Morgan Run Partners, LLC, Overflow Marketing, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, T. C. Memo. 2026-112, filed 11/3/26, having had their approach clearance canceled by Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber in my blogpost “More Air Than Port,” 4/1/26, comes around to try again.

Airport extension being off the table, and the Black ’08 having wiped out the proposed single family-mansion development for which the grantors had secured zoning approval, the property was sold to SCE dodgefloggers, who ginned up a set of numbers (see T. C. Memo. 2026-112, at p. 12, footnote 4) based on the collapsed single-family-mansion HBU, claiming a six-for-one writeoff.

Then they decided a distribution center would be better, so at trial they shifted strategy and claimed the distribution center was HBU. Even though the shift came six (count ’em, six) weeks before trial, Judge Scholar Al let the Morgan Runners try it.

IRS’ experts focused on single family because they prepared their reports pre-shift. Judge Lauber finds their reports and testimony on the money. The reason the prior developers cratered was the poor reputation of the local schools, which discouraged families.

All petitioners’ experts had checkered reputations in Tax Court, which Judge Scholar Al enumerates. The distribution center fails for inadequate local infrastructure. The enhanced single-family sales prices crater for the same reason as the prior developers’ efforts.

“The value that Morgan Run claimed for the easement on its … tax return was $26 million. We have determined that the FMV of the easement on the valuation date was $1,165,000. The claimed value thus exceeded the correct value by more than 2,000%. The valuation misstatement was thus ‘gross.’” T. C. Memo. 2p026-112, at p. 43. And there is no reasonable cause excuse for a gross valuation misstatement.

Taishoff says this case proves that the HBU of this property is as a Dixieland Boondockery tax dodge.

Though I very much doubt they read this my blog, I do hope Neuse River Council of Governments, Docket No. 8194-25L, filed 11/3/26, followed my advice in my blogpost “Wagner Boechlerized,” 1/7/26.

Back then I counseled petitioners “if seeking withdrawal without prejudice in a CDP, take a good hard look before relying on Dunn.”

The Neuse Councilors do seek to withdraw, claiming that “they reached an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service –  Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals.” Order, at p. 1.

And IRS certainly agrees.

Now I don’t want to play the part of the 2% indirect partner in a Dixieland Boondockery who tries to blow up a settlement with an after-the-whistle intervention attempt.

But I do hope the Neuse Councilors did take that good hard look. And if they did and are still happy, why not move for Entry of Stipulated Decision.

Lance Stevens, T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-10, filed 11/2/26, “…focused on asserting, without elaboration, that his rights were violated, that he was never notified that he needed to provide documentation about his expenses, and that he never received any letters or notices from the IRS asking for substantiating documentation. Although the Court understands petitioner’s frustration with the process involved in the audit for his [year at issue] federal income tax return and his case before the Court, he did not meet his burden of proof with respect to his claimed deductions under either rule; therefore, the Court finds for respondent on this issue.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-10, at p. 8.

Worse, by establishing the gross receipts of his business were greater than what IRS claimed in the SND, Mr. Stevens gave IRS a free kick to increase the deficiency.

STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden doesn’t mention whether  anyone sought the assistance of a calendar call commando, but this seems like a perfect opportunity for an intervention.