Robert Donlan, Jr., and Kegan Donlan, 164 T. C. 3, filed 2/19/25, present a real head-scratcher or perhaps headshaker, despite having properly used the Tax Court robopetitioner to create and file their timely petition.

IRS moves to dismiss, claiming the electronic signature mechanism embedded in the robopetitioning software does not provide a valid signature.

Now we do have some shall I say “idiosyncratic” pronouncements from the Executive Branch of our government lately, so perhaps this motion should evoke no surprise. Judge Ronald L. (“Ingenuity”) Buch certainly deals with the motion with somber reasoning and appropriate citation to Rules 34 and 23(a)(3).

“Like other courts, the Tax Court has specific rules allowing for electronic signatures. Rule 34, which governs petitions, states in paragraph (e): ‘For the signature requirement of petitions filed electronically, see Rule 23(a)(3) and the Court’s electronic filing instructions on the Court’s website.’ In turn, Rule 23(a)(3) states: ‘A person’s name on a signature block on a paper that the person authorized to be filed electronically, and that is so filed, constitutes the person’s signature.’ Our analysis could end here.” 164 T. C. 3, at p. 4. (Footnote omitted, but it cites FRCP and FRAP electronicity, as well as Section  6061(b)(1) and  Internal Revenue Manual 10.10.1 (Aug. 12, 2024) (“IRS Electronic Signature (e-Signature) Program”)).

But Judge Ingenuity Buch cites to the instructions for robopetitioning electronic signatures as well.

Of course the petition is valid, so motion denied. The Donlans were directed by Judge Buch not to bother replying to this motion.

I wish I too had been spared from the need to comment thereon, but my sense of duty to my readers compels me.