The trusty attorneys for Albero Holdings, LLC, Albero Investors, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 16284-21, filed 3/4/25, are trying to understand and undermine the Boss Hossery therein, but their document production demands and interrogatories are run over by Greenberg’s Express.

Judge Elizabeth Crewson Paris: “‘As a general rule, this Court will not look behind a deficiency notice to examine the evidence used or the propriety of respondent’s motives or of the administrative policy or procedure involved in making his determinations.’ Greenberg’s Express v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974). By seeking drafts of final documents, petitioner is essentially seeking to look behind the signature appearing on the face of the form. See Sparta Pink Prop., LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-88, at *8; Patel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-133, at *21–22. This Court has held repeatedly that the ‘written supervisory approval requirement . . .requires just that: written supervisory approval.’ Dorchester Farms Prop., LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2023-92, at *5 (citing Pickens Decorative Stone, LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-22, at *7 (quoting Raifman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-101, at *61)). And a manager’s signature on a civil penalty approval form, without more, is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements. See Sparta Pink Prop., LLC, T.C. Memo. 2022-88, at *8 (citing Belair Woods, LLC v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 1, 17 (2020)). Respondent provided petitioner with the penalty approval form electronically signed by the assigned revenue agent’s supervisor and the final FPAA. The draft documents petitioner seeks are irrelevant to determining respondent’s compliance with section 6751(b)(1).” Order, at p. 3.

I’m leaving in the citations because I’ve blogged all these cases.

The Boss Hoss has a first-class stateroom on Greenberg’s Express.