No, not a bulletin about US military aid in a foreign war. IRS seems to have a new weapon in its fight against syndicated dodges. Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris judge-‘splains in Albero Holdings, LLC, Albero Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 16284-21, filed 6/13/24.

“According to petitioner, respondent has inappropriately informally contacted seventy-five Members by letter or telephone. Petitioner asserts that ‘respondent’s phone call and letter campaign needlessly caused confusion, stress, and anxiety among Members.’ Petitioner argues respondent failed to identify his role in this proceeding, threatened to issue subpoenas for trial or depositions should Members not comply with respondent’s requests, and requested information that was not relevant to this case or might be privileged.” Order, at p. 2.

Without more details as to Albero’s operations, I can’t tell if Albero is a dodge, but I can reasonably surmise that the Members are investors in whatever Albero does. I can guess, perhaps inaccurately in this case, that said Members are highrollers with big gains to be offset with whatever losses, deductions, or credits Albero generates. And whatever the underlying facts, no doubt the Members are flustered and stressed by IRS’ bombardment of what they supposed to be the rear areas. Promoters and advisers are doubtless receiving a bombardment of their own, whatever warnings and disclaimers they issued when the Members joined up. In my experience, investors read offering memoranda only when preparing to sue; see infra, as my expensive colleagues would say.

Here, Judge Paris refuses a Rule 103 protective order, without prejudice.

“Petitioner does not explain why the documents and information respondent seeks are not relevant to this case, but merely makes this conclusory statement. Yet, petitioner also states that respondent’s requests ‘overlap significantly with data already provided by petitioner or additional data to be provided by petitioner.’ Assuming petitioner is not providing or planning to provide respondent with irrelevant information, this would suggest that the documents and information respondent seeks are relevant. In any case, petitioner provides no specific explanation as to why the documents and information respondent seeks are not relevant to this case.” Order, at p. 2.

Petitioner also asserts privilege, but isn’t specific as to whom or what.

“Petitioner argues that it is inappropriate for respondent to contact third parties, including Members, and that respondent must send all requests for information from third parties through petitioner. Petitioner provides no authority for its position. Additionally, it is not clear to the Court why it would be any less burdensome for the third parties should petitioner’s counsel be the one to set up the informal meetings or gather information rather than respondent’s counsel.” Order, at p. 3.

Oh, btw, “(P)etitioner’s counsel does not represent the third-party Members, and respondent has indicated that petitioner’s counsel is also likely adverse to the Members because certain Members have filed a class action lawsuit against petitioner.” Order, at p. 3.

Taishoff says he would not be surprised, even in cases where all is harmony between Member/investors and TMP/representative, that a barrage such as IRS unleashed in Albero doesn’t cause said harmonious Member/investors to ask for recommendations for class-action counsel.