I had hoped to pass on to you some enlightenment anent the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), Pub. L. No. 116-127, §§ 7002, 7004, 134 Stat. 178, 212, 217 (2020) (as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260, div. N, § 286, 134 Stat. 1182, 1989 (2020)), and those enacted by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), Pub. L. No. 117-2, §§ 9642 and 9643, 135 Stat. 4, 171, 174 (2021). 

Alas, Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way gives us nothing but a defective-documentation case that, in his words, “… go beyond poor recordkeeping and suggest pure fabrication,” Marie M. Kanda, T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-3, filed 4/20/26, at p. 9. (Footnote omitted).

I leave it to you to read Judge Way’s unbaling of Marie’s various reporting positions. I really stopped following them, although Marie’s list of ailments at p. 2 did evoke enough sympathy for me to understand why IRS folded the Section 6676 excess deductions and credits chop.

Most motions to proceed remotely fail for mootness, either jurisdictional footfaults or stipouts. Fullview, Inc., Docket No. 16901-23, filed 4/20/26, applies Rule 140(b) to a motion made three (count ’em, three) weeks before trial, to which IRS successfully objects.

Fullview claims its request for trial in San Diego was a mistake, as its representative lives near San Francisco.

“Respondent objects to petitioner’s Motion stating that (a) petitioner has had multiple opportunities over the past three years since petitioner filed the petition to identify the mistake and has failed to do so, (b) petitioner’s internet has frozen on numerous occasions when virtually conferencing with respondent, and (c) because the primary issues for this case are document intensive, the trial is not conducive to a virtual proceeding.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider, III, tells Fullview to show up in San Diego.

“Rule 140(b) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure allows a party to move to change the place of trial, but states that if the ‘motion [is] made after the notice setting the case for trial is served[, it] may be deemed dilatory and may be denied unless the ground therefor arose during that period or there was good reason for not making the motion sooner.’ Petitioner’s reasons for requesting a remote proceeding do not meet this standard and seemingly did not arise between our Order setting this case for trial and petitioner’s Motion to Proceed Remotely. And respondent has raised convincing objections.” Order, at p. 1. 

Judge David Gustafson yet again shows his obliging nature in Carl Lawrence Collins, III, Docket No. 2643-17, filed 4/202/26. Having heretofore unscrambled at-trial concessions and prepared a concordance of documents evidencing same, he agrees to postpone review of the trial transcript until the transcribed audio version has been cleaned up by the parties.

“Because of weather conditions that affected travel, the court reporter was unable to attend the trial session in person, and he relied on an audio connection to make the recording from which the transcript would be prepared. As we explained in our order of March 20, 2026 (Doc. 164), our recent review of a portion of the third volume of the trial transcript revealed numerous errors, for which we proposed corrections based on a backup audio recording.” Order, at p. 1.

So let the trial clerk send the parties what audio there is, so they can jointly or separately move to correct the transcript.

Taishoff, moved by Judge David Gustafson’s diligence, offers a wee correction of his own.

“ORDERED that the post-trial briefing schedule previously ordered in Docs. 159 and 167 is hereby vacated, and revised a briefing schedule will be set after the transcript has been corrected.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Gustafson, try this: “ORDERED that the post-trial briefing schedule previously ordered in Docs. 159 and 167 is hereby vacated, and a revised briefing schedule will be set after the transcript has been corrected.”