I don’t know if Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber wants to, but it looks like he must go down to the sea again in Peter H. Askew & Anne H. Askew, et al., Docket No. 20114-24, filed 9/4/26. Pete & Anne and the als donated a sailing ship to the United States Merchant Marine Academy Sailing Foundation, Inc.

And given the white shoe counsel representing the Askews and those appearing for the Sailers, we clearly aren’t talking about a 14-foot International dinghy.

The present scuffle concerns the usual trial subpoena for documents, to which the USMMA objected. Judge Scholar Al comes down for liberal discovery and tells the Sailers to heave to.

The Sailers’ trusty attorneys raised “irrelevant or not ‘reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence'” objections. Rule 147(d)(3)(III) makes “unduly burdensome” the real test. Of course I haven’t reviewed what IRS specifically asked for or what it would take the Sailers to comply, so I can’t say for certain that their trusty attorneys’ objection was a waste of time. But if IRS wanted to know when the Sailers sold the ship, we can guess where this case is going.

No, not the Barbara Stanwyck-Bert Lancaster thriller of seventy-plus years ago. Ivan Merida Ortiz, T. C. Memo. 2026-81, filed 9/3/26, put his ITIN on his 1040. This knocks out his $1400 claimed 2021 economic recovery rebate credit under section 6428B.

Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider, III, judge-‘splains.

“Section 6428B is clear that if the taxpayer does not provide a valid identification number on his or her return, then the $1,400 section 6428B(b)(1) amount is treated as being zero. § 6428B(e)(2)(A). The statute is also clear that a valid identification number is a Social Security number. § 6428B(e)(2)(D)(i). An ITIN is not a Social Security number, so it is not a valid identification number. Petitioner would never have been issued his ITIN if he had, or was entitled to, a Social Security number. See Treas. Reg. § 301.6109-1(d)(4). Petitioner’s inclusion of an ITIN shows that he did not have a valid identification number. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to a 2021 economic recovery rebate credit.” T. C. Memo. 2026-81, at pp. 3-4.

And Ivan has another wrong number.

“Petitioner also requests that this Court ‘release [the] economic impact payment for [the] year 2020’ that he did not receive. This claim arises from petitioner’s alleged claiming of credits under sections 6428 and 6428A for the 2020 taxable year. The 2020 taxable year was not included in respondent’s SNOD, so we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim.” T. C. Memo. 2026-08, at p. 4. Remember, all the SNOD covered was the 2021 credit. 

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler sorts it out, and IRS’ proof falls short in Dania Wales, T. C. Memo. 2026-82, filed 9/3/26. IRS wants to toss Dania’s innocent spousery petition because she filed her Form 8857 too late after CCISO issued a Final Notice of Determination (FND), arguing no jurisdiction.

No doubt there was a FND or that it was mailed to Dania’s last known address, unclaimed, and ultimately returned to CCISO.

Except.

All IRS can established is that it was sent first class presorted. And neither the famous USPS online tracking number nor certification from a USPS paralegal can help.

“We acknowledge that respondent has furnished a USPS Tracking Plus Statement that includes the tracking history for the Final Determination Notice’s specific tracking number, as well as a separate certification by a USPS paralegal regarding the accuracy of the Tracking Plus Statement. The USPS Tracking Plus Statement, however, fails to indicate whether the contents of the letter were sent by certified or registered mail. Further, the tracking number itself does not indicate that it was sent via certified or registered mail. Finally, the certification respondent offers from the USPS paralegal fails to state whether the Final Determination Notice was sent by certified or registered mail.

“This type of documentary evidence falls short of what we have accepted in the past to show proper mailing in situations where the Commissioner does not present a Form 3877.” T. C. Memo. 2026-82, at p. 6.

Section 6015(e)(1)(A) sets forth the relevant time and mailing constraints.

Tax Court has jurisdiction.

A Taishoff “Good Job” to Dania’s trusty attorneys Chris, Brian, and Jason.