Judge Goeke has three (count ’em, three) off-the-benchers today, but as Karl Ludwig Johannes Baedeker used to say, there is little here to detain the tourist.

Organic Cannabis Foundation, LLC, et al., Docket Nos. 381-22L, 5442-22L, filed 3/12/25, admits it’s late with its CDP requests for the only year at issue in both cases, and has only the Michael Corleone gambit, classical variation, for Boechler equitable tolling. Hence, when remanded to Appeals and admits its failure of proof, Appeals gives the Organics a Decision letter off an Equivalent Hearing per Reg. Section 301.6320-1(i)(1).

“The law is clear that a Decision letter which is not subsequently deemed to be a Notice of Determination does not yield judicial review.” Transcript, at p. 7. (Citation omitted). No judicial review available because no NOD because no CDP because too late requested and equitable tolling folded.

Cacey Taylor, Docket No. 2699-24, filed 3/12/25, shows Judge Goeke going above and beyond, trying to extract from petitioner any basis to allow him more Uber-DoorDash miles deduction than what IRS allowed. Section 274 strict substantiation doesn’t apply to cabbies.

“Regarding the Uber transportation income and the DoorDash related income, the Court, at trial, spent significant time trying to elicit from the Petitioner a way in which the Court could estimate Petitioner’s mileage associated with these business activities. Petitioner consistently stated that he, at the time he filed the return, had an app on his phone which showed a total amount of miles which would have wiped out all of his income, but he chose not to use those miles and therefore he did not think he owed any tax. He also admitted that he no longer had that information and he never clarified whether the income associated with his Uber and DoorDash activities was the only basis for the miles that was captured on this alleged app.

“Given the lack of clarity and specific information underlying these assertions, the Court then attempted repeatedly to elicit from the Petitioner specific information that could be used to estimate additional miles other than those allowed by Respondent at trial associated with his driving activities. Petitioner just declined to do that, repeatedly.” Transcript, at pp. 4-5.

The allowed mileage stands. I’m not sure what petitioner thought to accomplish by refusing to provide anything.