Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda doesn’t have to run the withering gauntlet of criticism that the late Judge Richard Posner of 7 Cir unleashed on poor Judge Wherry for “lame attempts at humor.” And I’m not saying Ch J Scholar Pat’s jibes are lame. But as a target for sarcastic laughter, Lontrac Enterprises, LLC, Lontrac Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, T. C. Memo;. 2026-108, filed 10/22/26, bids fair.

It’s copybook Dixieland Boondockery, mining variation. The Lontracs have a piece of TN where a river runs through it and a scenic railway crosses it, which they had on the market for $2.9 million for five (count ’em, five) years without a nibble. Suddenly, a bunch of dodgefloggers decide that the rock the railroad dug up a century ago (metagraywacke) is worth millions, and syndicate the Section 170 SCE for $74 million in writeoffs, promising highrollers three-for-one.

Of course, one of petitioners’ experts takes the Fifth. No adverse inference, but his report gets tossed.

The valuation skirmish is a nonevent. The property produced no income, so DCF is pure speculation. And there’s plenty of comparables.

“We have found that the easement here was worth $500,000 on… the date of grant. The value reported on Lontrac’s return, i.e., $74,507,000, was 14,901% of the value we have determined. The valuation misstatement was, to put it mildly, ‘gross.’” T. C. Memo. 2026-108, at pp. 44-45. (Footnote omitted).

Koner disposes of Boss Hossery. No assessment has yet been made because Section 6213(a) automatic stay, so if RA and supe are still around, signoff can be obtained.

I’ll conclude with Ch J Scholar Pat’s summary.

“This case stands apart only for the sheer audacity of the numbers involved—the partnership here claimed a deduction of $74.5 million for an easement (i.e., a restriction on use) on property that had been sitting on the market for years, failing to find a buyer willing to pay $2.9 million. The stratospheric number was based on the claim that the property was suddenly very valuable as a mine although the rocks underlying the purported mining strategy were visible to the naked eye and the area was well mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Of course, the idea of mining was chimerical, simply a way to get at a wholly unmerited tax deduction.” T. C. Memo. 2026-108, at pp.1-2.

Some may think the cognomina I assign Tax Court judges are mere caprice. I assure you, that is not the case. In proof whereof, I offer Judge Jeffrey S. (“Schwer”) Arbeit’s order in Christoper Aubuchon, Docket No. 15097-24, filed 10/22/26.

Christopher (“Gentleman Chris”) Aubuchon, s/a/k/a Christopher Aubuchon, Ph. D., now makes his third appearance in this my blog, again displaying his genteel frivolity, against which Judge Schwer Arbeit warned him in terms described in my blogpost “The ‘Quintessential Tax Protester’ Is Back,” 9/16/26.

Gentleman Chris made a Rule 161 reconsideration motion, to which Judge Schwer Arbeit a couple days ago (hi, Judge Holmes) ordered IRS to respond. But on reading Gentleman Chris’ papers, Judge Schwer Arbeit lets IRS off, and lays a blast on Gentleman Chris.

“Petitioner asks that we distinguish his frivolous positions ‘from the independently presented evidentiary and procedural issues.’ But this is just artful rhetoric: he makes the same arguments we have already rejected. We won’t explain to him yet again why he is mistaken, and we won’t ask respondent to do so either.

“Another point. In our opinion, we imposed a $5,000 penalty under section 6673(a) for advancing frivolous or groundless positions. Petitioner now asks us to vacate that penalty. We decline to do so. As we have stated twice before, petitioner understands his tax liability. See Aubuchon, T.C. Memo. 2026-87, at *10. Nonetheless he continues to assert frivolous and groundless positions. Let this be his final warning: Next time the penalty will be higher. See Aubuchon, T.C. Memo. 2026-87, at *10 n.7. He is lucky we do not take the opportunity today to increase the amount.” Order, at p. 1.

Schwer means hard, as in “hard work.”

No, not an off-topic essay about existential angst (although who knows how low this my blog may sink before I’m done with it?), this is about V, an attorney subject to State Court discipline. Name omitted, of course; said attorney has already suffered enough.

Too often, Tax Court admittees who get wigged or gigged by other tribunals never tell the Glasshouse Gang. But V did tell Tax Court, asking to be relieved in a pending case because of the State Court suspension order.

Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda does credit V that far, but that wasn’t far enough for Rule 202(b).

“A member of the Bar of this Court is required to report to the Chair of the Court’s Committee on Admissions, Ethics, and Discipline, in writing, of suspension by another Court of whose Bar such attorney is a member no later than 30 days after entry of the order of discipline. Rule 202(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Although [V] did not report her suspension to the Chair, she did report the suspension to the Court, in writing, within, 30 days of her suspension from the practice of law….” Order, at p. 1.

OK, the Rule says what it says. But who is the Chair? You won’t find him or her on the Tax Court website. The website Court directory lists admissions with a telephone number, but seems to restrict its function to “(A)dmissions procedures for practice before the Tax Court and practitioner access for DAWSON.” General questions go to Public Affairs.

So to whom and where does the disciplined practitioner, smarting from the wounds righteously administered, direct the notice to the Chair in writing? Or did Neil Diamond get it right fifty-five (count ’em, fifty-five) years ago?