Three (count ’em, three) items for the scrapbook today, none worthy of an individual blogpost.

Tracey Yvonne Lucas, T. C. Memo. 2026-22, filed 2/26/26, wanted to “help people,” so she ran a sole proprietorship called “Tracey’s TLC.” Unhappily, Judge Kashi (My or the High”) Way finds she had only one client, no separate bank account, reported no income therefrom (although she got a few bucks looking after a neighbor’s child), and got her claimed deductions Section 274’d away.

Mark Hassan, Docket No. 10565-19, filed 2/26/26, has Judge Fung denying IRS document production and Mark’s assertion of privilege with what I would call RTFSPTO (“Read The Standing Pre Trial Order”)(the F” is for emphasis). “Given the procedures and impending deadlines set out in the Court’s Standing Pretrial Order, we need not address any infirmities in the parties’ filings and we will not address whether petitioner’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine is sufficient to defeat the relief sought in respondent’s Motion. If either party intends to use any documents at trial, that party must exchange them as part of the Stipulation of Facts or as the party’s Proposed Trial Exhibits within the prescribed deadlines.” Order, at p. 2. Maybe privilege is a shield, not a sword; if ya hide ’em, ya can’t use ’em.

Todd O. Olson, Docket No. 28000-22L, filed 2/26/26, would give rise to a Shakespearean pun if I were that way inclined, but I’ll spare you. Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh exhaustively surveys Tax Court’s mechanisms for holding no-show petitioners in default, and so holds Todd. Judge C-Doug Pugh adds a stinger: “We warned petitioner on multiple occasions that we may impose a penalty pursuant to section 6673 if he persisted in making frivolous arguments. Petitioner’s silence may imply that he had no non-frivolous response to respondent’s Motion. But because he did not respond with frivolous arguments after we warned him, we will not impose a section 6673 penalty at this time. We remind petitioner that our warnings regarding section 6673 also apply to any future cases in this Court.” Order, at p. 4, footnote 2.

Judge Goeke is a late entrant in the conundrum stakes, but he has a couple good ones (hi, Judge Holmes) in Antonia Gettridge, Docket No. 16153-23, filed 2/25/26.

Antonia claims a $45K Section 1341 claim of right credit that wipes out year at issue’s taxes and she overstates the withholding for which she claims a refund. IRS issues a SND embodying these, plus some other credits that Judge Goeke can’t make out. There’s also some other income in the mix, but for now the issues are the disallowed Section 1341 credit and the misstated withholding.

To have a Tax Court deficiency case there must first be a deficiency. So, since IRS gave Antonia no rebates, the basic Section 6211 definition here is tax due minus tax reported.

Except.

“Section 6211(b)(4) expands the definition of a deficiency to include the disallowance of certain refundable credits. The expanded definition of a deficiency allows taxpayers to contest the IRS’s disallowance of the designated refundable credits in deficiency proceedings. Under section 6211(b)(4), any excess of refundable credits allowable over the tax imposed by subtitle A, and any excess of reported refundable credits over the tax reported on a taxpayer’s return, ‘shall be taken into account as negative amounts of tax’ for purposes of section 6211(a).” Order, at p. 3.

OK, so Antonia has a valid SND?

Maybe not.

“Section 6211(b)(4)(A) lists the refundable credits in the following Code sections as subject to the deficiency procedures: sections 21, 24, 25A, 32, 34, 35, 36, 36B, 6428, 6428A, 6428B, and 7527A. The section 1341 credit is not among the listed credits.” Ibid., as my expensive former colleagues would say.

So does the disputed Section 1341 claim of right credit give rise to Tax Court jurisdiction?

As for the withholding jumpball, “(T)he amount of federal income tax withholding is not taken into account in determining the amount of a deficiency. Section 6211(b)(1) provides that Tax Imposed and Tax Reported are determined without regard to the section 31 credit for tax withheld on wages. Thus, withholding credits and overstatements are excluded from the definition of a deficiency.  The IRS may summarily assess tax in the amount of an  overstated withholding credit. §§ 6201(a)(3); 6213 (b)(1). Overstated withholding credit is not subject to the deficiency procedures. Accordingly, we will direct the parties to address whether we have jurisdiction in this deficiency case to determine the correct amount of petitioner’s withholding.” Order, at pp. 3-4. (Citations omitted).

So what, if anything, can Judge Goeke decide is the correct amount of Antonia’s withholding?

Submit memos by 4/15/26, along with what else you have to do on that date.

One would think that from anyone from his/her grade school days would remember that to explain a serious health-related absence a doctor’s note was essential. I’m surprised that the well-credentialed trusty attorneys for GO Risk Management, Inc., et al., Docket No. 14012-21, filed 2/25/26, didn’t seek (or allege that they sought but were refused) such.

Said trusty attorneys want to depose MT (name omitted) “…for the purpose of perpetuating his testimony because, petitioners assert, ‘Petitioners have substantial and well-founded concern that MT may not survive until the currently scheduled trial date of July 5, 2026, or that his condition will deteriorate to the point where he will be unable to communicate effectively.’” Order, at p. 1.

Before raising the want of underpinning, Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins notes the want of a Rule 81(b)(2) certificate of service on MT. 

Taishoff says maybe trusty attorneys should have foreseen this problem by alleging that MT’s condition precludes personal service, and none of attorney, guardian, conservator, or next friend could be located to receive service (if such were the case). And HIPAA may be a barrier to obtaining medical information.

Howbeit, the underlying problem with the application for deposition remains: “…petitioners provide nothing other than counsel’s assertions in the application in support of the contentions concerning Mr. Theisen’s health.” Order, at p. 1. And as petitioners haven’t shown that MT was served, Judge Jenkins can’t know what MT would say. or even knows about this.

Judge Jenkins has a suggestion.

“Given the allegations concerning MT’s health, the Court might consider granting a procedurally compliant application that provided a better foundation for the necessity and timing for the proposed deposition, as opposed to remote testimony at trial, but the infirmities of the application before the Court warrant its denial.” Order, at p. 1.

Application tossed without prejudice; try again.