No, not politics; must I again state that this is a nonpolitical blog? What I mean is the swamp on the margin of DAWSON’s Creek, where the page count of orders is a quagmire. Orders with tens of pages are collated not in numerical order, but by first digit. Hence, an 11-page order like Howard L. Abselet, Docket No.1063-24, filed 2/27/26, got buried at the bottom of the heap of 1 page pay-the-sixty-Georges, continuance granted, and amend-the-petition among today’s Orders, so I almost missed another attempted goal-line diving save by The Jersey Boys.

And yes, readers, I did tell the Genius Baristas.

Howard got more than half his med mal recovery scammed away. His then-trusty attorneys (not the Jersey Boys) failed to pursue the villains to Howard’s satisfaction, so he hired another trusty bunch who sued for legal malpractice, and got him $1.25 million out of the $6 million for which the scammers bilked him. 

Everyone agrees the med mal recovery was Section 104 exempt.

Howard, perhaps justifiably done with lawyers, does his own taxes, omitting the $1.25 million and his Social Security. The Jersey Boys claim the $1.25 million is return of capital, hence not accretion to wealth and thus not taxable; wherefore his Social Security is under the Section 86 85% taxability bar.

Negatory, says ex-Ch J L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel.

Look at the settlement agreement from the legal malpractice suit. All it says is legal malpractice, nothing about the med mal recovery. Tax Court looks at what you settled and said you settled, not what you wish you’d settled. And there are no “complex legal questions” regarding legal malpractice recoveries. See my blogposts “Would’a,” 2/18/21, and “Boilerplate Can Be Hazardous to Your Tax Health,” 6/7/21.

Wherefore IRS wins deficiency and five-and-ten chop. 

I thought The Jersey Boys read this my blog.

Magnolia West Properties, LLC, Magnolia West Manager, LLC, Partnership Representative, Docket No.  6924-23, filed 2/27/26, boasts an impressive four (count ’em, four) trusty attorneys from each degree of latitude. And IRS’s four-person crew is no less credentialed.

But as Branertonians these eight (count ’em, eight) worthies are a wee bit short of the mark, according to Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch.

One of IRS’ stalwarts apparently sent two (count ’em, two) letters on the same day, one to third parties and one to Magnolia, whereby the Magnolias claim he ambushed them. But Judge Ingenuity Buch finds he rectified the situation within eight (count ’em, eight) days, Order, at p. 4.

The attorneys had Branertoned with partial success, when the usual jumpball over privilege commenced. And here the Magnolias, seeking a Rule 103 protective order, are short of substance.

“In sum, Magnolia West asks us to issue a protective order to preserve privileges that Magnolia West has not established. Magnolia West asks us to order the Commissioner to destroy documents that he obtained permissibly and in a manner that allowed both the third parties and Magnolia West to preserve any privileges that might apply. And Magnolia West asks us to order the Commissioner to comply with a rule that does not apply to the actions undertaken by the Commissioner. We will deny the motion, but we will do so without prejudice. Magnolia West may be entitled to a protective order if it provides sufficient information to establish the applicability of a privilege (and the absence of a waiver) on a document-by-document basis.” Order, at p. 5.

So try again, but until then, no protective order.

Taishoff says preface every privilege claim by preparing an item-by-item privilege log in advance of your motion. It concentrates your mind, and will concentrate the judge’s mind, wonderfully.

No, not a preview of March Madness. Judge Joseph Robert (“JR”) Goeke delves deep into Schedules E and F, and Form 8960 Net Investment Income Tax–Individuals, Estates, and Trusts, in Gary M. Schwarz & Marlee Schwarz, Docket No. 12347-20, filed 2/27/26.

Doc Gary’s goofy reg case featured here sub. nom. “The Buck Stops Here,” 5/13/24, “The Goofy Silt-Stir,” 11/5/24, and “Muddying the (Goofy) Waters,” 11/24/25.

Now Judge Joseph Robert (“JR”) Goeke gets granular with the reckoning and reporting of the Section 1411 Net Investment Income Tax, as Doc Gary and IRS are enmeshed in the Rule 155 beancount. 

“Petitioners failed to address the fact that for each year the other income that they included on line 4a of their adjusted Forms 8960 was offset by their adjustments to line 4b. In effect, petitioners are seeking more than a 100% offset of the other income: (1) a 100% offset on line 4b, and (2) an additional offset on line 9c. In other words, petitioners seek both (1) a 100% offset of the other income as if it was ‘derived in the ordinary course of a non-section 1411 trade or business,’ see Form 8960 line 4b, and (2) an additional offset for ‘Miscellaneous investment expenses,’ see Form 8960 line 9c, as if the other income was gross net investment income pursuant to section 1411(c). These positions are plainly contradictory and nonsensical.

“We need not delve into the parties [sic] arguments regarding (1) whether income subject to section 183 and related expenses are included in the Net Investment Income calculation, and (2) the calculation method for line 9c deductions. At most, petitioners are entitled to offsets/deductions of 100% of the gross other income, which respondent’s calculations already include.” Order, at p. 4.

I expect my journalistic colleague Peter Reilly, CPA, will find this dénouement to a hobby-loss case a useful addition to his collection.