It never fails. Just as I’m leaving the party, the host brings out the good stuff. I’m at the elevator door, or down the stairs, or standing in the street, whereupon out comes the tiramisù or profiteroles or the Cuvée Elisabeth Salmon Rosé or the Louis XIII. So it is that the IRS Nationwide Tax Forum announces its return to this Minor Outlying Island off the Coast of North America this August, after I retire. Ya can’t win.

Ingrid Maria Persson, T. C. Sum. Op. 2026-2, filed 2/9/26, furnishes another example of the traps laid in the path of the unwary by the Affordable Care Act, officially the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act together with amendments made thereto by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. It’s the usual over-400% of poverty, to which is added Ingrid Maria’s failure to file 1040 MFJ with spouse.

There’s a wrinkle. Ingrid Maria entered into an IA for a math error covering the year at issue, before the SND for the APTC, so not covering it.

“Petitioner acknowledges there were issues with her tax return. Petitioner suggests that the review of the return which disclosed a math error before the installment agreement should have resulted in the correction of all issues in her tax return. She contends that the installment agreement should cover all amounts for the tax years listed on the agreement, including the deficiency stemming from the APTC. Petitioner contends that determination of a deficiency for [year at issue] outside of the installment agreement is a breach of contract. Petitioner also claims she was informed by Ms. F that the installment agreement considered all adjustments for the listed years and was a final agreement.

“Respondent asserts that while the installment agreement included [year at issue], it included only the adjustment related to the math error and did not include the deficiency determined by adjustment to the APTC. Respondent asserts that the deficiency stemming from the APTC was not yet determined when the installment agreement was processed.

“Respondent asserts that an installment agreement allows a taxpayer to satisfy a preexisting liability over time; consequently, it lacks consideration on the part of a taxpayer and, therefore, does not give rise to contract formation.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2, at p. 6. (Citation and name omitted).

STJ Peter “HB”) Panuthos is sympathetic, but IRS didn’t breach the IA per Section 6159.

Whenever I see these ACA cases, I want to jump in with a political comment. But in these times, when feelings run high and AI-generated social media stokes the ring of fire around rational comment, I can only say that I know how Jeremiah felt.

As AI is supposed to make legal research by humans obsolete, we see the Phantom Citation swimming into memos of law like a destructive invasive species. The critter has gotten into Tax Court, as Judge Mark V, (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes judge-‘splains in Peter L. Clinco, Deceased, C. M. Barone-Clinco, Successor in Interest, and C. M. Barone-Clinco, T. C. Memo. 2026-16, filed 2/9/26.

It’s an unreported income and unsubstantiated deductions case, the usual bank deposits reconstruction after discrepancies with 1099s, plus depreciation deductions unsupported with dates placed in service and purchase price (with adjustments to basis). And that IRS didn’t challenge depreciation in subsequent (out) years doesn’t validate them for year at issue.

But the big story is the made-up citations.

“Mr. Wagner, Clinco’s attorney, cites four cases in support. Three appear to be hallucinations generated by a large language model AI.” T. C. Memo. 2026-16, at p. 6.  Judge Holmes says these are unacceptable.

And even after IRS’ counsel blows the whistle on these inventions, Wagner continued to cite them, T.C. Memo. 2026-16, at p. 7.

Judge Holmes lets Wagner off with a warning in a footnote.

“It is not absolutely clear from the record whether Mr. Wagner used generative AI to secure legal precedent for his arguments. A bit of embarrassment for failure to citecheck, failure to ‘fess up, and (if it occurred) use of AI to write a section of the brief is enough for now.” T. C. Memo. 2026-16, at p. 8, footnote 8.

Judge Holmes catalogues these machine-made monstrosities in T. C. Memo. 2026-16, at p.7, footnote 6.

Taishoff says these are a fraud on the Court, and per se professional misconduct.