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sends Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler to what we used to call the “law books,” an archaic research vehicle now superseded by the Interweb.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.

I’ve commented often enough before now on the seemingly random imposition of Section 6673 chops for frivolity. Now I’m coming to the point of invoking the activist judges on the United States Supreme Court bench, who nowise shy from a bench-emptying intervention.

Louis-Umberto Giannini & Dawn-Michelle Frey, Docket No. 16803-25, filed 5/6/26, have been around the cliché a couple times (hi, Judge Holmes). Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar P{at”) Urda catalogues their prior Tax Court frivoling. A brief docket search shows Lou-U and Dawn got a $1K chop on each of their prior forays.

For more, see my blogposts “Scholar Pat on Frivolites,” 6/23/22, and “A Section 6673 Template,” 7/24/23.

Despite their track record of stale Title B employment tax based arguments, Ch J Scholar Pat devotes five (count ’em, five) pages of his order to a lengthy exposition of the bases of Tax Court jurisdiction, of which Lou-U and Dawn have none.

So Ch J Scholar Pat hits Lou-U and Dawn with a third $1K Section 6673 chop, which is all IRS requested. Obviously Ch J Scholar Pat cannot give more, since that would ambush petitioners.

Why IRS deems such a waste of scarce administrative and judicial resources merits only a $1K chop, which has twice failed to deter Lou-U and Dawn, eludes me. I eagerly await the twice-tagged litigant who challenges a $5K or better chop recommendation from IRS as arbitrary and capricious, when Lou-U and Dawn only got $1K. Sic ’em, Supremes!