Someone at The Western Union Company and Subsidiaries, Docket No. 10386-25, filed 4/24/26, filed Form 1028 instead of Form 5471, so maybe so might could be its Section 898(c)(2) short-year, one-month-cutoff election wasn’t approved, only received, by IRS.

Ex-Ch J Michael B. (“Iron Mike”) Thornton says it’s a question of fact whether the letter Western U relies upon is an “acceptance” or merely a “receipt.” The letter is stamped “Received,” but even that has been crossed out by an unknown hand, which also crossed out the date stamped thereon.

Western U claims IRS issued a Rev. Proc. after they elected the short year, which “is substantively invalid, as contrary to section 898(c)(2), and procedurally invalid for failure to follow the notice and comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. section 553.” Order, at pp. 1-2. Moreover, even if valid, the Rev. Proc. isn’t retroactive.

Maybe so might could be I don’t have to go there, says ex-Ch J Iron Mike. I’ll deny Western U summary J without prejudice, and let the parties have discovery. Let’s see what turns up.

Taishoff says of course the actions hereinabove described took place eight (count ’em, eight) years ago, so who knows who is still around, and remembers what. And is submitting Form 1028 substantial compliance when Form 5471 is stated in a Rev. Proc.? 

Whether said deficient fruit “don’t spoil the whole bunch, girl,” as the Osmonds remarked 55 (count ’em, 55) years ago, one material fact disputed under oath by one with personal knowledge spoil (I beg your pardon, spoils) the whole summary J motion.

So says Judge Kashi (“My or the High”) Way to IRS’ counsel in Jeffrey Godwin, Docket No. 10699-24L, filed 4/24/26.

Tax Court Judges are always ding, dinging in our ears that “the nonmovant may not rest on the allegations or denials in that party’s pleading.” Order, at p. 2. (Citations omitted).

Nevertheless, Jeff’s trusty attorney steps up, in the teeth of the ABA Model Rule 3.7 ban on lawyer-as-witness, declaring he did show for the meeting at Appeals and that Jeff did provide the financial information requested by the SO. Remember, the specific evidence offered to defeat summary J may not necessarily be admissible on the trial; summary J is issue-finding, not issue-deciding.

Taishoff says my money is on ABA Model Rule 3.7(a)(3) and Jeff’s trusty attorney.

Judge Way doesn’t bother with that question yet. “A single nonconclusory affidavit, based on personal knowledge and addressing a material issue, is sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Order, at p. 2. (Citation omitted).

Anyway, since the parties filed status reports claiming they’re working on a settlement, Judge Way denies summary J without prejudice.

When I asked recently for feedback from readers, frequent commenter Bob Kamman, Esq., facetiously suggested “(M)ore opera reviews. Every Tax Court case is the same, but every Met production is different.” While not quite so obliging as Judge David Gustafson, I am willing to try.

It’s been years since I last saw Eugene Onegin at the Met, but happy memories persist, so I looked forward to last night’s (April 23) performance. There was plenty to like, but a perfect performance is not yet.

In an almost all-Slavic cast, Frenchman Stanislas de Barbeyrac was a stand-out Lenski, great power and presence, and made you believe he was a poet. He dominated the second act, which is quite a feat, as Maria Barakova’s Olga was one to remember. Barakova, who must stand close to two (count ’em, two) meters tall with voice to match (classic Russian iron-throat mezzo), looked ready to beat up both tenor and bass-baritone singlehanded, despite being twice floored during a hyperathletic struggle with her jealous lover.

Lithuania contributed Asmik Grigorian, for which many thanks. An incandescent Tatiana in the badly-staged letter scene, she turned it up in the third act. Likerwise, I do not grasp why Deborah Warner has Iurii Samoilov stagger about the stage in the third act as if he were playing the Flying Dutchman in a full gale.

Speaking of Samoilov, he has a serviceable voice wanting a certain darkening quality for Onegin. He seemed entirely too genial for the role, which needs a Byronesque brooder. For me, Sherrill Milnes had the darkness and brood the role demands, plus of course the voice. It may be the staging; an ultra-physical Onegin isn’t true to the text.

Speaking of staging, using a single set for first and second acts may be easy on the stagehands and the budget, but playing the letter scene other than in Tatiana’s bedroom (as was done in the 1977 production I remember) is like watching from the bleachers a skilled gemcutter at work on the pitcher’s mound in Yankee Stadium. The smallness of the bedroom enlarges the passion and tension of the scene. Tatiana must be trapped in the moment emotionally and physically. Grigorian had to do it all with her voice and body; she could have done with help from the stage setting.

I know the current fashion in operatic staging is to have the singers doing basic infantry training PT while belting away; I find it impressive, really I do, but it might be well to rein it in a wee bit. Tenors and bassos flinging sopranos around takes some of the magic away.

Tony Stevenson was a magical Monsieur Triquet, and the minor roles are well-served. Good to see Richard Bernstein again, even briefly as Zaretski.

Cannot finish with a loud “bravo” to conductor Timur Zangiev. He reached the ultimate degree of what G. B. Shaw described as the goal of an operatic conductor. He got the Met orchestra to play so as to cause concussion of the brain.