Once again, the Genius Baristas have released a bombardment of opinions. Widespread topics, some interesting sidelights, otherwise  not a lot new.

Karl W. Leo and Fay L. Leo, T. C. Memo. 2025-9, filed 1/29/25, is another Dixieland Boondock appraisal mix-and-match, although two interesting points emerge. First, from the formulaic language of the stips of fact. That an appraisal “may be considered by the Court in arriving at its finding of fact” doesn’t mean that the Court is bound by every word and number therein. It’s in evidence, so is weighed and sifted like all other evidence. T. C. Memo. 2025-9, at p. 20.

Second, the history of the Boondocks at issue is replete with leases and amendments to leases, each one more sloppily drafted than the last. Unattached exhibits and undefined terms abound. Judge Morrison must have remembered his days in private practice, berating junior associates, but here forbore.

Charlton C. Tooke, III, 164 T. C. 2, a full-dress T. C., filed 1/29/25, is Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones’ tour d’horizon of the famous protester Appointments Clause (U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, the “advice and consent” bit) argument that Appeals Chief and the AOs are “officers of the United States” and need Presidential appointment and Congressional approval. No, says Judge CD Jones, in 41 (count ’em, 41) pages of somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent. Federal Constitutional law wonks will find this fascinating.

Finally, hitting for the cycle as we baseball fans say, STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden has an off-the-bencher, Carol D. Gomez, Docket No. 3339-24S, filed 1/29/25.. This is a new (post-7/1/19) innocent spousery, where Section 6015(e)(7) is in play, so she allows petitioner sworn testimony (previously unavailable) and reviews de novo. Doesn’t help Carol, though: “Given that petitioner had knowledge of the retirement distributions, reported the amount on the couple’s tax return that she prepared, and that she did not fear any physical or mental abuse from her husband for not reporting the full amounts as taxable, the Court concludes that petitioner is not entitled to equitable relief under section 6015(f).” Transcript, at pp. 11-12.

Carol was also too late for “section 6015(b) or section 6015(c) because she filed her claim more than two years after the IRS began collection activity—namely an offset of a federal tax overpayment….” Transcript, at p. 7.

Equitable tolling, maybe? Ya gotta love the Supremes, American jurisprudence’s answer to Ignaz the Mouse.