Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves and I are lucky that Gary C. George and Robin A. George, T. C. Memo. 2026-10, filed 2/3/26, is appealable to 8 Cir, and that Judge Richard A. Posner of 7 Cir is no longer alive to berate both of us for “lame attempts at humor” (see my blogpost “There Goes the Neighborhood,” 9/3/13).

So no, the headline first hereinabove written at the head hereof is not political (perish the thought). Gary and Robin are shareholders in a multi-level industrial chicken breeding business ending in a Sub S. And the issue is passing through the Section 41 additional research credits.

Judge Tag Greaves has got a flock of chicken-and-egg one-liners. He also tells us a lot more about the breeding of small broilers and big broilers, their lives and diseases, than I for one wanted to know. Gary and Robin do win a bunch qualified research credits (hi, Judge Holmes) , but their failure to document baseline research limits them to the 6% Section 41(c)(5)(B), Reg. Section 1.41-9(c)(1) cutdown.

Judge Tag Greaves has thoroughly reviewed the Section 41 landscape. It’s a must-read for specialists, and eyeglazing for the rest of us.

Diego E. Salazar, T. C. Memo. 2026-9, filed 2/3/26, wants interest and accuracy penalties abated, but he signed an IA. Even though he says he signed “under protest and with full reservation of rights,” including “seeking a future abatement,” T. C. Memo. 2026-9, at p. 5, Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber says that bars him from contesting in Tax Court.

Diego had his chance to contest at the CDP and the Supplemental, but didn’t. Moreover, he got the IA (with an unexplained $8 per month reduction) with no Form 433-A or backups. The SO invited him to submit Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, but he never did so, T. C. Memo. 2026-9, at p. 4. 

His complaint about the crooked preparer who got him into this mess doesn’t cross the Section 6404 threshold, T. C. Memo. 2026-9, at p. 4.

And IRS conceded equitable tolling of Diego’s late petition.

Judge Cary Douglas (“C-Doug”) Pugh echoes the words of Judge Paris in Walker Church Greene 819, LLC, 830 Oconee, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, T. C. Memo. 2026-11, filed 2/3/26. Once again, a bunch partners (hi, Judge Holmes) try to jump in on the eve of settlement, after three (count ’em, three) years of doing nothing (see T.C. Memo. 2026-11, at p. 8). The big difference seems to be that the bunch own 62.27% of Walker; the other cases (see my blogpost “So Ya Wanna Participate?” 9/17/25) involved partners owning much smaller interests.

Mox nix, says Judge Pugh.

“This distinction does not change our conclusion. First, the Objecting Partners had three years to participate as of right or by Court leave and failed to do so. Moreover, the Objecting Partners do not explain what prompted their Motions for Leave beyond vague generalities. Thus, even if they ‘acted promptly upon discovery that the TMP was not protecting their interests,’ they did not provide the necessary facts to allow us to evaluate their assertion that the TMP was not protecting their interests. We will not infer a substantial showing simply because the Objecting Partners represent a majority of the partnership interests and disagree with the settlement terms. More is required beyond conclusory statements.” T. C. Memo. 2026-11, at p. 7. (Emphasis by the Court.)

Again, no showing that the TMP breached fiduciary duty, nor that OPs were ready and able to litigate. Each partner has a separate interest, but they haven’t represented they’d all be united in strategy and result, even though all have the same counsel.

Taishoff says conflict of interest, anyone?