Gary R. Fears, that is, Docket No. 671-10, filed 10/8/14. Gary is apparently one of the Sugarloaf Fund, LLC, guys that got caught in John E. Rogers’s DADs web. For more about the web, see my blogpost “More Shell Games”, 9/2/11, and for more about Sugarloaf, see my blogpost “Honor Your Partner – Part Deux”, 9/5/13.

Gary, through Sugarloaf, wants Tax Court to tell IRS to reallocate income and deduction among the various players in Mr Rogers’s dodge-ball game.

But he does this as part of a double-barreled motion, both to reopen the record and to order the reallocation.

Judge Wherry is not amused, as he has to toss a couple dozen, as Judge Holmes would put it, motions by IRS to eject Mr Rogers as tax matterer for these multifarious malefactors.

“As an initial matter, Rule 50(a) requires that each motion filed with this Court ‘show that prior notice thereof has been given to each other party or counsel for each other party and * * * state whether there is any objection to the motion.’ The instant motion is silent on these subjects, and respondent represents that Sugarloaf failed to contact respondent concerning the motion before filing it. We could deny the motion on the basis of this foot-fault alone, but we also have more substantive grounds for doing so.” Order, at p. 2.

Moreover, you’re too late, Sugarloaf. “When Sugarloaf filed the instant motion, the Court had already advanced substantially in deciding these complex cases. We are thus able to state that the evidence Sugarloaf proffered would not materially change the outcome. “ Order, at p. 2.

As regards making IRS reallocate income and deductions, that’s a total nonstarter.

“…Sugarloaf identifies no basis for the Court to reallocate tax items among Sugarloaf and its asserted related parties, or to compel the Commissioner to do so. Indeed, ‘section 482 grants no * * * right to a taxpayer to apply the provisions of section 482 at will or to compel * * * [the Commissioner] to apply such provisions.’” Order, at pp. 2-3 (Citations omitted).

“…Congress enacted section 482 as a sword only for the Commissioner, not as a sword or a shield for the taxpayer. Accordingly, the Court lacks the authority to grant the requested section 482 relief Sugarloaf seeks.” Order, at p. 3.