While I hate the above neologism, it does create a one-line headline with WordPress’ software, which saves space and eyestrain. So I use it to report that no less august a body than the National Association of Manufacturers took up Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones’, and to a lesser extent my, invitation to file briefs amici in Sunil S. Patel and Laurie McAnally Patel, Docket No. 24344-17, filed 9/13/24.

See my blogpost “Relevant and Novel,” 7/19/24.

In fact, so eagerly did the NAM and their trusty white-shoe attorneys rush to join the dance that they filed two (count ’em, two) motions for leave, lodging identical proposed briefs, three (count ’em, three) days apart.

Judge CD Jones already let in the first of the briefs with a stamped GRANTED, so kicks the second.

I hope more amici degli amici come aboard. The Congressional coruscation that is Section 7701(o) needs a thorough “examgination round its factiification.” as a much greater writer than I put it.

My own view, FWIW, is that the statute isn’t as ambiguous as Judge CD Jones thought. Before even looking at economic substance, much less before chopping, or rather, before enhancing a chop for want of economic substance, use whatever standards Tax Court and  the Golsenized CCA used to see if you need to consider economic substance at all. If you do, only then does the two-part test in Section 7701(o)(1) come into play. The aim of the statute is not to turn every tax dispute into a fight over economic substance.

Edited to add: Hail, hail, the gang’s all here! I see the American College of Tax Counsel (to which august body I do not belong), The Tax Law Center at NYU Law, and the American Forest & Paper Association, have all put in briefs amicus. With friends like them, what could be bad?