Abdelhafid Rahmani, Docket No. 4624-24, filed 4/10/26 entered this country in 1995; since 1996, he has been incarcerated, Order, at p. 1. He claims that since he got the $1400 stimulus credit for tax year 2021, IRS conceded that he entitled to same for tax year 2020, so the deficiency for that year is invalid.

Wrong, says Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch. IRS’ failure to challenge a position isn’t a concession.

Likewise, Ab’s challenge to IRS and SSA computer transcripts showing he had no valid TIN for work in The Land of the Free cannot surmount the FRE 803(6)(A) and 902(11) “submitted by someone with knowledge” barrier.  Order, at p. 4.

Ab’s year-at-issue return failed to include the valid identification number mandated by Sections 6428(g)(3)(A) and 6428A(g)(4)(A), which define “valid identification number” as a “social security number (as such term is defined in section 24(h)(7)).” Ab has a number, but it’s not valid for US work. Ab does claim he worked for McDonald’s in 1995, but “(T)his bare allegation alone is not sufficient to show there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact. Rule 121(d).” Order, at p. 4.

Summary J for IRS sustaining deficiency.

I must say that in whatever slammer Ab has passed the last thirty (count ’em, thirty) years, there is access to a good law library, or perhaps adept jailhouse lawyers. And whatever Ab’s delictions that landed him there, he has diligently applied himself and chosen good advisors.

I’ve lost count of how many times over the last 13 (count ’em, 13) years I’ve praised that Obliging Jurist Judge David Gustafson. From trying cases in the slammer to writing and rewriting papers, and even (I’ve hypothesized) feeding the parking meter at the courthouse and bringing coffee and Krispy Cremes to the trial, I’ve chronicled no more obliging judge than he.

And today Judge David Gustafson again obliges. Carl Lawrence Collins, III, Docket No. 2643-17, filed 4/9/26, must be nearing the end of his nine (count ’em, nine) year trek through Tax Court, as he and IRS try to sort out their several concessions made at trial to avoid wasting time on briefing conceded issues.

Unhappily, as with a certain ceasefire agreement, what the parties agreed isn’t exactly clear. “Our order of March 20, 2026 (Doc. 164) directed the parties to report on such concessions by March 30, 2026. A status report filed that day (Doc. 166) advised that ‘the parties do not anticipate further stipulations or concessions.’ We expected otherwise. The parties’ briefs begin to be due on May 15, 2026. (See Doc. 167.) To facilitate the focused preparation of those briefs, we will order the parties to make the record clear.” Order, at p. 1.

Whereupon Judge David Gustafson expends three-and-one-half (count ’em, three-and-one-half) pages of words and figures setting forth exactly what he extracts the parties to have orally conceded from the trial record. His order directs them to show cause why these, which he schedules, should not be put into the record. Order, at pp. 5-6.

How’s that for obliging?

Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro, having disposed of deemed distributions, now ascends to the heights hereinabove set forth at the head hereof, as my Grey-Goose-guzzling former colleagues might say, as he does the numbers for Varian Medical Systems, Inc. And Subsidiaries, 166 T. C. 8, filed 4/8/26.

For the mise-en-scène, see my blogpost “We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Distributions,” 8/26/24. This was an unscramble of the gyrations which TCJA imposed to try to territorialize our worldwide tax system for CFCs by imposing modest tax on stashes of post-1986 offshore E&P, both cash and noncash varieties.

But now the numbers, brushing aside both parties’ arguments that their calculations raise issues conceded because never before raised. 

“In particular, the parties agree that the Deemed Paid Foreign Tax Credits should be the amount of Varian’s deemed paid foreign taxes after reduction by section 965(g)(1)—i.e., after the reduction that corresponds to the section 965(c) deduction. Similarly, the parties agree that the section 78 gross-up should be the amount of Varian’s gross-up under section 78 after reduction by section 965(g)(4)—again after the reduction that corresponds to the section 965(c) deduction.

“The parties disagree, however, on the meaning of the ‘net section 965 inclusion.’ Varian argues that it should equate to the section 965(a) inclusion amount (the earnings determined under section 965(a) less the E&P deficits determined under section 965(b)).

“The Commissioner contends that, consistent with the other amounts in the formula, the net section 965 inclusion should take into account the section 965(c) deduction. In other words, the Commissioner argues that the net section 965 inclusion should equal the section 965(a) inclusion amount reduced by the section 965(c) deduction.

“The Commissioner is correct.

“Returning to the text of the statute, the point of the formula is to identify ‘taxes paid or accrued (or treated as paid or accrued) with respect to any dividend for which a deduction is allowed under [section 245A].” I.R.C. § 245A(d)(1). In other words, the point of the formula is to allocate foreign taxes to the underlying earnings that were subject to foreign tax and identify the portion of those taxes that were attributable to a deductible dividend (here, the section 78 dividend).” 166 T. C. 8, at p. 28. (Footnotes omitted).

As Mark Twain remarked, “Well you’ve got to admire men that deal in ideas of that size and can tote them around without crutches.”