We have another post-BBA look at the Section 6235(a)(2) 270 day cutoff for issuance of an FPA after “any modification of an imputed underpayment” in Mammoth Cave Property, LLC, Mammoth Cave Manager, LLC, Partnership Representative, 166 T. C. 4, filed 3/9/26.

The mammoths base their SOL claim on the facts that the FPA was mailed to the wrong entity. The mammoths were changing addresses and partnership reps in the midst of COVID, and IRS was behind the curve on posting changes.

But ex-Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan finds that the right designated individual, who was so designated by whatever entity was Partnership Representative at the time, got all the relevant documents timely., and petitioned timely.

“Petitioner received adequate or minimal notice resulting in a timely filed Petition. It has not shown that it was prejudiced by errors in the NOPPA because the audit and communications between respondent and petitioner continued without interruption. After the NOPPA naming the wrong partnership representative was sent to the W address, petitioner timely submitted Forms 8984 and 8980, requesting an extension of time to submit a request for modification and submitting a modification, respectively. These actions resulted in the FPA’s being issued timely, and petitioner’s timely filing a Petition with this Court.” 166 T. C. 4, at p.11. (Name omitted).

And even if the address was wrong, no hurt, no foul.

Ch J Urda, and JJ. Buch, Nega, Pugh, Ashford, Copeland, Jones, Toro, Greaves, Marshall, Weiler, Way, Landy, Arbeit, Guider, Jenkins, and Fung are all on board with the above.

For the Tax Court ‘s first look at the post-BBA régime, see my blogpost “A New Day – Redux,” 7/2/25.

Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes goes back to his famous Churchill opinion in American Solar Electric Inc., Docket No. 7297-23L, filed 3/9/26. And if you ask “what was that?” see my blogpost “Back to the Future,” 8/1/11.

The dispute here is what the new AO considered on remand. Originally, remand here was to correct a mistake at the CDP hearing; AmSo had in fact currently made FICA/FUTA/ITW deposits. AmSo didn’t object to remand. But on remand, the new AO found that AmSo had gone from insolvent to plus-20-grand-per-month income, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act. So Appeals doubles down on their toss of AmSo’s $12K OIC for $650K in back taxes.

AmSo’s trusty attorney yells foul, y’all were only supposed to consider that AmSo paid currently.

Negatory, says Judge Holmes.

“In a supplemental hearing, IRS Appeals is not limited to reviewing the administrative record of the original hearing. “[T]he very purpose of the remand to the Appeals Office was to supplement the record with evidence supporting the IRS’s action . . . . [I]t is “the proper course” where “the record before the agency does not support the agency action.”‘ Lunnon v. Commissioner, 652 Fed. Appx. 623, 624 (10th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Changed circumstances often show that the IRS should accept a lower offer: A taxpayer might have gotten divorced, Churchill, 102 T.C.M. (CCH) at 119, or have become unemployed due to the Covid pandemic, Whittaker v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-59, at *10. In such cases we insist that the Commissioner look at the taxpayer’s current situation, even if it makes compromise at a lower figure more reasonable.

“But changed circumstances can cut both ways. And that’s just what the supplemental record shows here.” Order, at pp. 3-4.

For the backstory on Lunnon, see my blogpost “Be Careful What You Ask For – Part Deux,” 1/21/16; for same on Whittaker, see my blogpost “This Old House – Remanded,” 5/15/23.

Takeaway- As I’ve warned before, here be dragons. Remand can sink you as well as help you. Note the Lunnon language above-cited: remand is to help Appeals and IRS build a record. Unless you’re worse off all around at time of remand than you were at CDP, think twice before you take the bait.

Though I myself have never seen this, I have heard of it. I am sure Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins is unaware of the meaning of the phrase first above set forth at the head hereof (as wealthy practitioners would say).

Nevertheless, her order in Annamalai Annamalai & Parvathi Sivanadiyan, Docket No. 2398-23L, filed 3//6/26 might be so called. AA has made five (count ’em, five) trips to Tax Court, two (count ’em, two) of which have featured in this my blog thus far.

One thing about AA. Like a certain advertising rabbit, he just keeps going and going. After Judge Jenkins bounces his document production motion (which I did not blog), he replies to IRS’ winning response, unasked, asks therein for more time to respond to IRS’ summary J motion and for another copy of said motion.

“Petitioners’ unauthorized reply does not change the analysis reflected in the Court’s order. Also enclosed with the reply, contrary to the Court’s January 16, 2026, order, is a motion requesting additional time to respond to respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 131), filed January 30, 2026, as well as requesting another copy of such motion. Given that the Court, in an Order (Doc. 135), issued February 6, 2026, has already extended the time to reply until April 16, 2026, no further extension is warranted, but the Court will enclose another copy of the motion with this Order. Order, at p. 1.

It’s the last sentence of the foregoing paragraph that furnishes the title hereinabove set forth and elsewhere herein referred to (as those wealthy guys would say).

After two (count ’em two) pages of Order and 27 (count ’em, 27) pages of Motion, we get to read ten (count ’em, ten) pages of AA’s account transcripts for years at issue and two (count ’em, two) billets doux, one from IRS counsel to a Bureau of Prisons employee, and one from the AO in the CDP to IRS counsel.

AA, a very wise State Court judge once told me to be very careful what I asked her for, because she might just give it to me. I did. She did. Don’t ask what happened next. It took months to straighten it out.