All y’all will recall Donna M. Sutherland, who dodged retroactivity of the Section 6015(e)(7) record-rule amendment. What, no? Well, then, see my blogpost “Comfortable Words,” 9/8/20.

Unhappily, the rope Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber threw Donna last year, in the form of a trial de novo, only hangs Donna in 2021 T. C. Memo. 110, filed 9/18/21.

Donna did enough of the bookkeeping for husband Scott’s beertapping business for her to know that the FICA/FUTA/ITW taken from the employees thereof for the years at issue weren’t going to be paid.

Donna’s health claims were insufficiently substantiated.

Judge Scholar Al conducts the obligatory trudge through the Seven Pillars of Equity (as Donna is still married to Scott, streamliner and apportionment are off the table). Only one of the seven is not neutral, but Judge Scholar Al finds two additional factors.

“The revenue procedure notes that the seven factors discussed above are ‘not intended to comprise an exclusive list’ and that ‘[o]ther factors relevant to a specific claim for relief may also be taken into account.’ Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 4.03(2); see sec. 6015(f)(1)(A) (requiring ‘all the facts and circumstances’ to be considered).” 2021 T. C. Memo. 110, at p. 20.

“When signing the returns petitioner knew that she would receive a sizable inheritance from her mother’s estate. When she submitted her Form 8857…, she had more than $400,000 in bank accounts. She could have easily used a portion of this money to pay off the…joint liability, which totaled about $40,000. We can understand why petitioner might have preferred to use this money for some other purpose. But that does not mean it would be inequitable for the IRS to collect the tax from her.” 2021 T. C. Memo. 110, at p. 21. (Citation omitted).

Donna’s performance on the stand wasn’t of the best, and the RA who nailed Scott won the credibility stakes.

But Taishoff says that the cash stash is what decided this case.

I was going to blog Kenneth Jay Flynn, Docket No. 11381-19L, filed 9/16/21, largely because Judge Buch devoted fourteen (count ’em, fourteen) pages to sustaining the NITLs, which IRS bestowed upon KJ. But the tale mirrors so many others, where the petitioner loses the case at Appeals before it ever gets to The Glasshouse. KJ told Appeals he’d pay in full. He had the assets, and was expecting a large personal injury settlement. He saved his tale of multiple injuries to oppose summary J, but Appeals can’t consider what petitioner never told them.

It’s really frustrating to this blogger to write what those who will read it don’t need it, and those who need it will not read it.