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. 

Someone at The Western Union Company and Subsidiaries, Docket No. 10368-25, filed 4/24/26, filed Form 1128 instead of Form 5471, so maybe so might could be its Section 898(c)(2) short-year, one-month-cutoff election wasn’t approved, only received, by IRS.

Ex-Ch J Michael B. (“Iron Mike”) Thornton says it’s a question of fact whether the letter Western U relies upon is an “acceptance” or merely a “receipt.” The letter is stamped “Received,” but even that has been crossed out by an unknown hand, which also crossed out the date stamped thereon.

Western U claims IRS issued a Rev. Proc. after they elected the short year, which “is substantively invalid, as contrary to section 898(c)(2), and procedurally invalid for failure to follow the notice and comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. section 553.” Order, at pp. 1-2. Moreover, even if valid, the Rev. Proc. isn’t retroactive.

Maybe so might could be I don’t have to go there, says ex-Ch J Iron Mike. I’ll deny Western U summary J without prejudice, and let the parties have discovery. Let’s see what turns up.

Taishoff says of course the actions hereinabove described took place eight (count ’em, eight) years ago, so who knows who is still around, and remembers what. And is submitting Form 1128 substantial compliance when Form 5471 is stated in a Rev. Proc.? 

Whether said deficient fruit “don’t spoil the whole bunch, girl,” as the Osmonds remarked 55 (count ’em, 55) years ago, one material fact disputed under oath by one with personal knowledge spoil (I beg your pardon, spoils) the whole summary J motion.

So says Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way to IRS’ counsel in Jeffrey Godwin, Docket No. 10699-24L, filed 4/24/26.

Tax Court Judges are always ding, dinging in our ears that “the nonmovant may not rest on the allegations or denials in that party’s pleading.” Order, at p. 2. (Citations omitted).

Nevertheless, Jeff’s trusty attorney steps up, in the teeth of the ABA Model Rule 3.7 ban on lawyer-as-witness, declaring he did show for the meeting at Appeals and that Jeff did provide the financial information requested by the SO. Remember, the specific evidence offered to defeat summary J may not necessarily be admissible on the trial; summary J is issue-finding, not issue-deciding.

Taishoff says my money is on ABA Model Rule 3.7(a)(3) and Jeff’s trusty attorney.

Judge Way doesn’t bother with that question yet. “A single nonconclusory affidavit, based on personal knowledge and addressing a material issue, is sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Order, at p. 2. (Citation omitted).

Anyway, since the parties filed status reports claiming they’re working on a settlement, Judge Way denies summary J without prejudice.