That tactic doesn’t work in Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones’ division, although the approach of the Cup playoffs makes us old-time fans recollect the great Bobby Clarke of the Broad Street Bullies doing that thing again and again.

Gurpreet S. Padda & Pamela B. Kane, Docket No. 7260-19, filed 3/20/26, and IRS tell Judge CD Jones that really truly they only need 90 (count ’em, 90) days more to stip out both this case and Docket No.15807-22.

Judge CD Jones says that’s cool but move the puck (although she puts it more elegantly than I).

“The Court appreciates the parties’ representations and will grant the requested 90 days to file a stipulated decision. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the Petition in Docket No. 7260-19 was filed more than six years ago (see Doc. 1), and the Petition in Docket No. 15807-22 was filed more than three years ago (see Doc. 1). Given the age of the cases, the parties are advised that the Court will be inclined to restore each case to the general docket so that it can be calendared for trial, if a proposed stipulated decision is not filed in 90 days.” Order, at p. 1.

I’ve often before now suggested that either the Ch J or an administrative judge traverse the dockets and bestir dilatory litigants to “stip out or try the case now.”  Moreover, she “strongly encourages the parties to meet in person, if at all possible.” Order, at p. 1. (Emphasis by the Court).

It would be presumptuous of me to award Taishoff “Good Jobs” to Judges but I can express hearty agreement with Judge CD Jones’ approach.

No, not an award from the Bureau of Prisons. Michael Smith, T. C. Memo. 2026-25, filed 3/19/26, is imprisoned in one tax year by Section 86(d)(2)(A).

Mr. Smith applied for and got SSDI. But in the year wherein he was paid both a lump sum and periodic payments he was also gainfully employed. SSA wanted our money back, so Mr. Smith paid it back over the following two (count ’em, two) years.

He never reported the SSDI payments in the year received.

Mr. Smith says it’s like he was loaned money (nontaxable) which he paid back, but the statute forecloses Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber from seeing it that way.

“We understand why petitioner views his predicament in this way, but this Court is bound by the provisions of the Code. Petitioner does not dispute that he received SSDI benefits in 2022, and he must include those payments in gross income to the extent provided in section 86. His repayments during 2023 and 2024 do not affect his 2022 tax liability because the payments he received during 2022 are reduced only by ‘any repayment made by the taxpayer during the taxable year.’ § 86(d)(2)(A) (emphasis added). This rule is one example of the ‘annual accounting principle’ that governs computation of taxable income generally.” T. C. Memo. 2026-25, at p. 4.

Generally (love that word!), each year stands on its own.

Claim of right is also barred by the explicit words of the statute.

No, not the usual six or seven pager with its injunction to play nice and prep for trial. Jones Bluff, LLC, Green Rock Management, LLC, Partnership Representative, 166 T. C. 6, filed 3/19/26, claim that the partners therein are deprived of due process because the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 vests sole right to challenge the FPA IRS unleashed on the Jones Bluffers on the Green Rockers.

Ch J Urda, and Judges Buch, Nega, Pugh, Ashford, Copeland, Jones, Toro, Greaves, Marshall, Weiler, Way, Landy, Arbeit, Guider, Jenkins, and Fung aren’t buying. Ex-Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan tells us why.

After a review of partnership taxation from before TEFRA to the current BBA régime, the Green Rockers are without standing to assert the claims of the Jones Bluff partners. Sure, the Green Rockers have standing to fight the FPA. But do they have standing to represent the partners?

“The third-party standing inquiry adds a second set of prudential considerations to the Article III requirement of injury in fact. Once a party has satisfied the requirements of Article III standing, the doctrine of third-party standing requires a plaintiff to meet additional factors to assert another party’s rights. A decision to grant third-party standing is one of ‘judicial self-governance.’” 166 T. C. 6, at p. 9. (Citations omitted). And courts are reluctant to do so except in First Amendment cases. 

Now there is a close relationship between partnership and partners, satisfying one branch of the third-party standing test. But the Green Rockers fail to satisfy the other branch, that the third party is hindered in seeking redress if third-party standing is withheld. There’s always a CDP or a pay-and-seek-refund in USDC, 166 T. C. 6, at p. 11, footnote 6.

Moreover, the summary J motion here isn’t ripe for adjudication. BBA section 6226 lets the partnership push out liability to the partners, or pay at partnership level. But that depends on whether there’s liability at all, and nobody knows that until trial and decision final beyond appeal. Courts refrain from deciding cases where the result will depend on contingent future events that may or may not happen.

“The passing on of that liability to the individual members will occur, if at all, as a result of petitioner’s actions and not respondent’s actions. Petitioner’s actions therefore are ‘contingent future events’ that render the claims it is making on behalf of the individual members not ripe at this time.” 166 T. C. 6, at p. 12. (Footnote omitted).

Judge Buch concurs, joined by Judges Copeland, Way, Jenkins, and Fung.

The Green Rockers’ claim that TEFRA let partners intervene is misleading. Some partners (like one-percenters in large partnerships) were more equal than the non-notice types. The non-noticed might be bound in TEFRA cases by decisions which no partner entitled to petition did so, or of which they were unaware, or which stiped out without their consent. And all that survived due process challenge. 

Whether the BBA communications provisions are valid or not is beyond the scope of this case. And if the PR, like predecessor TMP, didn’t tell the non-noticed, that’s not IRS’ fault.

Finally, we get another vintage Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch in full cry as he quotes from Vander Heide T. C. Memo. 1996-74, at p. 8: “We sympathize with [the partners], but must point out that [they] are not victims of [the Commissioner] or the Internal Revenue Code. They are victims of unscrupulous purveyors of tax shelters . . . . [They] are also victims of their own greed and naivete by investing in these scams, obtaining outrageous deductions and credits without paying attention to the details of the tax laws, nor putting into place some sort of check and balance system to monitor their own investments.” 

Cf. my blogpost “Judge Buch Says It All Here,:” 7/17/25.