That’s Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch’s word to practitioners when a new coruscation from the Supremes or the CCA swims into your ken. Thus he admonishes Intermountain Electronics, Inc., Docket No. 11019-19, filed 8/24/26, when they try to insert a Loper Bight challenge to some Reg. or other in their reply brief.

The Intermountain’s trusty attorneys had three (count ’em, three) months after the Supremes issued Loper Bright to mention it in their post-trial brief, but didn’t.

Now in extenuation of Judge Ingenuity Buch’s toss, the trial transcript runs thousands of pages, not to mention exhibits, the latter figuring in my blogpost “Don’t Stick It to the Rock,” 5/30/24, along with the 35 (count ’em, 35) stipulations of agreed facts. Might overlook a wee detail like the Supremes overruling a 40-year-old precedent.

Except.

Judge Ingenuity Buch doesn’t.

“As a general rule, issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are untimely, and we will not consider them. Ashkouri v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2019-95, *23 n.9 (citing Considine v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 955, 969-70 (1980)). Although it is true that Loper Bright was not decided until after the conclusion of trial in this case, Intermountain had sufficient time to address it in its Seriatim Opening Brief. Loper Bright was handed down only two days after trial end and more than three months before Intermountain filed its opening brief. Intermountain had ample time to raise its arguments with respect to Loper Bright but didn’t. The issue was not timely raised or preserved, and we will not consider it.” Order, at p. 1.

For Ashkouri, see my blogpost “Casual Isn’t Critical,” 7/30/19.

Taishoff covers Tax Court.

It’s the best, and probably the most quoted, aphorism of Dr. Samuel Johnson. “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones echoes Dr. Sam’s observation, as she takes ZMZ Global, Inc., Docket No. 15380-22, filed 8/21/26, off the 180-day status report track, where it’s been since Valentine’s Day a year ago.

The latest billet doux from ZMZ announces they and IRS reached a basis for settlement in May, are working on a stiped decision, and hope to file same “shortly.” Order, at p. 1.

Judges love settlements, and Judge CD Jones is no exception.

“The Court appreciates petitioner’s report and is encouraged by the parties’ apparent progress toward resolution of this case.” Order, at p. 1.

Except.

“Petitioner requests that the Court retain jurisdiction and require status reports every 180 days if the decision document is not filed.” Idem.

Do I hear a waltz? More to the point, maybe so might could be Judge CD Jones hears a waltz.

“…the Court concludes that continuation of the 180-day status report track is not warranted under the circumstances; specifically, petitioner represents that a decision document is expected to be filed shortly. Accordingly, the Court will remove this case from the 180-day status report track and direct the parties to file either a proposed stipulated decision or a further report within 60 days.” Order, at p. 1.

Brian J. Laborde, T. C. Memo. 2026-74, filed 8/20/26, had three (count ’em, three) mailing addresses during the four (count ’em, four) years this case concerns. IRS hit Brian with a couple TFRP Letters 1153 for those years, and Brian doesn’t contest those. Nor does he contest the NFTL that followed.

He does contest the NITLs, saying those weren’t sent to his last known address. And the AO at Appeals who gave the Section 6330(c)(1) verification that all procedures were followed was a trifle conclusory, never stating how reached the conclusion that NITLs were mailed to last known address.

As we all know, that’s not waivable, even if not raised by Brian’s trusty rep on paper (or electrons) or at the CDP. Statute says Appeals shall verify.

Judge Adam B. (“Sport”) Landy traces Brian’s peripatetic wanderings all over The Big Easy, seeing where he says he lived and when and what he put on his tax returns and any other clear and concise notifications he gave IRS.

But the AO did none thereof, so this case gets remand for Determination Number Four.

Takeaway- Practitioner, add to your Form 12153 and your petition boilerplate failure to comply with Section 6330(c)(1) verification.