Today brings two (count ’em, two) recurring Taishoff incantations.

First, stipulate, don’t capitulate. Whistleblower 16459-22W, filed 2/7/25 did not heed (perhaps did not read) the well-worn incantation. Hence FiveNiner (as I will designate him/her hereinafter) gets no more than the augmented $139K discretionary award s/he got per Section 7623(a). Problem is, FiveNiner and trusty attorney stiped to the administrative record, which showed restitution only, no open assessments. Hence Section 7623(b) mandatory award was off the table. So STJ Diana L. (“Sidewalks of New York”) Leyden tosses FiveNiner’s motion for discovery to see if IRS got more.

“Petitioner in petitioner’s Motion to Compel Discovery seeks to discover whether the IRS opened a civil examination of either Taxpayer A or Taxpayer B. Apparently, the purpose for this is to see if additional amounts of tax and penalties were collected. However, the stipulated administrative record is clear—the IRS did not pursue a civil examination (audit) of either Taxpayer A or Taxpayer B. Accordingly, the record supports respondent’s assertion that the proceeds in dispute—the restitution award—did not exceed $2 million.” Order, at p. 3. Took fifteen (count ’em, fifteen) years from Form 211 to decision.

Next, the Dixieland Boondockery summary J smokeout. I’ve extolled the merits of summary J often enough before now.

The petitioners’ counter to IRS’ standard Boss Hoss signoff summary J is the qualified appraiser, qualified appraisal summary J. Case in point:  St. Andrews Plantation, LLC, Joseph N. McDonough, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 20849-17, filed 2/7/25. The StAndy’s get the appraiser qualified, subject only to Reg. Section 1.170A-13(c)(5)(ii), the “guilty knowledge” exception, which knocks out appraisals if the donor had knowledge of facts that would cause a reasonable person to expect the appraiser to falsely overstate the value of the donated property. But who knew what when is for the trial.

The StAndy’s have some substantial compliance claims, but those are for trial. Judge David Gustafson denies their vague Loper Bright claims with respect to the appraisal summary regs with citation to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, which specifically authorizes the specific regulation.