Continuing this series, and again acknowledging that master communicator Art Linkletter, I proffer Matthew Bruns, Docket No. 15540-24, filed 4/7/26. 

Matthew and IRS stip this case out, with a huge deficiency offset by withholding and payment, but that’s not the point.

Before the stiped decision of even date herewith is entered by Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way, there is an Order, wherein is stated: “… the Proposed Stipulated Decision contains an evident typographical error.” Order, at p. 1.

Often happens, when parties are beaten down by prolonged negotiations and just want the pain to end. Just strike the proposed stip and have the parties try again.

Instead, Judge Way orders thus: “…the above-referenced proposed stipulated decision is hereby deemed stricken from the Court’s record in this case and shall be sealed from the public and the parties in this case.” Order, at p. 1.

From the parties? Didn’t they see this before they sent it to the Judge?

Judge Adam B.(“Sport”) Landy gives the Ogden Sunseteers another win (I wonder if the WBO is getting tired of winning) in William Pratt, T. C. Memo. 2026-31, filed 4/6/26. The OS sent William’s claim to SB/SE classifier, who brushed it off as too small ($10K in dispute) to pursue. In a five-page rehash of Li, Lissack, Meidinger/Kennedy, all of which I’ve blogged, Judge Sport Landy finds no jurisdiction. I suppose this merits a T. C. Memo. to show whistleblowers are taken seriously, despite their minimal success rate. But why IRS had to put three (count ’em, three) lawyers on this case, when a first-year law student could have won this, eludes me.

A couple years ago (hi, Judge Holmes), a pro se inspired me to revisit The Rock of Svithjod; see my blogpost “Svithjod Revisited,” 5/10/24. I lamented yet again the waste of scarce Tax Court judicial resources in busywork orders, which any judge’s clerk could handle, freeing the judges to cut down the dockets. The protagonist of that blogpost has departed this vale of tears, so we get Richard W. Medley, Docket No. 13611-22, filed 4/6/26. Judge James S. (“Big Jim”) Halpern, hearing from IRS’ counsel that neither spouse nor child of the late Richard could be found to take up his quarrel with the foe, invites them in.

Freya Pearson, Docket No. 4536-21, filed 4/6/26, ties my personal record for stalling a case that I had to lose on the law, but I was in State court and so actually had to oppose summary J and take an appeal to do it. Freya just stalled for five (count ’em, five) years, with continuance after continuance.  Exasperated, Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin”’) Jenkins fires an eight-page barrage of somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent, tossing the petition and excoriating Freya for repeated disregard of this Court’s orders, so that another continuance would simply reward her for her conduct, such that any sanction short of dismissal would be insufficient, and would simply reward her for her conduct.

I said it long ago: “I wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to claim succession to the role of the late and much-lamented A. G. Linkletter, a hero of my childhood so long ago. But reviewing the activities of the self-representeds as they navigate the straits of The Glasshouse in the City of the Ongoing Purges is a strong temptation.”

Mark Barry Zemanek, Dockets No. 8984-25, filed 4/3/26, has Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda trying to decipher a next-friendship bid from one not conspicuously disabled or incompetent, who is seeking unorthodox representation.

“…a motion to be recognized as next friend, as contemplated by Rule 60(d), is appropriate where a taxpayer cannot prosecute his or her Tax Court case without assistance due to incompetency or incapacitation and does not have a duly appointed fiduciary under state law.

“Petitioner does not appear to allege in his Motion to Be Recognized as Next Friend that he is incompetent or incapacitated, nor has he attached a current statement from his personal physician (or other medical documentation) supporting such a conclusion. Rather, to the extent the Court understands petitioner’s Motion to Be Recognized as Next Friend, he is asking the Court to allow him to represented by an attorney who is currently in inactive admissions status. This is not the nature of representation contemplated by Rule 60(d).” Order, at p. 1.

To the extent Taishoff understands it, “inactive admission” means an attorney admitted in a jurisdiction which would allow said attorney to seek admission to Tax Court via Rule 200 but who has not currently applied or, if having applied, cannot satisfy Rule 24(a)(3). But I do crave enlightenment, as in fifteen (count ’em, fifteen) years of covering Tax Court, this is the first time I have met with that phrase.

Meantime, Judge Scholar Pat sends Mr. Zemanek either to try again, showing he is in fact incapacitated or disabled, or to contact the LITC nearest him.