No, not the Barbara Stanwyck-Bert Lancaster thriller of seventy-plus years ago. Ivan Merida Ortiz, T. C. Memo. 2026-81, filed 9/3/26, put his ITIN on his 1040. This knocks out his $1400 claimed 2021 economic recovery rebate credit under section 6428B.

Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider, III, judge-‘splains.

“Section 6428B is clear that if the taxpayer does not provide a valid identification number on his or her return, then the $1,400 section 6428B(b)(1) amount is treated as being zero. § 6428B(e)(2)(A). The statute is also clear that a valid identification number is a Social Security number. § 6428B(e)(2)(D)(i). An ITIN is not a Social Security number, so it is not a valid identification number. Petitioner would never have been issued his ITIN if he had, or was entitled to, a Social Security number. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6109-1(d)(4). Petitioner’s inclusion of an ITIN shows that he did not have a valid identification number. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to a 2021 economic recovery rebate credit.” T. C. Memo. 2026-81, at pp. 3-4.

And Ivan has another wrong number.

“Petitioner also requests that this Court ‘release [the] economic impact payment for [the] year 2020’ that he did not receive. This claim arises from petitioner’s alleged claiming of credits under sections 6428 and 6428A for the 2020 taxable year. The 2020 taxable year was not included in respondent’s SNOD, so we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim.” T. C. Memo. 2026-08, at p. 4. Remember, all the SNOD covered was the 2021 credit. 

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler sorts it out, and IRS’ proof falls short in Dania Wales, T. C. Memo. 2026-82, filed 9/3/26. IRS wants to toss Dania’s innocent spousery petition because she filed her Form 8857 too late after CCISO issued a Final Notice of Determination (FND), arguing no jurisdiction.

No doubt there was a FND or that it was mailed to Dania’s last known address, unclaimed, and ultimately returned to CCISO.

Except.

All IRS can established is that it was sent first class presorted. And neither the famous USPS online tracking number nor certification from a USPS paralegal can help.

“We acknowledge that respondent has furnished a USPS Tracking Plus Statement that includes the tracking history for the Final Determination Notice’s specific tracking number, as well as a separate certification by a USPS paralegal regarding the accuracy of the Tracking Plus Statement. The USPS Tracking Plus Statement, however, fails to indicate whether the contents of the letter were sent by certified or registered mail. Further, the tracking number itself does not indicate that it was sent via certified or registered mail. Finally, the certification respondent offers from the USPS paralegal fails to state whether the Final Determination Notice was sent by certified or registered mail.

“This type of documentary evidence falls short of what we have accepted in the past to show proper mailing in situations where the Commissioner does not present a Form 3877.” T. C. Memo. 2026-82, at p. 6.

Section 6015(e)(1)(A) sets forth the relevant time and mailing constraints.

Tax Court has jurisdiction.

A Taishoff “Good Job” to Dania’s trusty attorneys Chris, Brian, and Jason.

Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes disrespects not a single partitive genitive, but tramples, upends, and deconstructs both IRS’ bank account reconstructions and petitioner’s implausible testimony and uncooperative behavior, in Hank Risan, et al., T. C. Memo. 2026-78, filed 9/2/26.

Hank is a self-styled Renaissance man indicted for fraud. T. C. 2026-78, at p. 4, footnote 5. But IRS doesn’t allege fraud here. IRS has troubles enough, with computational fumbles at exam and an unsupported alter ego argument. Unreported income allegations are washed away. And while Mark’s testimony draws a large bill on credulity, his trusty attorney points out enough to let BoP sink a lot of IRS’ case.

What will be left for the Rule 155 beancount to sort and what the final deficiency will be is a real head-spinner.