Misquoting Rudy Kipling’s famous footslog, Ronald Michael Henke & Elizabeth Henke, Docket No. 27610-22L, filed 10/2/26, find out the bad news from Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way. I note the tax years here because they matter.

“The Court agrees with respondent that AO M did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the liabilities for tax years 2007, 2015, and 2016 could still be collected. The liabilities for tax years 2015 and 2016 that remain at issue constitute priority tax claims within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(A)(i), and such priority taxes generally are not discharged in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A). The liability for tax year 2007 was an assessment made based on a substitute return prepared by the Commissioner pursuant to section 6020(b) and is excepted from bankruptcy discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i). Moreover, by failing to respond to the Motion or appear at the trial session, petitioners have abandoned any argument that AO Matthews abused his discretion in concluding that the liabilities for tax years 2007, 2015, and 2016 remain at issue.” Order, at p. 7. (Name omitted).

Note petitioners petitioned in bankruptcy (Ch 7) 4/30/18, triggering the 11 USC §507(a)(8)(A)(i) three-year lockout. The SFR (not filed by petitioners) for 2007) opens the 11 USC §523(a)(1)(A) door.

Yeah, I know Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda has to send off Parliament House of Augusta, Inc,, Docket No. 6410-26S, filed 10/2/26, notwithstanding its pathetic plea that IRS has thoroughly scrambled its Section 941s and garnished its account because IRS can’t read or add. And Letter 4384C isn’t a NOD or SND, so pore l’il ol’ Tax Court, trammeled in Congressional swaddling clothes and leading strings, can only help in a matter bounded and described in the boilerplate laundry list in the hereinabove aforesaid order set forth, as my expensive unretired colleagues would say.

But please permit this beaten-up, beaten-down, battered single-shingle oldtimer the dubious luxury of second-guessxing the august Chief Judge of the equally august Unitd States Tax Court.

Instead of just suggesting the Parliament work with IRS, why not suggest a wee word with Erin M. (“Erinys”) Collins or one of her trusty minions at the Taxpayer Advocate Service? 

Even if the path less traveled guides not to salvation, it might afford Parliament a glimmer of hope.

William M. Scott, T. C. Memo. 2026-104, filed 10/1/26, claims a Section 7623(b) blow award because he tipped off IRS that a private prison company’s tax-exempt bonds were bogus. IRS checked out the bonds, concluded they weren’t properly tax-exempt, and settled.

Company paid nothing but called in the bonds and issued replacements that were taxable. IRS agreed not to look for back taxes for the eleven (count ’em, eleven) years the dubious bonds had paid out. The Ogden Sunseteers bounced William’s claim, saying the collected nothing. William says IRS will collect a bundle going forward, wants discovery, and claims Ogden’s bounce constitutes a new issue shifting BoP.

Nope, says Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider, III, only much more elegantly.

The “new” explanation only fleshes out the expressed rationale. The bondholders got the tax break; the Target was the prison company, which got none. Collecting from the Bondholders going forward would require monitoring a large, shifting population for many years, some of whom might be tax-exempt or have offsets like NOLs themselves, obviously infeasible.

Shands and Lissack say merely pointing out a Target isn’t enough, even if IRS collects. Blower must home in on the specific grounds whereunder IRS collects. And Targets who straighten up and fly right before IRS takes enforcement action don’t entitle blowers to an award. 

Going against the Bondholders isn’t a “related action” within the meaning of Reg. Section 301.7623-2(c)(1)(ii) and (iii); “Even assuming an IRS Operating Division were to investigate and discover the identity of the Bondholders and determine the taxes they have paid or will pay, the identities of the Bondholders would not be found without the Operating Division’s having to independently obtain additional information beyond that provided by petitioner.” T. C. Memo. 2026-104, at p. 16. Taishoff says that assumes the deal between IRS and Bondholders exonerating previous years doesn’t include the Bondholders as third-party beneficiaries to that extent.

Mr. Scott wants to see the trust indenture for the new bonds because IRS mentioned it. Not enough, says Judge Try Guider. The Administrative Record need include only what IRS relied upon, not something mentioned for its mere existence and no more. 

No payout for Mr. Scott as the company slipped its surly bonds.