No, not political commentary; I’ve spoken my piece here and will not now inflict more upon my readers. I just want to show how a Big Law alum who moved up to the Tax Court Bench esteems his successors.

Judge Albert G. (“Scholar Al”) Lauber’s bio mentions his prior career as a partner in a whiteshoe firm. No fewer than five (count ’em, five) trusty attorneys from a different firm, with shoes no less dazzling, feature in Computer Sciences Corporation, Docket No. 4823-21, filed 4/29/25.

The trusty attorneys want “analyses prepared by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals [Appeals] regarding the Capital Loss Issue.” Order, at p. 1. It’s a rather hefty issue, as the claimed capital loss is $651 million.

IRS objects on FRE 408 grounds: statements made in the course of settlement negotiations are not discoverable. The trusty attorneys claim the documents are “’relevant to [its] defense against the accuracy-related penalty.’ That is supposedly so because the documents in question ‘appear to discuss authorities and outline analytical constructs’ that ‘may inform the parties’ positions and arguments . . . as to whether the position taken [on petitioner’s tax] return is supported by substantial authority or a reasonable basis.’” Order, at p. 2.

Judge Scholar Al says Appeals is a settlement enabler in thousands of cases, in many of which IRS concedes certain points to avoid litigation. “Appeals created the documents petitioner seeks in the context of settlement negotiations while discharging its duty to evaluate the ‘hazards of litigation’ the IRS might face in court. Evidence implicating settlement discussions is inadmissible.” Order, at p. 2.

But those legal authorities.

Judge Scholar Al nails that one.

“We are confident that petitioner’s able counsel has the capacity to perform the legal research necessary to uncover any relevant authority that may exist.” Order, at p. 2. (Footnote omitted).