Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro has another form for the Tax Court litigator’s file in Airbnb, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 12423-24, filed 8/14/26. And Judge Eminent Toro didn’t draft a word of it (at least not expressly).

This Discovery Protective Order for Non-Technology Proprietary and Confidential Information was hammered out by the parties after a phonathon with judge Eminent Toro. Whether this resulted from what we used to call a head-banging session deponent knoweth not. And note this DPO doesn’t cover the treatment of technology-related materials, although the parties “will continue their efforts to reach [such] agreement.” Order, at p. 1, footnote 2.

Howbeit, text appears following order, page 1. I make no warranties, guarantees, or representations as to adequacy, fitness for purpose, compliance with law or regulation, or anything else. YMMV.

It seems Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda has gone all Bundesliga with Tax Court jurisdiction. The former extensive paragraph describing “other IRS notices that may form the basis for a petition to this Court” that festooned routine want-of-jurisdiction petition tosses has been relegated to a footnote.

Is whistleblowing in the zone for promotion?

Solely by way of illustration of the foregoing and the source of the above quotation, see Cassandra John, Docket No. 3274-26SL, filed 8/14/26, at p. 2, footnote 2.

No, not innocent spousery; this is the tale of Tyler Uccellini, one of three (count ’em, three) children of the late Walter F. Uccellini, and beneficiary of a $10 million Pecuniary Trust established under his late father’s will.

Except.

For fourteen (count ’em, fourteen) years the late Walter’s estate, and Tyler’s trust, have been fought over in Albany Surrogates’ Court (Our Fair State’s probate court), while co-ex’rs Sis and Bro fight over a gift (or maybe a loan) from Dad to Sis. You know IRS piles on, hitting the ex’rs (Sis and Bro) with a SND for understated valuation of estate assets and overstated deductions. And the petition has been plodding for ten (count ’em, ten) years.

Tyler is obviously tired of holding a win ticket in the Jarndyce stakes, which horserace looks more like a death march. So he moves to intervene

The case is Estate of Walter F. Uccellini, Deceased, Michael J. Uccellini & Peter J. Cornell, Co-Executors, Docket No. 21810-16, filed 8/13/26. Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins says negatory. 

Tyler’s interests and the ex’r’s are the same, and the ex’rs are proceeding. “Even if delay of this case could be considered a failure to protect movant’s stake in this litigation, the objections credibly attribute a significant portion of the delay in this case to disputes among the co-executors that have been resolved by the Surrogate [sic] Court’s resolution of the gift/loan dispute and removal of [Sis] as a co-executor, as evidenced by the subsequent filing of a stipulation of settled issues. The Court also agrees with the objections’ concern that introduction another party into the case would re-introduce delays.” Order, at p. 4.

Judge Cracklin’ Jenkins writes a long essay on permissive intervention, a good review after years since this was a hot topic in the VIBIR days.