I’ve often written (in fact just now) about the variety of interesting cases that come before the US Tax Court. No Federal enactment touches “every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land,” like the Internal Revenue Code. 

But alas, for every such interesting case, be it worthy of a full-dress T. C. or Memo, or only a humble Sum. Op., off-the-bencher, or order, there are dozens of protesters, dodgers without even an interesting dodge, or run-of-the-mine indocumentados featuring post-event ballpark guesstimates, ginned-up post-Exam spreadsheets, or just witness stand performance art. Nothing worth noting.

So when Judge Alina I. (“AIM”) Marshall filed her opinion in Robert R. Doggart, T. C. Sum. Op. 2023-25, of even date herewith (as my already-on-their second-Grey-Goose-Gibson colleagues would say), a cursory glance would have persuaded me to call a truce to my labors, especially after Judge David Gustafson’s magnificent mathematical marriage earlier today of hog farming and lumberjacking.

But Bob Doggart showed an original streak worthy of note here.

Yes, the lapsed insurance policies paid off the accumulated loans and generated income, even if he got no cash. Yes, his rental real estate deductions crater because he lived in the premises for more than the Section 280A(d) 14-day free kick during year at issue. And yes, Bob Doggart owes tax and add-ons even though he was in the slammer during years at issue.

But Bob Doggart’s real estate depreciation deduction is a true original.

“In calculating the loss on Schedule E, petitioner claimed deductions for … $73,593 for depreciation that petitioner calculated using the appraised value of the property and a seven year cost-recovery table, which he selected because it corresponded to the length of his remaining prison sentence.” T. C. Sum. Op. 2023-25, at p. 3.

I want to award Bob Doggart a Taishoff “Clessic”, and that’s no typo.