That’s how Judge Joseph W. Nega finds the testimony in MD M. Rahman & Syeda Momotaz, Docket No. 8286-23, filed 10/13/26. It comes from MD M. explaining his accounting methods.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t provide Judge Nega enough to Cohanize whatever expenses Rahman claims above whatever IRS and he stiped.

 “In his testimony, Mr. Rahman not only insisted that he should prevail entirely on all disputed deduction amounts, but he repeatedly explained petitioners total lack of documentation as a result of the looting of his store on June 1st, 2020, and March 28th, 2021.

“However, his testimony did not explain how then he was able to substantiate all the deductions allowed in the stipulation of settled issues and during the examination but none of the items that now remain at issue. His admission regarding his incomplete bookkeeping and his habit of paying personal expenses from his business account do not bolster his arguments. While his testimony is refreshing, it does not give the Court enough to apply a Cohan analysis.” Transcript, at p.11.

No doubt about it, Mark S. Bonhage, Docket No. 7563-23, filed 10/13/26, had an uphill fight to stave off summary J tossing Year One, as he is “more than 1,300 days” late with his petition. Order, at p. 2.

Even though Mark is in exCulpatory 3 Cir, where equitable tolling reigns, his attempts to slide under the two-point tag of extraordinary circumstances and diligent follow-up fail.

“Petitioner mailed his Petition in this case… more than 1,300 days after the Notice of Deficiency was filed [sic; I think you meant “mailed” Judge]. Petitioner offers several reasons for the delay, including his disability, an earlier bankruptcy, and purported attorney error, among others. None of his unsubstantiated arguments demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that excuse his delay or demonstrate that he diligently pursued his rights. In an attempt to allow petitioner another opportunity to present evidence and further argument regarding the applicability of equitable tolling’s application to this case, we set the motion for a hearing. Petitioner did not avail himself of that opportunity, so we will grant respondent’s Motion with respect to [Year One].” Order, at p. 2.

As to Year Two (no, they’re not consecutive, they’re three (count ’em, three) years apart), IRS’ proffered proofs are the reason for the headline first hereinabove set forth at the head hereof (as my high-priced colleagues would say).

I’m leaving in the dates, because they matter.

“Despite supplementation, respondent’s Motion fails to provide sufficient indicia showing a Notice of Deficiency respecting tax year 2017 actually existed and was mailed to petitioner on November 4, 2019. In fact, respondent’s Motion explicitly states the Notice of Deficiency was not mailed until February 2, 2023 (a statement in direct conflict with the PS Form 3877 offered to prove its mailing). Petitioner’s Objection correctly notes that February 2, 2023, is less than 90 days before the filing of the Petition. And yet, whether a Notice of Deficiency was mailed November 4, 2019, or on February 2, 2023, respondent remains unable to produce even a file copy. The conflict in respondent’s Motion demonstrates a dispute as to material fact as to the existence of the Notice of Deficiency and necessitates denial with respect to tax year 2017.” Order, at p. 2.

Translated from Judge Nega-speak, that means “IRS, drop Year Two, take Year One and run.”

Tax Court announces the death of Judge Harry A. Haines. Here is the press release.