Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin’) Jenkins has limited use for Mo’s & Mal’s expert (whom I’ll call J-Les) in Mohammad Fawad Aryanpure & Malika Aryanpure, Docket No. 17120-23, filed 6/25/25, but she won’t toss him entirely, despite IRS’ avowals that his report is all about legal conclusions that are strictly the preserve of the Court.

“As petitioners argue, [J-Les]’s analysis related to petitioners’ tax return preparer’s performance may well be useful to this Court. However, this Court agrees with respondent that [J-Les]’s opinion related to reasonable reliance on that preparer inappropriately addresses one of the key legal issues in this case.” Order, at p. 3.

So Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins will cherrypick J-Les’ report and testimony.

“To the extent that the Report is admitted at trial, the Court will not consider any stricken portions. However, this Court will not, at this point, exclude the remainder of the Report nor his testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702. Because [J-Les]’s statements with regard to fraud do not purport to address the standards for fraud applicable for purposes of section 6663, as petitioners acknowledge, they may be of limited value to this Court, but they do not intrude on its province. More broadly, although the limitations of [J-Les]’s analysis may affect its utility, this Court is not convinced that the non-legal opinions contained in the Report constitute pure advocacy and will not assist this Court, as contemplated by Fed. R. Evid. 702. Therefore, the remaining relief sought in Respondent’s Motion will be denied.” Order, at p. 3.

But as fraudulent underreporting is on the menu, Mo & Mal want to bar IRS from introducing evidence of any income other than that deposited into their personal accounts, claiming Section 6501(c)(1) limits IRS only to items where fraudulent intent is shown. SOL applies to the rest.

No, says Judge Rose E. (“Cracklin'”) Jenkins.

“…petitioners’ argument rests on a faulty premise concerning section 6501(c)(1). If respondent succeeds in proving that a petitioner filed a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax for one of the years at issue for purposes of section 6663, the same conclusion will apply for purposes of section 6501(c)(1). And if section 6501(c)(1) applies to allow an unlimited period to assess tax for a particular year at issue, such period applies for the entire amount of tax for that year.” Order, at p. 3. (Citation omitted).

If any is in, it’s all in.