Stanley Battat & Zmira Battat, Docket No. 17784-12, filed 3/29/24, aren’t having a good Friday, as Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch vacates their 2021 partial summary J chops win (for which see my blogpost “Chuck Rettig and Bob Baffert,” 5/11/21) and handed back to IRS the chops then denied for untimely Boss Hossery.

Stan & Zm are still awaiting outcome of the underlying SNOD, so Judge Ingenuity Buch canvasses the Rules, and finds none for vacating or reconsidering non-final orders, only decisions, which this isn’t, as it doesn’t finally dispose of the case. Maybe an order disposing of a case might get the vacation or reconsideration 30-day cutoffs that Stan & Zm want to block IRS’ attempt to roll back the clock and send in the chops, but the T. C. Memo. from 2021 didn’t.

So the 30-day cutoffs for reconsideration and vacation go by the “Court’s discretion to waive a nonjurisdictional deadline” boards. FRCP 60 comes in from left field, carrying “change of controlling law” in its hip pocket.

11 Cir, whence Stan & Zm are Golsenized, is the home of Kroner, he of the Imaginary Friend but also beneficiary of ex-Ch J Michael B. (“Iron Mike”) Thornton’s celebrated dictionary chaw (for which see my blogpost “Money-Back Guarantee Meets the Boss Hoss,” 11/30/16). Boss Hossery can happen any time before supervisor loses authority over supervised, even after trial, opinion, decision, appeal, and further appeal(s), as long as assessment (which is statutorily barred during all the foregoing) has not taken place. The supervisor can be at his/her retirement party, the supervised can be on life support, but if the magic scrawls on the Form 4549 or CPAF appear prior to the last-named thereof, all is well.

Anyway, Judge Ingenuity Buch wipes the 2021 summary J for Stan & Zm, and substitutes summary J on chops for IRS. Timeliness is wiped by Kroner. Stan’s & Zm’s claims that the sign-off was by an acting supervisor, and that there was no meaningful review of the chops proposal, are blown off.

“Existing precedent requires that we reject both of the Battats’ alternative arguments. In Belair Woods, we explicitly rejected reading a ‘meaningful review’ standard into section 6751(b). As we wrote there, ‘We have held in numerous cases that the group manager’s signature on the Civil Penalty Approval Form is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements.” Belair Woods, 154 T.C. at 17. We also noted in Belair Woods that staff members, including supervisors who approve penalty determinations, might change jobs, be reassigned, or retire. Id. And in Thompson v. Commissioner, 155 T.C. 87 (2020), we found that someone acting as a supervisor may approve a penalty determination. Thompson, 155 T.C. 93–94.” Order, at p. 8.

For Belair Woods, see my blogpost “Can We Talk – Part Deux,” 1/6/20; and for Thompson, see my blogpost “Settlements,” 8/31/20.

And if Stan & Zm can find any other defect in the 2011 Boss Hossery, IRS has plenty time to fix it (hi, Judge Holmes). Order, at p. 8, footnote 2.

Taishoff says if this is what Congress intended in 1998 to prevent bludgeoning of taxpayers by overzealous RAs who threaten chops, Congress’ present dysfunction is well-grounded in copious precedent.