That’s a term I hadn’t applied even to Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes, who certainly fits the appellation. However, Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland has drawn a litigant who vies for the title, Craig Walcott, Docket No. 21820-22, filed 5/11/26.

According to Judge Tex Copeland, Craig “pled guilty to one count of willfully attempting to evade tax, in violation of section 7201. After he had served his sentence of three years of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, he moved to vacate the judgment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the United States had failed to identify a specific constitutional taxing power relevant to his case. The district court denied the motion, describing Mr. Walcott’s ‘characterizations of the law and Constitution’ as ‘frivolous.’ Mr. Walcott appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed the district court. Mr. Walcott now plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, and he requests us to continue the case so that we do not ‘waste this Court’s resources and risk producing a judgment that must be revisited,’ should the Supreme Court grant certiorari and affirm his argument that his criminal conviction was ‘premised on a constitutionally erroneous direct-tax theory’.” Order, at p. 7.

That’s a real never-say-die spirit, worthy of a better cause.

Now, having late-filed for three (count ’em, three) years and facing deficiencies for an aggregate $172K plus nonfiling add-ons and a couple Section 6662 chops (hi, Judge Holmes), Craig has seven (count ’em, seven) questions for IRS. I’ll defer to Judge Tax Copeland to deconstruct these, which she does at Order, pp. 5-6. 

Craig also wants a Rule 103 protective order, preventing IRS from mentioning Section 6673 chops in correspondence. “Mr. Walcott’s questions imply frivolous positions, such that justice does not require us to protect Mr. Walcott from the Commissioner asking the Tax Court to impose a section 6673 penalty on Mr. Walcott.” Order, at p. 6.

I expect we’ll hear more from Craig after trial, assessment, and the inevitable CDP.

With a Side of Four

That’s the pot-au-feu served up by the trusty attorney for Carver Mountain Reserve, LLC, Carver Mountain Reserve IP, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, et al., Docket Nos. 15761-24, 15778-24, and 15802-24, a tripartite entry filed 5/8/26. Said trusty attorney, whom I’ll call Sammy, sends Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler to what we used to call the “law books,” an archaic research vehicle now superseded by the Interweb.

Sammy claims IRS’ war on these syndicated conservation easements violates the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and cites a case implicating the Fourth Amendment and the APA as well.   

Judge Speedy Weiler brings out a carafe of somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent, bubbling with blown-up arguments. Constitutional topers should drink up the three (count ’em, three) pages thereof.

But Sammy claims it’s really that the FPAAs were issued outside 3SOL, hence barred. So Judge Speedy Weiler holds up ruling on Sammy’s summary J motion on that point until IRS answers. And IRS should stick to the 3SOL issue in its answer.

Ex-Ch J Kathleen (“TBS= The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan follows S. T. Coleridge’s lead in Siemens USA Holdings, Inc., & Consolidated Subsidiaries, Docket No. 3898-24, filed 5/7/26.

IRS wants to depose three (count ’em, three) current or former employees of Siemens & Subs “to learn more about specific transactions of petitioner.” Order, at p. 1. Siemens objects, but offers to let the three talk informally to IRS.

IRS wants a written transcript, and ex-Ch J TBS Kerrigan agreed back in January that hearing from these technicians would be helpful in sussing out this case. But nonconsensual depositions must clear the Rule 74(c)(1)(B) barrier: the information cannot be obtained any other way.

But what IRS wants, and what ex-Ch J TBS Kerrigan finds helpful, is within the knowledge all three proposed witnesses.

Hence the invocation of Coleridge’s sailor.

“The Court encourages respondent to select one of the employees for a transcribed interview and petitioner to allow this interview to occur.” Order, at p. 1.

Hope the witness chosen wasn’t planning on getting to a wedding.