It’s a fact; nobody listens to me. When I went over the Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation, as Successor Interest to The Bank Of New York Company, Inc., rematch (see my blogpost “Never Borrow Money Needlessly”, 9/23/13), I laid out what I thought was a worthwhile appeal strategy for IRS.

Nevertheless, IRS caved and didn’t appeal Judge Kroupa’s Supplemental Memorandum, which granted the Mellon 15’s request that the interest on the loan Mellon took out from Barclays be an allowable deduction, even though the rest of the deal was a sham.

Well, apparently the gremlins of Tax Court repented, because “(D)ue to an inadvertent clerical error, however, the Court denied the reconsideration motion through an Order dated February 19, 2014.” Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation, as Successor Interest to The Bank Of New York Company, Inc., Docket No. 26683-09, filed 3/5/14.

So Judge Kroupa enters the above-cited order straightening this out, and the Mellon 15 get their deduction after all.

IRS didn’t listen to me. Nothing new in Tax Court today, either.

Back from a one-day layoff, and a delayed start today, March 4, Judge Goeke orders the parties to stand by for trial in Gaughf Properties, L.P., Balazs Ventures, LLC, A Partner Other Than the Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 12898-07, filed 3/4/14.

Remember the Gaughfs, Andy Jackson Gaughf and his spouse Nan? No? See my blogpost “A Busy Day”, 9/10/12. The whole issue was whether IRS was obliged to use information acquired otherwise than filed on a Form 1065 and allied documents to ascertain that the Gaughfs were indirect partners in a Jenkens & Gilchrist phony basis-builder.

Tax Court said “no”, so the three-year statute of limitations hadn’t run against IRS when they sent Andy Jackson and Nan the FPAAs they’re fighting about.

Well, the Gaughfs appealed. And back on 12/17/13, DC Circuit affirmed Tax Court.

Here’s Circuit Court Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson: “While the  regulation provides that the IRS ‘may use other information in its possession,’ it also makes clear the IRS ‘is not obligated to search its records for information not expressly furnished under [the regulation].’ Treas. Reg. § 301.6223(c)-1T(f) (emphases added); cf. Walthall v. United States, 131 F.3d 1289, 1296 (9th Cir. 1997) (‘mere fact that the IRS possesses in its database the name and address of indirect partners does not mean that it has been “furnished with” this information’ so as to trigger IRS obligation to notify indirect partners of administrative proceedings under I.R.C. § 6223). Nor does the regulation give effect to the ‘[i]ncorporation by reference of information contained in another document previously furnished to the Internal Revenue Service.’ Treas. Reg. § 301.6223(c)-1T(c).” Gaughf Properties, et al v. CIR, 13-1026, 12/27/13, at p. 21.

So it’s back to Tax Court, and on to the trial.

Means no job. Polar vortex, y’know.

Tax Court is closed today, Monday, March 3, but will open tomorrow, March 4, with the full lineup on deck and ready to go.