I was surprised when Judge Patrick J. (“Scholar Pat”) Urda cited, apparently as authority, two (count ’em, two) orders from wholly-unrelated cases in Beaverdam Creek Holdings, LLC, Beaverdam Creek Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 12362-21, filed 9/22/23.

Before going off to celebrate this date, I gave one last look for blogfodder to close out the rather slim pickings this week afforded. Here’s IRS playing the Boss Hoss summary J gambit with extra caution after the Lakepoint drubbing. Order, at p. 4, footnote 4.

The Dammed were fighting over whether the declarations by supervisor and supervised were inadmissible hearsay, but Judge Scholar Pat gave that short shrift. Hearsay that can be reduced to admissible evidence on the trial can be used to support summary J in 11 Cir; supervisor and supervised could both testify under oath on a trial, and the Dammed are in 11 Cir.

“These declarations, together with RA S’s declaration, confirm SRA P’s explicit statement on the penalty lead sheet that she was RA S’s immediate supervisor at the time she approved the penalties. See e.g., Order, Elbow Creek Aggregates, LLC v. Commissioner, No. 14702-21 (T.C. Mar. 21, 2023) (‘[a]ll three individuals ha[d] supplied Declarations confirming that Messrs. V and S supervised Ms. G during the Elbow Creek assignment.’); Order, Sunfish Cove, LLC v. Commissioner, No. 14163-21 (T.C. Mar. 23, 2023) (‘RA P and Mr. G ha[d] submitted Declarations . . . averring Mr. G was RA P’s immediate supervisor).’ Order, at p. 5. (Names omitted).

I didn’t blog Elbow Creek because Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber gave a beautiful and much more blogworthy dissection of Section 86 Social Security taxation that day in Lin, T. C. Memo. 2023-37. Anyway, Elbow Creek is just a rehash of Kroner any-time-before-assessment Boss Hossery. I did blog Sunfish Cove (see my blogpost “That’s the Word – Part Deux,” 3/23/23).

But the point of all this (OK, y’all can yell “There is?” I can take it) is that Judge Scholar Pat, who has tried some eighty Tax Court cases before ascending the bench, forgot Rule 50(f): “Orders shall not be treated as precedent, except as may be relevant for purposes of establishing the law of the case, res judicata, collateral estoppel, or other similar doctrine.” None of those are in play here, as I can find no connection among the Dammed, the Sunfish, or the Elbows, such as would invoke law of the case, issue preclusion, claim preclusion, “or other similar doctrine.”

This merits a Taishoff “Huh?”