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.

IRS was unhappy with the nonjurisdictionality of the 90-day cutoff in BBA, which I more particularly bounded and described in my blogpost “Bring That Discipline,” 8/5/26. So they chose to send three (count ’em, three) attorneys to refry the beans in Kings Road Property, LLC, Kings Road Manager, LLC, Partnership Representative, 167 T. C. 14, filed 11/2/26.

The Kings Roadsters need ten (count ’em, ten) trusty attorneys, but Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch needs only five (count ’em five) pages to send off the Kings Roadsters.

“In recent cases, we have been called upon to bring some discipline to our jurisdictional rulings in partnership cases. In North Wall Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. 143, 168 (2025), we held that the TEFRA petition deadline was jurisdictional. We went one step further and held that, even if not jurisdictional, the TEFRA petition deadline was not subject to equitable tolling. Id. In contrast, in Big Apple Tompkins Realty LLC v. Commissioner, No. 19040-23, 167 T.C. (Aug. 5, 2026), we held that the BBA petition deadline was not jurisdictional. We left open the question of whether the BBA petition deadline could be subject to equitable tolling.

“That brings us to this case and the pending Motion. In Kings Road Property, LLC v. Commissioner, No. 10272-25, 167 T.C. (Sep. 21, 2026), we held that the BBA petition deadline can be subject to equitable tolling.” 167 T. C. 14, at p. 3.

For North Wall, see my blogpost “Boechler, Meet TEFRA,” 10/21/25; for Kings Road, see my blogpost “Brought That Discipline,” 9/21/26.

Bottom lione: IRS wants to advance new theories why the BBA cutoff was jurisdictional, but Judge Ingenuity Buch needs no ingenuity to squelch this rehash.

” In North Wall, we held that the TEFRA petition deadline was jurisdictional, and even if not jurisdictional, not subject to equitable tolling. In Big Apple, we held that the BBA petition deadline is not jurisdictional, and we reconciled our conclusion with North Wall. And in this case, we held that the BBA petition deadline is subject to equitable tolling, and we again reconciled our conclusion with North Wall. We have addressed and rejected the Commissioner’s arguments, including those belatedly raised. Accordingly, we will deny the Commissioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.” 167 T. C. 14, at p. 5.