I doubt Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves is old enough to have participated in the a capella singing style above-referred-to in the title first set forth at the head hereof (as my expensive colleagues would say). But the style so fits Judge Tag Greaves’ approach to the manifold motions he disposes of in Malibu Valley Land, LLC, Spectrum Development, Inc., Tax Matters Partner, Docket No. 20442-19, filed 3/11/25, that I might just could maybe so make it another Taishoffism, in this case standing for “denied without prejudice.”

The “win your case by preclusion” tactic is in full cry. There are five (count ’em, five) such, one from IRS and four from the Malibus.

IRS wants to stop inquiry into conduct and motives of certain employees in the Boss Hoss sign-off, which should be a Greenberg’s Express slamdunk. But Judge Tag Greaves says Boss Hossery may open the door.

“Two important questions in this case—whether the penalties determined in the administrative audit were properly approved in accordance with section 6751(b) and whether the burden of proof should be shifted to respondent under section 7491–expressly require us to review certain events that occurred during the audit. There are substantial uncertainties regarding these questions that we believe the witnesses that respondent seeks to exclude can answer. For example, petitioner alleges that Ms. J did not approve each penalty determined under section 6662 because the notice of proposed adjustment she signed did not specify each subsection under which a penalty was determined and the Form 886-A, Explanation of Items, which set forth the subsections was not prepared until later by an unknown IRS employee.” Order, at pp. 2-3. (Name omitted). Doowop.

Practitioners, take notice. Although IRS needs only a smidgen of basis for determining a deficiency (including chops) to raise presumption of correctness, here’s an opening.

The Malibus foursome are a series of reaches. As for two of them seeking to preclude IRS witnesses, IRS claims they’re not being called, so the Malibus can yell at trial if they’re ambushed. The documents these witnesses produced are addenda to the expert’s report filed, so the Malibus can attack these on cross. One has to do with a witness’ qualifications, which can be dealt with on voir dire.

The last Malibu bœuf has to do with an undisclosed witness. ” We agree that the parties generally reserve the right to call certain categories of witnesses that are not specifically identified. For example, parties often reserve the right to call witnesses to identify and authenticate documents. Respondent’s lack of identification of this witness falls in line with this practice. In fact, respondent provided more information regarding this unidentified witness than is typical. Respondent indicated that the unidentified witness will be a representative of the California Coastal Commission and that the topic of testimony will be the legal restrictions on the subject property. This disclosure provides ample information for petitioner to prepare for cross examination.” Order, at p. 4.

Conclusions of law from a witness who isn’t an expert, Judge? Judge Tag Greaves is also dubious, but for now it’s also a doowop.