It’s been quite a long-time mantra with me that a lawyer who can’t find an ambiguity should find another way of making a living. Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler surely can find an ambiguity with the best of them.

Carver Mountain Reserve, LLC, Carver Mountain Reserve IP, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, et al., Docket No. 15761-24, filed 6/26/26, claims the TMP’s extensions of 3SOL are defective, because the second of the three (count ’em, three) successive extensions mentioned it was executed and delivered “For the pure purpose of appeal.” Order, at p. 2. Neither of the other two (count ’em, two) contained that phrase.

This is the second motion from Carver; the first was disposed of last month. See my blogpost “Five, Seven, Eight, Fourteen,” 5/8/26. 

Carver says the second extension “would only apply to matters proceeding to the IRS Independent Office of Appeals.” Order, at p. 2. Hence the third doesn’t cover everything else.

No, says Judge Speedy Weiler. Carver didn’t raise 3SOL in its petition. 3SOL is an affirmative defense which petitioner must plead and prove; use it or lose it.

“It is the third set of Forms 872-P which extended the period of assessment to July 31, 2024, in each of these cases, and does not contain any such statement. Further, we determine the clause relied upon by petitioners and found in the second set of Forms 872-P to be ambiguous and not clearly intended to limit respondent’s authority to make a future assessment of federal income tax against the partnerships.” Order, at p. 3.

Leaving aside inartful drafting (didn’t you mean “solely to preserve petitioners’ right to appeal any determination, finding, order, or opinion adverse in whole or in part to petitioner, to any forum having or asserting jurisdiction, and to object to any assertion of claim preclusion or issue preclusion of any thereof in any other juridical or administrative proceeding”?), there’s plenty of ambiguity here.

Btw, isn’t there a typo at Order, at p. 3, third full paragraph, line 6? Don’t you mean “872-P,” and not “372-P”? 

Again I volunteer as proofreader.

No, he isn’t a partner other than the TMP who wants a last-minute intervention in IMCO Services Inc, Docket No. 7090-25L, filed 6/26/26; he was a Greek historian and Roman senator who died about 1800 years before Rule 248(b)(4) was promulgated. He appears in this my blog to highlight the extraordinary erudition of the Tax Court bench, specifically Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch, who explores the cutting of the Gordian knot as described by the late Arrian, and decides to pull the pin on the “flurry” of motions more particularly bounded and described in Order, at pp. 3-4, and their pendant replies, responses, and supporting documentation.

Ol’ Arrian’s story shows up in a footnote, Order, at p.1, footnote 1.

While the barrage and counterbarrage is going on, IMCO pays up.

A couple motions (hi, Judge Holmes) follow because IRS can’t confirm that IMCO in fact paid up, but ultimately Judge Ingenuity Buch is convinced that they did, invoking poor ol’ Jen Zuch to toss the petition for want of jurisdiction: no outstanding debt, no pending lien or levy, nothing for Tax Court to review.  IMCO wants to fight about interest during the COVID hiatus, but that’s been paid along with everything else.

Scholars Al and Pat have a worthy colleague in Judge Ingenuity Buch.

No, not another brilliant defensive move by the Champion New York Knickerbockers’ star Jalen Brunson (Party like it’s 1973!). Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh blocks shots by both IRS and Meta Platforms, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 16081-25, filed 6/25/26.

IRS claims Meta underpaid for year at issue, and Meta claims they overpaid. Anyway, Meta claims IRS was charging them statutory (Section 6601(a)) interest for a period covered by a Federal disaster relief determination. IRS claims no jurisdiction per Section 7481(c), but Meta claims they overpaid and thus they’re owed interest, so Tax Court has jurisdiction.

Judge C-Doug Pugh says before assessment, Tax Court has no jurisdiction over statutory interest, and in this deficiency case we haven’t had a trial yet.

“Petitioner does not dispute our jurisdiction over statutory interest on underpayments but counters that it has invoked the Court’s overpayment jurisdiction in section 6512(b) as it alleges that respondent erred in denying a refund claim. It therefore reasons that it will be entitled to interest on any overpayment it made. And because overpayment interest is not included in the section 6601(e)(1) carve out from the definition of ‘tax’ then its interest claim should remain.” Order, at p. 2.

Negatory, good buddy, says Judge C-Doug Pugh.

“Only after our decision in this case is final, and the other conditions of section 7481 are met, will we have jurisdiction over the question of whether petitioner overpaid interest on an underpayment assessed by respondent or respondent underpaid interest on an overpayment refunded by respondent as a result of our decision. As we have not determined any deficiency or overpayment, respondent has not assessed any deficiency resulting from our determination (including statutory interest) and petitioner has not paid any deficiency (including statutory interest), or alternatively respondent has not refunded an overpayment with interest, we lack jurisdiction over the alleged error regarding computation of interest.” Order, at p. 2.