It’s the best, and probably the most quoted, aphorism of Dr. Samuel Johnson. “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones echoes Dr. Sam’s observation, as she takes ZMZ Global, Inc., Docket No. 15380-22, filed 8/21/26, off the 180-day status report track, where it’s been since Valentine’s Day a year ago.

The latest billet doux from ZMZ announces they and IRS reached a basis for settlement in May, are working on a stiped decision, and hope to file same “shortly.” Order, at p. 1.

Judges love settlements, and Judge CD Jones is no exception.

“The Court appreciates petitioner’s report and is encouraged by the parties’ apparent progress toward resolution of this case.” Order, at p. 1.

Except.

“Petitioner requests that the Court retain jurisdiction and require status reports every 180 days if the decision document is not filed.” Idem.

Do I hear a waltz? More to the point, maybe so might could be Judge CD Jones hears a waltz.

“…the Court concludes that continuation of the 180-day status report track is not warranted under the circumstances; specifically, petitioner represents that a decision document is expected to be filed shortly. Accordingly, the Court will remove this case from the 180-day status report track and direct the parties to file either a proposed stipulated decision or a further report within 60 days.” Order, at p. 1.

Brian J. Laborde, T. C. Memo. 2026-74, filed 8/20/26, had three (count ’em, three) mailing addresses during the four (count ’em, four) years this case concerns. IRS hit Brian with a couple TFRP Letters 1153 for those years, and Brian doesn’t contest those. Nor does he contest the NFTL that followed.

He does contest the NITLs, saying those weren’t sent to his last known address. And the AO at Appeals who gave the Section 6330(c)(1) verification that all procedures were followed was a trifle conclusory, never stating how reached the conclusion that NITLs were mailed to last known address.

As we all know, that’s not waivable, even if not raised by Brian’s trusty rep on paper (or electrons) or at the CDP. Statute says Appeals shall verify.

Judge Adam B. (“Sport”) Landy traces Brian’s peripatetic wanderings all over The Big Easy, seeing where he says he lived and when and what he put on his tax returns and any other clear and concise notifications he gave IRS.

But the AO did none thereof, so this case gets remand for Determination Number Four.

Takeaway- Practitioner, add to your Form 12153 and your petition boilerplate failure to comply with Section 6330(c)(1) verification.

He’s only been twice on this my blog heretofore, so I must apologize to Percy Squire, T. C. Memo. 2026-71, filed 8/19/26; btw, his firm, Percy Squire Co LLC, T. C. Memo. 2026-72, of even date herewith, shares the attention of Judge Tamara Ashford. Seems Percy and Co have a fifteen (count ’em, fifteen) year record in USTC, and Judge Ashford has ’em all. T. C. Memo. 2026-71, at p. 2, footnote 2. 

Turns out one of Percy’s cases I did blog eventually netted him a $5K Section 6673 frivolity chop, though I didn’t blog that outcome. See my blogpost “Tales of Suspense,” 1/3/20.

Percy is a wee bit casual about filing and paying his own income tax, and his firm’s FICA/FUTA/ITW. 

This time Percy stashed assets in an irrevocable trust, which ran his businesses and was behind on tax payments, soi his OIC was suspended until they caught up.

“We agree with respondent that petitioner has instituted these proceedings primarily for delay and has taken positions that are frivolous or groundless. As previously noted, see supra note 2, petitioner is no stranger to this Court; his Petition here is the seventh petition he has filed with the Court in the last approximately 15 years. In several of these prior actions (all of which are lien and/or levy actions) he has been warned not to file an offer-in-compromise solely to delay collection and that for an offer-in-compromise to be granted he must be current in his estimated tax payments. In one such prior case, he was sanctioned $5,000 pursuant to section 6673. Furthermore, in the instant proceedings petitioner has continued to press arguments that are irrelevant and to rely on documents that are not part of the stipulated record.

“The Court’s prior warnings and sanction appear to have left petitioner undeterred, despite his being an attorney admitted to practice before this Court. Accordingly, we will grant respondent’s Motion to Impose a Penalty and impose a penalty of $10,000 against petitioner pursuant to section 6673. Petitioner should realize that if in the future he continues to persist in litigation for the primary purpose of delaying the collection of his federal tax liabilities (on either his own behalf or Percy Squire Co.’s), then he will be communicating to the Court that a $10,000 penalty is insufficient to affect his behavior and that the Court should instead consider imposing a much larger penalty, up to the maximum of $25,000.” T. C. Memo. 2026-71, at p. 12. (Citation and footnote omitted).

Btw, Percy says ” I was unjustly suspended from the practice of law from 2011 through 2015.” T. C. 2026-71, at p. 4. This was in OH, before he was admitted to USTC. I’ll let you judge on that.