My long-running series on Tax Court depositions continues with Chad Burris & Julie Burris, et al., Docket No. 18712-22, filed 4/29/26. Judge Cary Douglas (“CD”) Pugh gives IRS more time to file document demands, based on Chad’s & Julie’s trusty attorneys slowplaying document production. See my blogpost “Scrapbook 3/27/26 and a Leftover,” 3/27/26.

But with trial 120 (count ’em, 120) days away, IRS says it may want to depose three (count ’em, three) nonparties, depending upon what’s in the aforesaid slowplayed documents.

That’s a bridge too far for Judge CD Pugh.

“Respondent also represents that depositions of three key persons may be needed depending on information respondent obtains through petitioners’ documents, informal communication with petitioners, and the stipulation process. The sudden need for depositions of three key persons comes too late, especially if the information may be obtained from other sources. We are reluctant to require a nonparty to incur the expense that necessarily accompanies a notice of deposition that the nonparty and petitioner might dispute unless and until we conclude that respondent has established that the information may not be obtained by other means.” Order, at p. 2.

Once again, Tax Court depositions are anything but the daily grist that comes to the mill in other courts.

It was obviously adopted as a benefit to the pro se or pro bono, so that a written statement (with any necessary exhibits) may substitute for personal attendance at a motion hearing. Multiple motions may be made and heard years before trial; Rule 50(c) was adopted before remote hearings became commonplace. A pro se of limited means, or a pro bono with no payday, should not have to travel to be heard.

Except.

Lola M. Hussey, Docket No. 1870-24L, filed 4/28/26, submitted a Rule 50(c) written statement in support of her Rule 161 reconsideration motion. And lost.

“Counsel for respondent appeared, objected to the relief requested in the motion, and offered point-by-point responses to the arguments advanced in the motion.” Order, at p. 1.

Now STJ Lewis (“A Name for the Ages”) Carluzzo doesn’t tell us what arguments tipped the scales, or how Lola’s arguments fell short. Without facts, I won’t speculate that Lola’s personal presence and response would have made any difference. Her past record certainly doesn’t so indicate. See my blogposts “Milk Run,” 12/26/25, and “Milking the Milk Run,” 2/11/26.

But IRS certainly has poured resources into a case that looks, at least superficially on the past record, like a walkover.

So practitioners might want to consider a personal appearance at a motion hearing, even if meager resources are stretched thinner.

As the Metropolitan Opera Company puts it “The Voice Must Be Heard.”

In order to achieve the result long and loudly touted by the CLEfloggers, you have to make proper requests and demands. Duane P. Kuck & Cindy-Leigh Kuck, Docket No. 13722-24, filed 4/27/26 didn’t, says Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider, III.

DP and Cindy-Leigh were offside with their Branerton request, serving before IRS had answered, hence the case wasn’t “at issue” as required by Rule 38. Hence, no sanctions.

Next, formal discovery must wait 30 (count ’em, 30) days after case is at issue before formal discovery can commence. DP and Cindy-Leigh served their interrogs five (count ’em, five) days after case at issue, hence Rule 70(a)(2) bars Rule 104(a) sanctions for IRS nonreponse.

DP and Cindy-Leigh have a point, though. IRS’ reasons why their charitable donation deductions were disallowed wasn’t stated in the Form 886 attached to the SND; all the 886 said was the deduction was disallowed.

OK, says Judge Trey Guider, except.

“However, the 27-page Form 886 sent to petitioners in the March 19, 2025, administrative file– and attached to petitioners’ motion for sanctions as Exhibit 2–contains a comprehensive explanation of why the noncash charitable deductions were disallowed. While this document was not attached to the NOD as respondent stated, it has nonetheless been in petitioners’ possession for more than a year. And the fact that petitioners attached this Form 886-A to their motion acknowledges their awareness of the document and its contents. As such, sanctions are not warranted.” Order, at pp. 2-3.

No general bad-faith sanctions, either, as Rule 104(a)s are only available when a party disobeys a court order, and there are none here.

Taishoff respectfully asks Tax Court judges to denominate 90-day letters (Section 6213(a) notices of deficiency) as either SNODs or SNDs (Statutory Notices of Deficiency) and not NODs, to avoid confusion with Notices of Determination, such as result from CDPs, EE-vs-IC classifications, 501(c)(3) revocations, whistleblower award denials or rejections, Section 7345 passport grabs, pension plan revocations, interest abatement denials, et hoc genus omne.