Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes disrespects not a single partitive genitive, but tramples, upends, and deconstructs both IRS’ bank account reconstructions and petitioner’s implausible testimony and uncooperative behavior, in Hank Risan, et al., T. C. Memo. 2026-78, filed 9/2/26.

Hank is a self-styled Renaissance man indicted for fraud. T. C. 2026-78, at p. 4, footnote 5. But IRS doesn’t allege fraud here. IRS has troubles enough, with computational fumbles at exam and an unsupported alter ego argument. Unreported income allegations are washed away. And while Mark’s testimony draws a large bill on credulity, his trusty attorney points out enough to let BoP sink a lot of IRS’ case.

What will be left for the Rule 155 beancount to sort and what the final deficiency will be is a real head-spinner.

I take an expansive view of the Rule of Completeness to note a pair of $2500 Section 6673 chops.

Judge Vasquez spares us the details of Myrna Marin, T.C. Memo. 2026-79, filed 9/2/26, but holds she frivoled $2500 worth, the usual unreported-income-protester-jive case.

OTOH, John W. Sprouse, T. C. Memo. 2026-80, of even date therewith (as my high-priced colleagues would say), gets his Section 6673 $2500 chop for excessive delay, stalling while claiming to try finding counsel. Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves also finds JW “lacked candor with the Court.” T. C. Memo. 2026-80, at p. 9.

I’m not surprised JW, who worked for Deloitte Consulting LLP, couldn’t find counsel. “… petitioner filed a document titled ‘Notice of Discovery Demand.’ Among other things, the document requested that respondent produce the birth certificates for ‘the clerk of court, the judge, and any of the DOJ staff employees.’ The document also requested materials that petitioner contended would establish that certain government actions constituted ‘aggravated identity theft.'” T. C. Memo. 2026-80, at p. 3. There’s more, but you get the picture.

Judge Emin “Eminent”) Toro reminds AirBnB, Inc. & Subsidiaries, 167 T. C. 9, filed 9/2/26, that legal experts called judges are standard equipment for Tax Court trials, and these legal experts are good at disregarding legal conclusions from nonlawyers (Taishoff says they’re not bad at disregarding legal conclusions from lawyers, too). 

Likewise Rule 143(g) doesn’t apply to pretrial discovery jousts, such as AirBnB and IRS are having with dueling Rule 103 motions.

“Rule 143 provides evidentiary rules for trials before this Court. It is found in Title XIV of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, titled ‘Trials.’ The Rule itself is titled ‘Evidence,’ and Rule 143(a) explains how ‘[t]rials before the Court will be conducted.’ Moreover, Rule 143(g), by its terms, applies to ‘any party who calls an expert witness.”” 167 T. C. 9, at p. 5. (Footnote omitted, but it says captions of statutes can be used to clear up ambiguity). No trial here, yet.

IRS has two (count ’em, two) declarations it put in supporting its Rule 103 from what sounds like a professional expert. The dispute is about what features of a “clean room” should have for reviewing ultra-secret computer software; don’t confuse this with the clean room used for electronic parts manufacture. See my blogpost “Do Your Homework and Clean Up Your Room,” 4/15/13.

AirBnB can always put inn their own experts’ declarations in support of their motion or in opposition to IRS counsel’s.

And maybe so might could be the declarations AirBnB wants stricken pertain to industry practices, which are OK under Rule 143(g). “The bulk of Mr. Myers’s statements appear to concern his view of standard protective order practices in the expert witness industry, so they might be acceptable without a written report under Rule 143(g)(3) in any event.” 167 T. C. 9, at p. 6, footnote 8.

“The expert witness industry?” Judge Eminent Toro got that right.