This is a non-political blog, so I am not commenting on the current tariff negotiations here. Rather, I note Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro’s refusal to become involved in the settlement talks between IRS and Fredonia Woodcock Creek Reserve, LLC, Fredonia Woodcock Creek Reserve IP, LLC, Partnership Representative, et al., Docket No. 6346-24, filed 8/17/26.

The Fredonians ask the Court to “‘extend the deadline for accepting the settlement offers in the above cases.’ It maintains that ‘[t]he need for the extension is to reconcile the disparity between the calculation of the other deduction amounts’ in these cases and others that have received similar offers. More specifically, petitioner ‘request[s] that this Court enter an order directing the IRS to submit a settlement offer with consistent valuation calculation process—absent [certain deductions for certain operating reserves] and to extend the acceptance deadline until 14 days from the date the Court rules on this motion.'” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Eminent Toro doesn’t negotiate for parties.

“Under well-established contract principles, respondent, as the maker of the offer, gets to determine the terms of the offer. Williston on Contracts § 5:7 (4th ed.)(describing the rule that ‘[j]ust as the offeror is at liberty to make no offer at all, it is also at liberty to dictate whatever terms it sees fit if it chooses to make an offer. Among these requirements may be acceptance within a specified time, and if no acceptance is made within that time, the power of acceptance necessarily expires’ and collecting authorities)…. Petitioner is of course free to negotiate with respondent and persuade him that the terms of the offer should be revised to achieve consistency with other offers or for whatever other reasons petitioner considers appropriate. But resolution of those requests remains the province of the parties, not the Court.” Order, at p. 1. (Citations omitted).

I’ve chronicled the activities of the Fredonians’ trusty attorney elsewhere. Rather than cite to them, permit me to offer some advice free, gratis, and for nothing, with no guarantees, warranties, or representations. Might it not be a good idea to set up a phonathon with His Honor and IRS’ counsel, and have a wee headbanging session, rather than making motions?

See my blogpost “Old-Time Head-Banging,” 6/5/15.

Judge Emin (“Eminent”) Toro has another form for the Tax Court litigator’s file in Airbnb, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 12423-24, filed 8/14/26. And Judge Eminent Toro didn’t draft a word of it (at least not expressly).

This Discovery Protective Order for Non-Technology Proprietary and Confidential Information was hammered out by the parties after a phonathon with judge Eminent Toro. Whether this resulted from what we used to call a head-banging session deponent knoweth not. And note this DPO doesn’t cover the treatment of technology-related materials, although the parties “will continue their efforts to reach [such] agreement.” Order, at p. 1, footnote 2.

Howbeit, text appears following order, page 1. I make no warranties, guarantees, or representations as to adequacy, fitness for purpose, compliance with law or regulation, or anything else. YMMV.

It seems Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda has gone all Bundesliga with Tax Court jurisdiction. The former extensive paragraph describing “other IRS notices that may form the basis for a petition to this Court” that festooned routine want-of-jurisdiction petition tosses has been relegated to a footnote.

Is whistleblowing in the zone for promotion?

Solely by way of illustration of the foregoing and the source of the above quotation, see Cassandra John, Docket No. 3274-26SL, filed 8/14/26, at p. 2, footnote 2.