“Stuff happens” has become a cliché, although the precise phraseology often used has no place in a blog intended for reading around the family dinner table. Judge Benjamin A. (“Trey”) Guider, III, has a checklist (not in tabular form) for such mishaps in Simon Gradisnik & Marcia Pena Gradisnik, et al., Docket No. 3262-22, filed10/6/26.

With trial set for 10/19/26, long-time trusty attorney has medical issue. Si & Marcia try to file timely motion for continuance thirty-two (count ’em, thirty-two) days out (see Rule 133, penultimate sentence), but allege they “experienced issues with the United States Postal Service.” Order, at p. 1. 

You’re not alone, guys, I have a prescription refill sent eight (count ’em, eight) days from NJ and addressed to me at this Minor Outlying Island off the Coast of N. America, which this morning is sitting at a USPS distribution center in Fargo, ND. Don’t ask. Anyway, FedEx to the rescue.

Judge Trey Guider, III, is sympathetic, even though IRS says the parties haven’t yet begun the stipulation process. And this is the fourth continuance since consolidation.

So continuance (that’s adjournment for you State courtiers) granted.

Except.

Report by trial date plus ten whether and when petitioners’ counsel will resume work on these cases or whether petitioners intend to retain new counsel or proceed pro se, and describe petitioners’ plan to begin, or their efforts regarding, the stipulation process with respondent.

In short, get counsel, old or new, on board or go it alone, and hit the bedrock of Tax Court practice, the stips.

In this case, Taishoff says it helps that trusty attorney is an old-timer with 49 (count ’em, 49) years of experience at the Tax Court Bar.

Two (count ’em, two) gifts that keep on giving, Raju J. Mukhi, Docket No. 4329-22L, filed 10/5/26, making his fifth appearance in this my blog, and Section 6751(b) Boss Hossery, that hardy perennial, meet before Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler.

Raju is fighting about Appeals’ verification that Exam properly Boss Hossed the chops bestowed upon him, and whether the RA at Exam had indeed done so. “We see these as two separate issues.” Order, at p. 2. Note the RA may have done it right, but the AO may have blown verification.

Raju’s trusted (and trusty) advocates and litigators object to IRS’ motion to remand to Appeals, claiming it will delay the January trial.

Isn’t remand supposed to give the taxpayer a chance to fill in whatever was left out the first time around, and to supplement the record for judicial review?

Yss, but.

“Generally, we remand a case to the Appeals Office when a taxpayer did not receive a proper hearing, and the new hearing is necessary or will be productive. The resulting section 6330 hearing on remand is not a new hearing, but rather ‘provides the parties with the opportunity to complete the initial section 6330 hearing while preserving the taxpayer’s right to receive judicial review of the ultimate administrative determination.’. As noted earlier, we have remanded a case to the Appeals Office to clarify the record regarding an officer’s determination that a notice of deficiency was properly mailed.” Order, at p. 2. (Citations omitted).

Nevertheless, Judge Speedy Weiler, true to his cognomen, tells the parties to get ‘er done before the trial date.

Misquoting Rudy Kipling’s famous footslog, Ronald Michael Henke & Elizabeth Henke, Docket No. 27610-22L, filed 10/2/26, find out the bad news from Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way. I note the tax years here because they matter.

“The Court agrees with respondent that AO M did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the liabilities for tax years 2007, 2015, and 2016 could still be collected. The liabilities for tax years 2015 and 2016 that remain at issue constitute priority tax claims within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(A)(i), and such priority taxes generally are not discharged in bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A). The liability for tax year 2007 was an assessment made based on a substitute return prepared by the Commissioner pursuant to section 6020(b) and is excepted from bankruptcy discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i). Moreover, by failing to respond to the Motion or appear at the trial session, petitioners have abandoned any argument that AO Matthews abused his discretion in concluding that the liabilities for tax years 2007, 2015, and 2016 remain at issue.” Order, at p. 7. (Name omitted).

Note petitioners petitioned in bankruptcy (Ch 7) 4/30/18, triggering the 11 USC §507(a)(8)(A)(i) three-year lockout. The SFR (not filed by petitioners) for 2007) opens the 11 USC §523(a)(1)(A) door.