Charles Dickens’ 1852-3 Bleak House serial gave us the celebrated Jarndyce case, but, as his preface shows, there were real cases that lasted as long and cost as much. “There is another well-known suit in Chancery, not yet decided, which was commenced before the close of the last century and in which more than double the amount of seventy thousand pounds has been swallowed up in costs.”

I’m a newcomer to Scott A. Blum & Audrey R. Blum, Docket No. 5313-16, filed 2/13/24. I did blog its predecessor 12 years ago. See my blogpost “OPIS Finis,” 1/18/12. But as Judge Goeke points out today, we’re talking about Scott’s & Audrey’s 1999 tax return. That’s before the close of the last millennium. How many pounds have been spent I cannot tell.

And Scott is fighting about whether the NBAP and FPAA were mailed to his last-known address (Scott’s disregarded was a notice partner) a mere twenty-two (count ’em, twenty-two) years ago.

IRS wants summary J, but doesn’t get it. The Certified Mailing List (CML) for the NBAP, which if complete raises a rebuttable presumption of proper mailing, here is a wee bit sketchy. “The USPS employee did not enter the number of pieces that the USPS received for mailing on the CML. Nor does the CML state the number of pieces of mail that is listed on the CML. Because the CML is missing this information, it is incomplete and does not create a presumption of mailing.” Order, at p. 4. (Footnote omitted; it’s argy-bargy about the postmark on the CML being square and not round; mox nix). But IRS can use the CML and try to cobble together enough other evidence to prove mailing.

The CML for Scott’s counterpart of the FPAA looks good, but since Scott claims he hasn’t completed discovery, no summary J for IRS on that score.

As for last-known address, despite Scott having given the RA another address (but not by means prescribed in Reg. Section 301.6223(c)-1(b)), which the RA used for correspondence but from which USPS returned mail as undeliverable, as long as the FPAA went to the address on Scott’s K-1, that’s OK.

Btw, Judge Goeke says there’s an issue of material fact on the mailing of the notice partner FPAA (Order, at p. 8). But the Order, at p. 5,  says the issue is proper mailing of notice partner NBAP.  I don’t fault Judge Goeke for being a bit confused. So was I.

 Taishoff says that though the whole TEFRA schemozzle that gave rise to this farce was repealed a mere eight (count ’em, eight) years ago, this dinosaur lumbers on. The word of Charlie Dickens is again justified: “The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world.”

In the presentt saga, the deficiencies were determined in June, 2012, at Docket No. 2679-06, at $9.5 million in the aggregate. Twelve years later, they haven’t been collected. Don’t ask about the interest.

I’ve said it before: Tax Court needs an administrative judge, as we have in State court, to crack the whip and move these cases. If Tax Court can’t or won’t do it, Congress should, or they should stop prating about deficits and national debts.