That’s Christopher (“Gentleman Chris”) Aubuchon who earned that sobriquet from Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler back in 2024; see my blogpost “I Sing the Transfer Electronic,” 12/23/24.

This time in T. C. Memo. 2026-87, filed 9/16/26, Judge Jeffrey S. (“Schwer”) Arbeit, though acknowledging Gentleman Chris ” is well educated; he holds a doctorate from Stanford University and has founded several companies. Aubuchon I, T.C. Memo. 2024-115, at *2. He has served as chief executive and chief technology officer of those companies, where he received compensation for services. See id. Throughout the proceedings, he has shown his ability to research the law and draft polished, though mistaken, filings. He has also demonstrated that he can understand the law when doing so suits his purposes. In these cases he has spent considerable time and effort submitting forms to the IRS to ‘correct erroneous W–2 information,’ writing letters expounding his view of the law, and filing returns asserting that he is ‘not liable,’ nevertheless he has been warned and chopped aforetime, so gets $5K Section 6673 frivolity.

This despite his “respectful and well-spoken” demeanor. T. C. Memo. 2026-87, at p. 2.

And a footnote.

“While he may consider the penalty here modest, petitioner would do well to consider this his final warning. Should he appear before us in the future, he should not again make frivolous arguments.” T.C. Memo. 2026-87, at p. 10, footnote 7. Somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent follow.

Shelterflogger Philip G. Groves, T. C. Memo. 2026-86, filed 9/16/26, claims that because the Notice of Penalty Charge (Penalty Notice), a/k/a Form CP15, didn’t calculate how the Section 6707(a) shelterflogger chop was calculated (even though the NOPA he got did), he shouldn’t be chopped.

Judge Jeffrey S. (“Schwer”) Arbeit  says no hurt, no foul.

“Petitioner’s failure to allege prejudice is not so surprising. There does not appear to be uncertainty about how the penalty was calculated. The NOPA clearly showed the basis for the original penalty of $5,831,197 and an attached spreadsheet included a computation. Because of payments by others liable for the same penalty, the IRS determined that petitioner was liable for only a reduced penalty of $4,351,138. At the 2016 Appeals conference, the IRS explained the computation for the reduced penalty. When issued shortly thereafter, the Penalty Notice reflected the reduced amount. Even if the Penalty Notice did not include a computation, petitioner never seems to have asked for an explanation. He had no need to.” T. C. Memo. 2026-86, at p. 7.

Anyway, Tax Court caselaw says the statute requiring inclusion of calculation in the notice imposes no sanction for failure to do so, hence is a procedural irregularity, and only invalidates an administrative act if prejudice results.

I know, I know, I’ve said this is a nonpolitical blog more times than I can count or that my readers (however many there are, which is what the blogpost is about) can stand with equanimity.

But WordPress’ accounting for my subscribers puts me in mind of the unending claims about political elections, the particulars of which I am sure my readers have heard and read ad nauseum, and Bureau of Labor Statistics employment numbers revisions (ditto).

Two (count ’em, two) days ago the number stood at 368. Yesterday it was 338. Ostensibly, thirty (count ’em, thirty) of the subscribers to this my blog left en masse. I trust they gave the lamb the Exodus 12:8-10 treatment.

Today the number bounced back to 364. 

I have to laugh.