audit.

“Mr. Janangelo argues that he is not required to substantiate any expense under $75, no matter what the category. He cites no authority for this proposition.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-8, at pp. 15-16.

Notwithstanding Section 446, requiring cash basis taxpayers to recognize income and expense when paid, ” Mr. Janangelo argued that the IRS should have been more flexible during his audits, explaining that his own audit practice working for the IRS is to allow a deduction, even if claimed for  the wrong year. Mr. Janangelo’s practice as a revenue agent may be to allow such deductions, but the Court’s role is to apply the law as written to the facts put in evidence. The Janangelos find support in neither.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-8, at p. 18

I do not recommend either position.

Jeremy Berenblatt, T. C. Memo. 2026-75, filed 8/27/26, is an unending source of blogfodder. Y’all will recollect Jeremy blew on a digital options dodge seven (count ’em, seven) years after IRS interviewed him. So far no dough for Jeremy, but his trusty attorneys (whom I’ll call the Scotts) are in there pitching, trying to supplement (or maybe complete: the rules overlap) the administrative record, and have Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland take 14 (count ’em, 14) judicial notices.

Problem is Dania Beach. Jeremy and the Scotts, says Judge Tex Copeland, are firmly aground. City of Dania Beach v. FAA, 628 F.3d 581 (D.C. Cir. 2010)) is the barrier. The three-way test is “1) if the agency “deliberately or negligently excluded documents [from consideration] that may have been adverse to its decision,” (2) if background information was needed ‘to determine whether the agency considered all the relevant factors,’ or (3) if the ‘agency failed to explain administrative action so as to frustrate judicial review.’ City of Dania Beach, 628 F.3d at 590.” T. C. Memo. 2026-75, at pp. 11-12.

Jeremy wants IRS’ notes from his interview. Even if that happened years before his Form 211, maybe they can be included on the “all relevant factors” front. But that’s not a catch-all; it only includes material to explain complex technical issues. IRS was already on the trial of the dodgefloggers. And Jeremy put what he had told the IRS in his Form 211, so the Ogden Sunseteers had the whole story.

Jeremy’s own file wasn’t attached to his Form 211. Anyway, it’s not adverse to the OS decision, doesn’t provide relevant technical background, nor does omission frustrate judicial review.  As for IRS e-mails that he wants, they were created after he petitioned so could never have been considered in evaluating his blow. As for deliberately or negligently excluded, they had to exist when the decision was made.

There’s a lot of argy-bargy about in camera review of grand jury testimony, T. C. Memo. 2026-75, at pp. 16-20, but I leave that to the technicians. F.R. Crim. P. § 6(e)(3)(E)(i) is well outside my wheelhouse.

As for the 14 judicial notices, they also founder on Dania Beach. ” As a threshold matter, Mr. Berenblatt does not detail how his requested adjudicative facts fit into the City of Dania Beach framework. Moreover, none of Mr. Berenblatt’s 14 RAFs are facts generally known within the jurisdiction or capable of accurate and ready determination. RAFs 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 describe the course of the prosecution of the… promoters and relate to Mr. Berenblatt only obliquely, if at all. They therefore cannot properly be considered adjudicative facts in the first instance. Moreover, to the extent that the RAFs incorporate inferences and speculation, they are not facts at all.” T. C. Memo. 2026-75, at p. 22.