Though I very much doubt they read this my blog, I do hope Neuse River Council of Governments, Docket No. 8194-25L, filed 11/3/26, followed my advice in my blogpost “Wagner Boechlerized,” 1/7/26.

Back then I counseled petitioners “if seeking withdrawal without prejudice in a CDP, take a good hard look before relying on Dunn.”

The Neuse Councilors do seek to withdraw, claiming that “they reached an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service –  Internal Revenue Service Independent Office of Appeals.” Order, at p. 1.

And IRS certainly agrees.

Now I don’t want to play the part of the 2% indirect partner in a Dixieland Boondockery who tries to blow up a settlement with an after-the-whistle intervention attempt.

But I do hope the Neuse Councilors did take that good hard look. And if they did and are still happy, why not move for Entry of Stipulated Decision.

Lance Stevens, T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-10, filed 11/2/26, “…focused on asserting, without elaboration, that his rights were violated, that he was never notified that he needed to provide documentation about his expenses, and that he never received any letters or notices from the IRS asking for substantiating documentation. Although the Court understands petitioner’s frustration with the process involved in the audit for his [year at issue] federal income tax return and his case before the Court, he did not meet his burden of proof with respect to his claimed deductions under either rule; therefore, the Court finds for respondent on this issue.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-10, at p. 8.

Worse, by establishing the gross receipts of his business were greater than what IRS claimed in the SND, Mr. Stevens gave IRS a free kick to increase the deficiency.

STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden doesn’t mention whether  anyone sought the assistance of a calendar call commando, but this seems like a perfect opportunity for an intervention.

Glass Warehouse, Inc., T. C. Memo. 2026-111, filed 11/2/26, wanted to deduct the payments it made to its subcontractors, who just happened to be its sole shareholders (who were also on the payroll as employees).

True, the subcontractors managed every aspect of the business, except groundskeeping and maintenance, T. C. Memo. 2026-111, at p. 6. And the shareholder-subcontractors did report their subcontractor income on their individual returns and paid employment taxes thereon. Judge Cathy (“NCY = No Cognomen Yet”) Fung observes that “(H)ow a shareholder reports an item on a personal tax return does not control how the corporation reports that same item on its own tax return because a corporation is generally recognized as a tax entity separate from its shareholders.” T. C. Memo. 2026-111, at p. 7.

Glass Warehouse has another problem. ” Petitioner presented no testimony or other evidence regarding the nature, contractual agreement, amount, or provider of the purported subcontractor services. It failed to produce any business records, payroll records, contracts, invoices, Forms 1099, or other reliable documents in support of its position.” T. C. Memo. 2026-111, at p. 7.

Glass Warehouse’s trusty attorneys try the reclassification move, to no avail.

“Petitioner’s counsel argued that the reporting of subcontractor expenses was a case of worker misclassification and that section 3509 provides a remedy such that there is no loss to the Treasury for an employer’s failure to pay withholding taxes. Section 3509 determines an employer’s liability for its failure to withhold employment taxes ‘by reason of treating [an] employee as not being an employee.’ When that happens, the employer is liable for an increased percentage of the withholding taxes and Social Security taxes required to be deducted or imposed. I.R.C. § 3509(a). Section 3509 does not turn amounts that would otherwise not be subject to withholding tax, such as contractor expenses, into deductible Form W–2 wages just because the Code provides a mechanism to hold an employer liable in an actual worker misclassification situation.” T. C. Memo. 2026-111, at p. 7, footnote 8.

And hiring a separate CPA firm to do one’s taxes is insufficient by itself to constitute good faith reliance. No evidence what the CPAs were told.