A discovery standby is the go-for-the-gold set of interrogatories served in hopes of getting a usable admission. It’s a standard strategy where depositions are unavailable (like in US Tax Court).

It doesn’t work in Amaya Insurance Company, Inc., et al., Docket No. 11946-20, filed 8/4/26.

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler: “In many responses respondent states that the interrogatory seeks legal theories, mental impressions, or the application of law to facts which are protected by the work product doctrine. See, e.g., interrogatories 2–12, 14–15, 20–27, 31–32, 34–37, and 41. Petitioners contend that respondent’s blanket assertion of the work-product doctrine is insufficient and cites Estate of Jung v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-5, 58 T.C.M. (CCH) 1127, 1129 (ruling a blanket claim of the privilege is not sufficient when the taxpayer failed to show how privilege applies to any of the documents requested). After considering the interrogatories, we find respondent’s privilege objection valid. The interrogatories where respondent asserts the work product privilege seeks information regarding respondent’s litigation strategy. Collectively, the interrogatories are requesting respondent to affirmatively disprove petitioners’ case before trial. See Hambarian v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 565, 568 (2002) (“The work product privilege is intended to protect documents that reveal an attorney’s mental impressions and legal theories and that were prepared in contemplation of litigation.”); Zaentz, 73 T.C. at 478 (“It is true that Rule 70 provides that discovery may apply to an application of law to fact, but we believe that such provision was not intended to make discoverable a mere statement of a party’s legal authorities.”).” Order, at p. 3.

There’s more, so practitioners will want to get the citations and arguments to draft around the roadblocks that IRS throws up here.

STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden explores the OIC equivalent of the whistleblower rejection-or-denial dichotomy (for which see my blogpost “Rejection and Denial” 3/16/20) in Donald M. Zorn & Cynthia A. Zorn, Docket No. 15833-23L, filed 8/3/26.

TAS told the Zorns their OIC had been rejected, but their IRS account transcript showed “481 Offer in Compromise rejected or returned.” Order, at p. 4. IRS also claimed the Zorns hadn’t filed a return for one of the years at issue; they claim they did, but Cynthia couldn’t sign it because she was ill. 

If COIC returns an OIC, it means the offer was processable, but stuff is missing or incomplete. Rejected is the COIC version of NYC’s “fuggedaboutit.” If rejected, one can resubmit or go to Appeals and petition an adverse NOD.

The Zorns were paying as if the OIC had been accepted, and if it was rejected they should have a hearing at Appeals. Rejection is separate from any COIC determination, hence a hearing. If returned, the Zorns are required to be told the reason, but they get no hearing on why it was returned.

The admin record as supplemented and with materials supplied in an IRS status report looks like a frittata Fiorentino, so STJ Di sends it back to Appeals to unscramble.

Was the OIC “(1) rejected, as stated in the Taxpayer Advocate Service letter, and if so whether the Appeals Officer made an independent final determination, and whether petitioners should be permitted to submit a revised OIC; or (2) returned and whether the subsequent filing of the 2016 tax return required the Appeals Officer to send it back to COIC to reconsider if the offer should have been returned.” Order, at p. 4.

If I may double up on metaphor and describe an impossible play, Gradi Jacques Muyembi Kayembe & Melkam Muyembi, Docket No. 16438-25S, filed 8/3/26, both beat the throw and slid in under the tag.

I am sure Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda was far too engrossed in study in his youth to play much baseball, but I can imagine him as umpire, crouched over third base as Gradi & Mel slide in, then leaping up and stretching out both arms with palms downward and yelling “Safe!” as Frank (“Busy”) Bisignano races from the dugout bellowing in protest.

But Gradi & Mel actually used  FedEx 2 Day, a PDS enrolled in the “blessed communion, fellowship divine,” more particularly bounded and described in I.R.S. Notice 2016-30, 2016-18 I.R.B. 676. Hence Section 7502(a) mailed-is-filed saves Gradi & Mel.

Moreover, the SND they’re petitioning gave a petition due date seven (count ’em, seven) days after date of mailing, so Gradi & Mel get the seven on top of 90-from-mailing.

However, as the late-night Telehucksters say “But wait! There’s more!”

“The 90th day after August 29, 2025 [mailing plus 7], was November 27, 2025, Thanksgiving Day, a legal holiday. The face of the notice of deficiency stated that the last day to file a petition in Tax Court was Friday, November 28, 2025, the following day. However, on that day the Court was administratively closed. The period within which to file a petition was thus tolled by I.R.C. section 7451(b), which provides that when a filing location is inaccessible on the date a petition is due, the period for filing a petition is tolled for the number of days within the period of inaccessibility plus 14 days. See Sall v. Commissioner, 161 T.C. 325, 327–28 (2023). Adding the one day of inaccessibility to the 14-day tolling period required by I.R.C. section 7451(b)(1) extended the petition deadline by 15 days, to December 13, 2025. As December 13, 2025, was a Saturday, the petition deadline was further extended to the following Monday, December 15, 2025.

“The Petition was received and filed by the Court on December 16, 2025. The shipping label on the envelope containing the Petition shows that it was shipped on December 13, 2025, by FedEx 2 Day, and scheduled to be delivered on December 16, 2025. FedEx electronic database tracking information is consistent in showing December 13, 2025, as the ship date and FedEx 2 Day as the service.” Order, at p. 2.

For Madiodio Sall’s story, see my blogpost “Take Two,” 11/30/23.

Gradi & Mel can dust off their uniforms and hug the base.