Getting nostalgic fifty years on for the days of my misspent youth on that Hill Far Above, I remember the famous line “To the tune of our profs we must always keep time”. And I offer that snippet from “The Song of the Classes” (no, it’s not by Karl Marx) to those wannabe material participants in what would otherwise be passivity in the first degree.

Especially to my brethren and sistern at the Bar, who are bombarded with pitches from vendors of timekeeping and billing software.

Case in point today comes from Judge Buch, obviously a fan of time-billing. This is the story of Scott Wesley Williams and Michaele Anna Williams, 2014 T. C. Memo. 158, filed 8/5/14.

But it’s really Scotty’s story. He’s running his Dad’s old business training telephone reps, and carrying on an active law practice, but he finds time to run an airplane rental business too, that he claims is active.

He tries to tie in his flying with his telephoning, but that doesn’t fly (sorry, guys). So he can’t offset his flying deductions against his telephoning, because all they have in common is him. Check out Judge Buch’s take on the “single activity” rules in Reg. 1.469-4(c) at pp. 17-19.

And Scotty can’t prove the hours test (500 and 100). One sentence says it all: “Although Mr. Williams is a practicing attorney and likely is familiar with the practice of tracking his hours, he did not provide a log of his hours spent on the airplane activity, not even for the amount of time he spent drafting legal documents such as the aircraft marketing agreements.” 2014 T. C. Memo. 158, at p. 10.

Judge Buch must be recalling his time at McKee Nelson LLP and Bingham McCutcheon LLP, at both of which firms, and at the exalted rank of partner, no doubt he billed with the best of them.

So deficiency and the Section 6662(a) negligence chop stand.

Takeaway: Software and obsessive-compulsive behavior are cheap; deficiencies, penalties and interest are expensive.