Here’s another horse hobby loss case for my former colleague Peter Reilly, CPA. Keith Schumacher and Rhonda Schumacher, T. C. Memo. 2026-47, filed 6/9/26, are long-time horse breeders and collectors of performance points and lariat points. They ran SQH, their horsebreeding business, since 2001 without making a single year’s profit therefrom.

Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland barrel-races through the nine (count ’em, nine) factors of the “goofy” regulation, Reg. Section 1.183-2(b), giving six (count ’em, six) to IRS, two (count ’em, two) to the Schumachers, and one neutral.

While I’ve often touted maintaining a separate checking account for side hustles to show businesslike operation, even a separate checking account for SQH (with the same bank as their personal account) doesn’t save the Schumachers.

“Although the Schumachers maintained a separate checking account for SQH, in practice the SQH account functioned as an extension of their personal checking account. Many horse-related expenses were paid from their personal checking account. When the SQH account ran dry, the Schumachers ponied up to replenish it from their personal checking account. These practices are inconsistent with maintaining accurate books and records. It is also telling that [trusty EA preparer] relied heavily on the Schumachers’ handwritten notes and statements by Dr. Schumacher rather than SQH business account bank statements when preparing their returns.” T. C. Memo. 2026-47, at p. 10.

But the Schumachers escape the five-and-ten chops because trusty EA preparer never warned them about the goofy regulation’s pitfalls or the horsebreeding Section 183(d) safe harbor, accepted their handwritten notes and never checked the bank statements, and neither Schumacher had any tax exposure or expertise.

Taishoff says note that trusty EA preparer also did the accounting work for Doc Keith’s heavy-duty veterinarian practice, T. C. Memo. 2026-47, at p. 7. I’ve noted that when one provides professional services both to a substantial business client and to one of its top brass personally, one is hesitant to pass personal-side bad news to brasshat, lest brasshat seek a more sympathetic and flexible pro, taking the substantial client with her/him. Just sayin’.

Bernard J. Donachie, coaming late to the party in Smith Mill Rock, LLC, Mulhern Jasper Exploration, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 13132-22. filed 6/8/26, says “there are ‘active watchdog investigations’ into the IRS appraiser who worked on the case during the examination and ‘significant procedural deficiencies regarding the Government’s expert valuation.’” Order, at p. 2.

It’s another stiped-out Dixieland Boondockery, wherein none of the partners save the TMP participated in litigation or settlement, until Bernie comes in during the 60-day Rule 248(b) nonparticipant last chance, brandishing his 2.2759232% interest in Mulhern Jasper, which makes him an indirect partner in Smith Mill Rock.

Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves is willing to look and see if Bernie has a clear and convincing reason why he’s late and that he has something to show the settlement isn’t reasonable.

Spoiler alert: He doesn’t and he doesn’t.

It took Bernie a year-and-a-half to figure out he was sent the wrong appraisal. And he got a bunch e-mails (hi, Judge Holmes), even though he claims he didn’t get some (everybody else did). And yeah, he’ll have some tax to pay, but that’s what happens when you take a minuscule interest in a deal with someone else’s finger on the button.Ultimately, whatever happened at Exam with the watchdog, the past isn’t even prologue as deficiency trials are de novo.

That’s the per cur opinion in Rochelle v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 740 (5 Cir, 2002), affirming Judge Vasquez’s “excellent opinion (concurred in by nine other judges), which we adopt.” 293 F. 3d at p. 741. So Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda, adding 5 Cir to the jurisdictional limit side of the Section 6213(a) balance sheet, tosses Shedrack Aforigho, Docket No. 2956-26, filed 6/5/26. 

Except.

Taishoff says, while in no way denigrating Judge Vasquez or his nine (count ’em, nine) distinguished colleagues, that was 24 (count ’em, 24) years ago, and pre-Boechler, pre-Culp, pre-Buller, and pre-Oquendo. So a certain quantum of hydrogenated oxygen has gone over the cliché since.

Of course, we may have a 5 Cir reaffirmance of Rochelle, just as 11 Cir resuscitated Pugsley; I confess that one still rankles, but it hardens me so that, as a much finer writer than I put it, “I have been too familiar with disappointments to be very much chagrined.”