When we hear our equivalent, the reflex takes over; one hand grabbing for the steel pot, the other trying to one-hand one’s way into the flopping flak jacket, the mind trying to remember where we put that extra box of 7.62 FMJ ball. “You are the third lawyer I’ve consulted, and the other two are morons.” Get ready for a big-time firefight, and the enemy isn’t the only one shooting at you.

Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh tosses Michael V. Kervin’s and Stacie L. Kervin’s three (count ’em, three) conjoined cases (Docket Nos. 22378-22, 10249-23, and 482-24) for want of prosecution.

Judges Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves and Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider III both folded when confronted by plaintive tales of illness, natural disasters, and requests for yet further continuances.

Finally, Judge C-Doug Pugh has had it. IRS asked for an OSC, and Judge C-Doug Pugh granted it, telling Mike and Stacie to show specific documents they would put in on the trial to substantiate income and deductions.

” Petitioners’ response… failed to do any of this. Rather, it stated that petitioners needed additional time to respond. And it stated that as a show of good faith and concrete progress petitioners had hired a new tax preparation firm to review and correct their 2018 and 2019 returns (if necessary) and prepare returns for 2020 through 2025. Petitioners also cited their newly hired tax preparation firm as a basis for their… Motion for Continuance… which we denied…. Hiring a tax professional may be an important step in bringing petitioners into compliance with their federal tax obligations but it does not address the issues in the pending cases—namely, what evidence they would offer at trial to support their claimed income and deductions. Their repeated nonresponses affirm the Court’s conclusion that they do not intend to provide any evidence of their income and deductions but rather seek only to delay the inevitable.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

Judges, counsel, and preparers, it’s all the same story. When you’re the third, look out.

When a preparer becomes a blower, confidentiality is a must. Ch J Patrick J. (Scholar Pat”) does a looking-backward to order sealing of a bunch documents (hi, Judge Holmes) in the file.

Unfortunately, this is another of the first-public, then-anonymous cases.

“In Whistleblower 12568-16W v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 103 (2017), the Court granted the whistleblower’s motion to proceed anonymously “until and unless the Court determines differently.” Id. at 108. In granting the whistleblower’s motion to proceed anonymously provisionally, the Court indicated that it had balanced the competing interests of the whistleblower and the public, which required it to balance the societal interests of protecting the identity of a confidential informant with the public’s right to know who is using the public’s courts. See id. at 104-105; see also Whistleblower 14106-10W v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. at 205. However, the Court noted that the balance of a whistleblower’s need for anonymity and the public’s interest in open judicial proceedings may change as a case progresses. See Whistleblower 12568-16W v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. at 105. The Court stated: ‘[W]e cannot say that, at some future time in this action, we may not revisit the balancing between alleged harm to petitioner and the societal interest in knowing petitioner’s identity and determine that anonymity is no longer justified.” Id. at 107-108.'” Order, at p. 2.

Another understatement : “…petitioner is employed in the field of providing tax services and advice to clients, if petitioner’s identity as a whistleblower becomes publicly known, petitioner would suffer serious economic harm. Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner has made a sufficient showing in support of the Court’s granting petitioner’s motion in that petitioner may proceed anonymously.” Order, at p. 2.

The key, practitioner, is to move when you petition. Of course, pro ses like the one here are on their own.

I’m not giving name or docket number for obvious reasons. The blower’s name is on the document. I have suggested to Ch J Scholar Pat that a better system is needed. With the practitioner’s name online today, anonymity may come too late.

No,  not a political diatribe, not here anyway; if you’re seeking one from me, look elsewhere. This is about a common conveyancing issue, and it comes out in an innocent spousery. STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden has this one, probably because she knows about NY sit-down title closings, even though this is most likely a CA escrow remote-control.

Trisha D. Anderson, T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-6, filed 7/22/26, wants Section 6015(c) innocent spousery from the $108K deficiency handed to her ex. He alone was on both mortgages on the marital residence, but both were in title. As part of their pre-divorce alignments, they sold same, and the RESPA (or TIL) showed mortgage payoffs with checks to the two (count ’em two) lenders. Trisha claims she never knew about lender 2.

IRS gave ex the SND when he didn’t produce proof that he had actually paid the interest.

Trisha says she’s flat broke, has no bank accounts and can’t work because of illness.

IRS denied Trisha’s innocent spouse request, saying she had actual knowledge of the. nonpayment of interest. STJ Di grants Trisha’s request.

“The evidence before the Court indicates\ that, as petitioner said, the mortgage interest claimed on the…[year at issue] tax return was in fact paid when the house was sold by petitioner and Mr. Anderson… as identified on the Seller’s Final Settlement Statement. In fact, contrary to respondent’s argument that petitioner had actual knowledge that the item giving rise to the deficiency was unpaid, on the basis of the record before the Court, the Court finds that petitioner had actual knowledge that the mortgage interest totaling $108,407.83 was paid to the two mortgage companies that held mortgages on the house held by The Anderson Family Trust.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-6, at p. 7. (Emphasis by the Court).

IRS has BoP on actual knowledge, and STJ Di says they haven’t met it, a wee understatement.

CA community property plays no part per Section 6015(c). Only ex had income and only he was personally on the mortgages. While Trisha took title subject to, and therefore could have paid interest, she had no money and couldn’t.

Taishoff says how come the lenders put mortgages on a CA property titled in husband and wife with a note executed by husband only? STJ Di says only that Trisha and ex acquired the property in 2003, and by 2016 the mortgages were there, T. C. Memo. 2026-6, at p. 3. Unless both mortgages were there pre-acquisition, somebody messed up.

More to the point, however, ex probably couldn’t find the settlement statement, showing interest was part of the mortgage payoff at closing, and paid out of purchase price from the purchaser. Though the interest was paid by purchaser as part of the purchase price, it was paid for benefit of seller as an obligation of seller. It’s as if the seller paid purchaser and the purchaser paid lenders. Payment by third party of an obligation of taxpayer is income to taxpayer, although that payment may in turn be deductible by taxpayer.

A Taishoff “Good Job, First Class” to Trisha’s trusty attorneys, Chris and Rich, doubtless pro bono.