We’ve heard that phrase bandied about, with sneers and jeers aplenty, at both Stateist and Federale, but the Bench at 400 Second Street, NW, in The City of the Continued Shutdown, is certainly undeserving of any thereof.

To the contrary most explicitly, pore l’il ol’ United States Tax Court respects the strict limits set by the Congress, and strays not from the allotted narrow path.

Here’s Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch once again refusing to overstep the limits.

Denis M. Curtin, et al., Docket No. 32212-15, filed 10/2/23, wants Judge Ingenuity Buch to strike down Reg. Sections 1.162-1, -7, and -8. This, Denis claims in his mislabeled Motion to Strike, because the Reg Sections violate APA and Federal Records Act.

“This Court’s jurisdiction in a deficiency case is limited to determining a deficiency. I.R.C. § 6213. Deciding an issue that is unnecessary for the purpose of determining a deficiency would merely be an advisory opinion. Courts are not in the custom of issuing advisory opinions. See Justiciability, Black’ Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). Mr. Curtin’s Motion fails to set forth any manner in which a ruling on the validity of Treas. Reg. § 1.162-1, -7, or -8 would affect the outcome of this case.” Order, at p. 1.

The issue is the “ordinary and necessary” deductions of around $24 million over years at issue.

“Justiciability is an umbrella term that ‘captures an amorphous set of doctrines, including standing, ripeness, mootness, and political question, that speak to limits on the decisional authority of the federal courts.’  ‘The oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that federal courts will not give advisory opinions.’ Thus, we are guided by the principle of judicial administration that we do not gratuitously decide issues that do not affect the disposition of the case before us.” Order, at p. 2. (Citations omitted).

The case goes off on the statute itself, Section 162. In short, Judge Ingenuity Buch don’t need no Regulations, so whether the Regs are valid or not is unnecessary to resolving Denis’ case.

Denis’ motion is relabeled a motion for partial summary J, and denied.