I don’t get upset about cases that somebody else loses. I may observe from a comfortable distance that an attorney or a pro se (or even a judge) got it wrong. Sometimes my remarks might even show a slight acerbic (not to say sardonic) quality.

But this one is just bad. And I’m not faulting Judge Colvin. Tax Court Judges must follow the law as it is, not the law as they might wish it to be.

But this is not a great start to a weekend.

Robert R. Whiteley, Docket No. 22628-16SL, filed 5/4/18, made a very minor mistake on the 1040 wherein he claimed HOH, a dependent daughter and the education credit in respect of said daughter.

Judge Colvin: “…petitioner correctly reported his daughter’s Social Security number, as he had done in prior years. However, instead of spelling out his daughter’s two middle names as he had done in those years, on his…return petitioner used his daughter’s two middle initials. Because of that difference (abbreviating his daughter’s middle names) respondent disallowed the head of household filing status and disallowed the deduction for a personal exemption for his daughter and the claimed education tax credit.” Order, at p. 1.

OK, so issue a SNOD and let RR and IRS counsel settle it with a phonecall.

Oh no. “The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notified petitioner that it concluded that petitioner had made mathematical and clerical errors on his 2011 return. What the IRS treated as math and clerical errors included denial of the three tax items discussed above (filing status, a deduction for a personal exemption, and an education credit, all relating to petitioner’s daughter) and also petitioner’s calculation of taxable Social Security benefits and his total income. The IRS recalculated the tax due based on these changes and assessed the tax due pursuant to section 6213(b) without issuing a notice of deficiency. According to Chief Counsel Notice CC-2006-019 (Aug. 18, 2006), petitioner was not provided an opportunity to dispute respondent’s assertion of his tax liability for 2011.” Order, at pp. 1-2 (footnotes omitted).

OK, so when RR gets the NFTL or NITL, he can duke it out at Appeals on a Letter 12153, or if Appeals sustains this abomination and unloads a NOD, petition.

Appeals does and RR does.

Except IRS grabs a refund from another year, says RR owes nothing, and Tax Court has no jurisdiction, Greene-Thepadi and all that, y’know.

Judge Colvin sustains. IRS can grab refunds from one year to satisfy liabilities for another year, and if no tax due (and the 4340 says there isn’t), tough luck, RR. Poor l’il ol’ Tax Court got no jurisdiction to order refunds.

Except. There was no math error. There was at most a minor typographical error, and if you call it a clerical error to avoid working you get the comments I am making here. IRS had all the information they needed to compute RR’s liability, and he manifestly filed a return. And IRS took the path of least resistance.

This is beyond nonsense. If this is what Congress and IRS think is a proper resolution, I am without language to describe this “resolution” otherwise than with language I have but rarely used when not wearing combat boots.

Word to Nina E. (“The Big O”) Olson and her Taxpayer Advocate squad: This one’s for you.

All of us solo and small-firm practitioners live for repeat business. It’s the best kind, to deal with the clients we know well, the operating styles and cast of characters we’ve seen before, and the bond of trust and confidence between us that grew like a coral reef over many years.

Well, today Tax Court has repeat business, but it isn’t the kind about which I waxed lyrical in the immediately preceding paragraph hereinabove set forth, as my already-on-their-second-Grey-Goose G&T colleagues would say.

First is Derringer Trading, LLC, Jetstream Business Limited, Tax Matters Partner, 2018 T. C. Memo. 59, filed 5/3/18, and its companion Marlin Trading, LLC, with the same TMP. And our well-known DAD flogger John E. Rogers is joined by Tax Lawyer Michael D. Hartigan.

I’ve blogged Mr. Rogers extensively, and you’ll remember Tax Lawyer Michael Hartigan from my blogpost “Getting Out of the Neighborhood,” 8/11/17.

So if you’re a stipulation wonk (in which event you have my sincerest condolences), this is your kind of case, as Derringer, Marlin and their members are trying to bail from various stips they made. Judge Goeke cruises through the FRE and considers “unfair prejudice, confusions of issues, or accumulative evidence [that] substantially exceeds the probative value of any stipulation.” 2018 T. C. Memo. 59, at p. 7. None of the foregoing helps out Derringer or Marlin.

If you’re looking for caselaw on Tax Court stips, this is your kind of case.

Next is another repeat customer, come back after a long hiatus. It’s Michael Craig Worsham, n/k/a Michael C. Worsham, Docket No. 26210-16, filed 5/3/18.

I won’t be too hard on the readers who don’t remember Mr. W. He last appeared here almost six (count ‘em, six) years ago. See my blogpost “Pay the Man,” 7/31/12. Mr. W has almost as many degrees as Mr Rogers.

Mr W makes his appearance before Judge Colvin, and shows his old form.

Mr W shows up last month and files a “…Motion to Show Cause for the IRS to Provide Factual Basis for Cost Determinations and a Motion to Determine the Constitutionality of 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1).” Order, at p. 1.

Mr W follows this up with a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Judge Colvin orders IRS counsel to respond to the whole shootin’ match, but I’m not sure what Mr W is trying to accomplish. Why dismiss your own request for substantiated numbers? And why dismiss your own Constitutional challenge to the Section 6673 frivolity chop?

Of course Tax Court hasn’t jurisdiction to determine the Constitutionality of anything. And given Mr W’s credentials and prior experience with the 400 Second Street, NW, crowd, I’d be surprised f he didn’t know that.

But substantiation of numbers is another story in a deficiency case.

I’m sure all these players will be back again.

No, not the medieval English assize court. This is the conclusion of the 57 (count ‘em, 57) year saga of Shirley Jean Oyer, Docket No. 2555-18, filed 5/2/18.

Shirley Jean petitioned the 57 years from and including 1960 to and including 2017.

IRS can’t find hide nor hair of a SNOD or NOD for any of those years. Wherefore Ch J L Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel tosses Shirley Jean for want of jurisdiction.

I’ve commented before that those who file these petitions seem to be seeking sixty-buck plenary indulgences. See my blogpost “I’m Beginning to See the Light,” 4/9/18.

But Ch J Iron Fist is onto that game.

If no jurisdiction, Tax Court can’t decide anything. And IRS has plenty of options when no SNOD or NOD has issued, from refund grabs to enhanced SOL to no SOL to non-assessables to jeopardy assessments.

Might be better to save the sixty bucks.

I’ve noted in the past that the obliging nature of Judge David Gustafson might be contagious; I noted instances where CSTJ Carluzzo, ex-Ch J Thornton and Ch J Marvel each demonstrated an obliging  nature.

Now it’s STJ Daniel A (“Yuda”) Guy’s turn to allow a pro se the benefit of the doubt.

Here’s Merle D. Melvin, 12803-17S, filed 5/1/18.

When Merle D. proffered evidence that he owed nothing, IRS folded.

Merle D. wanted his sixty buck entry fee back. He wasn’t going to sign the decision documents settling the case (which showed he owed nothing).

STJ Yuda told Merle D. he could make a Section 7430 motion for admins, but Merle didn’t take the hint. Merle D. admitted to STJ Yuda “…he had not cooperated with the IRS during the examination process or when the case had been referred to the Appeals Office for consideration. He had only provided the documentation necessary to substantiate the deduction in dispute to respondent’s counsel about one week before the calendar call.” Order, at p. 1.

Merle D. was wise not to try for admins on that record.

IRS’ counsel was perhaps less obliging than STJ Yuda.

“Respondent subsequently made an oral motion for entry of decision, and, in the alternative, an oral motion to dismiss for failure to properly prosecute. Petitioner then left the courtroom and stated that the Court could do what it pleased.” Order, at p. 1.

Comment is superfluous.

But STJ Yuda keeps his cool. “Given petitioner’s conduct outlined above, the Court would be justified in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss. Giving petitioner the benefit of the doubt, however, and assuming that he was simply having a bad day, the Court will deny respondent’s oral motion to dismiss and grant respondent’s oral motion for entry of decision.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

Takeaway- It’s always nice to see judicial gentility. Just don’t push it too far.