Put the mint jelly (or the applesauce) back in the ZeroKing. Judge James S (“Big Jim) Halpern has taken the chop off the menu. For the vórspeise, see my blogpost “Why The Chop?” 3/13/23.

The trusty attorney for Alberto Delgado & Virginia Delgado, Docket No. 13919-19S, filed 5/4/23, fessed up “… that at least one of their arguments lacked merit: ‘Petitioners . . . alleged (in error) that the validity of the Notice was called into question under Scar because the Notice failed to identify the source of the $25,312 in unreported income reflected therein.’ (Emphasis added.).” Order, at p. 1.(Apostrophes as in original).

Petitioners and trusty attorney further replied to Judge Big Jim’s OSC: “Nevertheless, they claim: ‘[T]hey had genuine doubts about the validity and genesis of the deficiency reflected in the Notice. On the assumption that the Court might disagree, they argue: ‘Petitioners’ case fits those cases in which the Penalty’s deterrent purpose is best achieved via a warning rather than a punitive fine.” Order, at p. 1. (Apostrophes as in original).

So just this once, Judge Big Jim relents.

“We will, in this instance, give petitioners the benefit of the doubt and not impose upon them an I.R.C. section 6673(a)(1) penalty.” Order, at p. 2.

I’m not claiming that said trusty attorney, much less Judge Big Jim, reads my blog. I have neither pride of authorship nor claim to any authority, however attenuated.

But I can say I’m happy with the result.