Judge Adam B.(“Sport”) Landy gives the Ogden Sunseteers another win (I wonder if the WBO is getting tired of winning) in William Pratt, T. C. Memo. 2026-31, filed 4/6/26. The OS sent William’s claim to SB/SE classifier, who brushed it off as too small ($10K in dispute) to pursue. In a five-page rehash of Li, Lissack, Meidinger/Kennedy, all of which I’ve blogged, Judge Sport Landy finds no jurisdiction. I suppose this merits a T. C. Memo. to show whistleblowers are taken seriously, despite their minimal success rate. But why IRS had to put three (count ’em, three) lawyers on this case, when a first-year law student could have won this, eludes me.

A couple years ago (hi, Judge Holmes), a pro se inspired me to revisit The Rock of Svithjod; see my blogpost “Svithjod Revisited,” 5/10/24. I lamented yet again the waste of scarce Tax Court judicial resources in busywork orders, which any judge’s clerk could handle, freeing the judges to cut down the dockets. The protagonist of that blogpost has departed this vale of tears, so we get Richard W. Medley, Docket No. 13611-22, filed 4/6/26. Judge James S. (“Big Jim”) Halpern, hearing from IRS’ counsel that neither spouse nor child of the late Richard could be found to take up his quarrel with the foe, invites them in.

Freya Pearson, Docket No. 4536-21, filed 4/6/26, ties my personal record for stalling a case that I had to lose on the law, but I was in State court and so actually had to oppose summary J and take an appeal to do it. Freya just stalled for five (count ’em, five) years, with continuance after continuance.  Exasperated, Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin”’) Jenkins fires an eight-page barrage of somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent, tossing the petition and excoriating Freya for repeated disregard of this Court’s orders, so that another continuance would simply reward her for her conduct, such that any sanction short of dismissal would be insufficient, and would simply reward her for her conduct.

I said it long ago: “I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to claim succession to the role of the late and much-lamented A. G. Linkletter, a hero of my childhood so long ago. But reviewing the activities of the self-representeds as they navigate the straits of The Glasshouse in the City of the Ongoing Purges is a strong temptation.”

Mark Barry Zemanek, Dockets No. 8984-25, filed 4/3/26, has Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda trying to decipher a next-friendship bid from one not conspicuously disabled or incompetent, who is seeking unorthodox representation.

“…a motion to be recognized as next friend, as contemplated by Rule 60(d), is appropriate where a taxpayer cannot prosecute his or her Tax Court case without assistance due to incompetency or incapacitation and does not have a duly appointed fiduciary under state law.

“Petitioner does not appear to allege in his Motion to Be Recognized as Next Friend that he is incompetent or incapacitated, nor has he attached a current statement from his personal physician (or other medical documentation) supporting such a conclusion. Rather, to the extent the Court understands petitioner’s Motion to Be Recognized as Next Friend, he is asking the Court to allow him to represented by an attorney who is currently in inactive admissions status. This is not the nature of representation contemplated by Rule 60(d).” Order, at p. 1.

To the extent Taishoff understands it, “inactive admission” means an attorney admitted in a jurisdiction which would allow said attorney to seek admission to Tax Court via Rule 200 but who has not currently applied or, if having applied, cannot satisfy Rule 24(a)(3). But I do crave enlightenment, as in fifteen (count ’em, fifteen) years of covering Tax Court, this is the first time I have met with that phrase.

Meantime, Judge Scholar Pat sends Mr. Zemanek either to try again, showing he is in fact incapacitated or disabled, or to contact the LITC nearest him.

Who are these afecionados is the issue before Judge Jeffrey S. (“Schwer”) Arbeit, but it’s not so hard that summary J can’t resolve it in Blair A. Battersby, et al., Docket No. 1356-23, filed 4/2/26. It’s a chicken farm LLC box-checked to Sub S taxation that turns into Dixieland Boondockery. In year at issue original owners Phil and Teresa swap some stock, so the 10 (count ’em, 10) syndicatees who get 97.5% of the stock claim Section 1377(a)(2) termination affected shareholder status lets them split tax years and make special allocations of the $6.1 million claimed conservation easement deduction.

“Section 1377(a)(1) provides that each shareholder’s pro rata share of any S corporation item described in section 1366(a) for any taxable year is the sum of the amounts determined with respect to the shareholder by assigning an equal portion of the item to each day of the S corporation’s taxable year, and then by dividing that portion pro rata among the shares outstanding on that day (that is, a per-share, per-day basis). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.1377-1(a)(1). Section 1377(a)(2) provides an exception to this per-share, per-day rule if a shareholder’s interest in the S corporation terminates during the taxable year: the S corporation, with the consent of all ‘affected shareholders,’ is permitted to elect to compute pro rata shares of ‘affected shareholders’ as if the taxable year consisted of two separate taxable years. See § 1377(a)(2)(A); Treas. Reg. § 1.1377-1(b)(1). The election under section 1377(a)(2) has no effect on shareholders that are not ‘affected shareholders.’ See §1377(a)(2); Treas. Reg. § 1.1377-1(b). The “affected shareholders” are those shareholders whose interests terminate and all shareholders to whom those shareholders transferred shares during the taxable year. See § 1377(a)(2)(B); Treas. Reg. § 1.1377-1(b)(2). If, however, the S corporation redeems a shareholder’s interest, all the shareholders during the entire taxable year are treated as affected shareholders. See id. 

“The parties share the same understanding of the law. Accordingly both parties acknowledge that unless a shareholder’s interest is terminated because of a redemption by an S corporation, the affected shareholders are limited to the transferors and transferees of the ownership interest.” Order, at pp. 4-5.

Judge Schwer Arbeit finds the paperwork shows the swap was between Phil and Teresa, not a corporate redemption of their stock. Hence only they are “affected shareholders.” Wherefore the syndicatees have only a single tax year and are relegated to per-share-per day straight allocation, no mix-and-match with the claimed deduction.

Of course, there remains the question of the valuation of the easement remains for trial. Order, at p. 1.