I can’t count how many times I’ve applied the designation to Judge David Gustafson That Obliging Jurist. All of us practitioners have been before irascible types, seeing newbies shredded and even oldtimers pulped by scorn and sarcasm, where self-defense is worse than silence. Judge David Gustafson is the reverse, a true gentleman.

So there’s got to be a lot to get him to turn to that old poker sanction, and call the clock in Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc., Docket No. 14616-14L, filed 9/1/26.

Now before all y’all shout as one voice “Didn’t that get finished in 2022?” yes, 9 Cir reversed and remanded in the famous “any time before supe loses supervisory powers” holding. But the case is still unresolved. IRS is willing to drop the liability and the Section 6707A chop, but Laidlaw’s claims they’re owed money and their counsel, the celebrated William J. (“Old Bill”) Wise, Esq., is sick. I’m sure we all wish Old Bill the swiftest recovery. So Laidlaw’s and IRS want more time.

Judge David Gustafson obliges, but calls the clock on this waltz of the decades.

“We will grant that extension, but we do not expect to grant any further extension. While we have immediate sympathy for counsel’s situation, this case and the fourteen cases related to it (filed in 2014-2019) have been long pending; the Commissioner’s concession has been long known; and the Court has a responsibility to bring these cases to conclusion. The pendency of a case is not cost-free to the Court, and the passage of time often makes a case more difficult to resolve, not easier. Moreover, extensions are granted when it is shown that the delay would better enable the presentation of the case, but not when a delay would simply leave the parties in the same circumstance in which they were at the time of the previous deadline, or in worse circumstance. We hope and assume that two more months will restore petitioner’s counsel to health and that he reasonably expects to be able to file his responses by that date; but sometimes the passage of time does not actually promote a party’s ability to conduct a case. If counsel will not be able to do the work necessary to bring these cases to conclusion, then he has the ethical responsibility to his clients and to the Court to cooperate in the retention of new counsel who can do so. We hope and assume that current counsel will be able to bring these cases to conclusion.” Order, at p. 2.

Practitioners representing the whistleblowing community may want to take a quick peek at Ch J Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda’s order in Santo A. Dileo, Sr., Docket No. 3195-26W, filed 8/31/26.

Santo Sr. is pro se, so IRS wants a Rule 103 to cover any Section 6103(h)(4) disclosures they may have to make to Santo Sr. or his counsel.

Ch J Scholar Pat obliges. And here’s a preview of what IRS will accept.

Practitioners may want to drag-and-drop, and tailor appropriately, so when they need to move for a Rule 103, they can lodge something that gets a “GRANTED” stamp.

Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland thus grants summary J to IRS, despite the “high touch” designation from the subject matter classifier to the whistleblowing of Jeremy Berenblatt, T. C. Memo. 2026-77, filed 8/31/26.

When Jeremy blew seven (count ’em, seven) years after a couple of IRS CID SAs interviewed him, his Form 211 went to an SMC. “The classifier, considering only Mr. Berenblatt’s submission, determined that his claim potentially rated an H (high touch) designation.” T. C. Memo. 2026-77, at pp. 3-4. (Footnote omitted, but it says high touch means the case warrants assignment to a senior WBO employee and potential coordination with other IRS functions.).

IRS says they knew already about what Jeremy blew, he wasn’t a witness on any trial, what he gave IRS didn’t substantially aid in their billion-dollar recovery; the “but-for” argument isn’t enough, and Jeremy’s claim about how RAs handled form 11369 don’t add anything to what Judge Tex Copeland already found.

And a high touch is not a slam dunk.

“Mr. Berenblatt misunderstands the role of the classifier within the whistleblower regime’s overarching structure. A classifier is an employee of an operating division who functions as a gatekeeper. See IRM 25.2.1.3.1 (Mar. 10, 2023) (‘Classification’s role is only to determine if the information on the Form 211 warrants further review. It is not classification’s responsibility to determine whether a whistleblower is entitled to an award.”). Indeed, if we agreed with Mr. Berenblatt, there would be no need at all for the WBO; classifiers alone would be sufficient. Here, the classifier determined, solely on the basis of Mr. Berenblatt’s Form 211 submission, that Mr. Berenblatt’s claim warranted further review. However, that a claim is not prima facie unviable is not the same as saying that the claim is meritorious.” T. C. Memo. 2026-77, at p. 14.