That is, Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber seems to take his departure from Amanda Iris Gluck Irrevocable Trust, Index No. 5760-19L, filed 3/15/24, based upon a statement attributed to Albert Einstein: “Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is insanity.”

Judge Scholar Al is leaving this case, kicking the same to the general docket “for trial or other disposition,” after again denying summary J both to AIGIT and to IRS. For the previous outings of this saga, see my blogpost “Sue Now, Pay Later,” 5/26/20, and “No Summary J Either Way,” 4/8/22.

So notwithstanding anything in either of the foregoing above-cited blogposts at variance therewith or to the contrary thereof, both AIGIT and IRS are trying for summary J again. No indication that any discovery, formal or informal, has been sought or taken place.

“Petitioners’ motion is largely a reiteration of the summary judgment motion filed on December 2, 2021, which we denied on April 8, 2022. Now as then, petitioners have supplied no factual evidence, merely assertions made on tax returns, to support the critical elements of their argument. And while respondent makes that point convincingly, he has a hard time denying that there remain genuine disputes of material act—chiefly, whether the entries on the tax returns relied upon by petitioners comported with reality. We will accordingly deny both parties’ Motions.” Order, at pp. 1-2.

AIGIT and her two (count ’em, two) sister trusts are indirect partners in a tiered-LLC TEFRA partnership. The issues are whether there is qualified nonrecourse financing giving basis in such partnership, if so how much, and whether the loss which such basis gave AIGIT could be used in the year wherein such partnership terminated per Section 708(b), if it did so terminate in that year.

All AIGIT and her sisters have is entries on their tax returns, and even those don’t match up with the story they now tell.

So Judge Scholar Al has obviously had it with this case.

Now I am a great fan of summary J, as I’ve said often enough.  But enough is enough. We have a State court rule here in Excelsiorland, Civil :Practice Rule 3212(a), that says “any  party may move for summary judgment in any action, after issue has  been  joined;  provided  however, that the court may set a date after which no such motion may be made, such date being no  earlier than thirty  days after  the  filing  of  the note of issue (that’s a statement that discovery is complete or has been waived). If no such date is set by the  court, such motion shall be made no later than one hundred twenty days after the filing  of  the note of issue, except with leave of court on good cause shown.”

I’m not suggesting Tax Court adopt this rule in its entirety, but a Rule stating no motions for summary J unless discovery is complete or been waived, otherwise than by leave of Court on good cause shown, should be adopted. That would stop such charades as these.